20
submitted 1 month ago by Confidant6198@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
all 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 13 points 1 month ago

Support ranked choice voting, and strategic voting becomes a thing of the past, allowing for greater variety of political representation.

[-] onlooker@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

Agreed. First-past-the-post voting system has to go.

[-] basmati@lemmus.org 3 points 1 month ago

So vote green or PSL. Got it.

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Except Ranked Choice doesn't actually fix anything, and in fact can make things worse.

RCV is the only voting system designed that fails the monotonicity criterion.

What that means is that ranking a candidate higher on your ballot can cause them to lose.

Which is insane, and a deal breaker, and not the only massive flaw with the system.

A lot of it stems from the fact that RCV is, at its core, a series of First Past the Post elections on a single ballot.

You cannot fix the problems with First Past the Post by just iterating First Past the Post.

No, the only way to actually fix things is to ditch Ordinal voting in favor of Cardinal voting.

www.equal.vote is a good source for more in depth analysis of actual fixes.

[-] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I don't know that I'd heard that issue with ranked choice voting before, I have some reading to do.

Thanks for sharing your perspective, I appreciate it

[-] chaogomu@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

Yup, there's a reason why RCV initiatives are being repealed faster than they're being adopted.

RCV produces worse results than First Past the Post.

Which is a massive problem for voting reform, because people will say "we tried that, and it made things worse" while thinking about RCV. It poisons the well, and makes real voting reform much harder.

[-] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago

Do you have any links to coverage of RCV being repealed faster than they're being adopted? If not that's fine :) at some point I'm gonna sit down and read/research, I just don't have the emotional bandwidth today

[-] rocci@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 month ago

I love Claudia De la Cruz!

[-] invno1@lemmy.one -5 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I like everything about their platform except this;

cut the U.S. military budget by 90%, seize the 100 largest corporations

I just cannot get behind that. I could see breaking up monopolies, taxing medium and large corporations way more, but seizing, nah.

[-] basmati@lemmus.org 7 points 1 month ago

All corporations should be eliminated or owned by the government, with only owner operator businesses being unowned by the government.

Quite frankly profit motive is the most destructive force in human history, eliminating it should be the number one priority for any human wanting to continue humanity.

[-] invno1@lemmy.one 0 points 1 month ago

I can even agree with corporations being eliminated but not owned by the government. The government can also be corrupted by profits. And has over and over again in recent history.

[-] WanderingVentra@lemm.ee 1 points 1 month ago

At least its democratically controlled if it's controlled by the government (well, once we establish an actual democracy first) and the profits are given to all of us.

[-] macabrett@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago

It's the coolest part of her platform.

[-] Cris_Color@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Seizing the 100 biggest companies seems like a good way for the government to end up running a lot of things it doesn't actually want to be responsible for running, and by extension end up just running those things directly into the ground or selling them off to be privatized again

There are things I think make a compelling argument for seizing, but not based on size, that seems like an awful idea. I live in NC, where there's one company that provides power giving them a local monopoly. Also they love fracking. Duke Energy can go suck a dick. THAT kind of situation makes a strong case for seizing private entities and making them publicly funded infrastructure. Also taxpayers have funded so much internet infrastructure that we never actually got, that should probably also be national infrastructure ๐Ÿ˜…

this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2024
20 points (58.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7237 readers
624 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS