Recent searches
Search options
Administered by:
What I am specifically thinking when I boost this: Please don't do this to any liberals who suddenly wake up in the next two months
I mean, you can do it to *me*. I have been very guilty of being an Elizabeth Warren technocrat progressive, and you can yell at me if you want, I won't mind. I mean I'll definitely block you, but I won't mind.
@mcc I don't want to yell, but just curious: what makes that sort of position attractive to people? I'm asking because I really don't get it.
@modulux This question is very indirect and I'm not sure what exactly you're asking.
@mcc Mm, sorry for being unclear. I guess, to me the current system does so much damage and has so many flaws that seem really harmful to so many people, that the solution of let's do minor tweaks on it doesn't feel very plausible. But obviously other people see it differently, so I guess I'm asking where the difference is for them: do they think the system works better than I do, or that small tweaks are the best that can be done, or that small tweaks will actually fix it for real... That sort of thing.
Also sorry if I come across as annoying. It really is curiosity.
@modulux Okay. This is a complicated subject and you make several assumptions about me I don't think are fair.
First off: The one thing I don't think works is third parties in the united states of america. I was at the Nader rallies in 2000. I've seen this tried. This strategy just doesn't work.
Second off: It's not enough to say "the system must go". You need a plan for making it go. Simply saying "well, we have to throw it all out!" is often followed by doing literally nothing at all.
Multiple parties cannot work in the US because of winner-take-all district/state voting and single-round presidential elections.
In fact, even the two-party system never worked in the US. Because of the above reasons, and real-time poll analysis, the two parties eventually converge to essentially the same platform, just a hair breadth apart; so that elections are decided by fractions of 1%. This is a well-known result from mathematical election theory.
@JorgeStolfi @modulux I agree, and I think there are lots of demonstrations that democracy without some form of ranked choice voting will always eventually go pathological and stop being democratic.
arc) @JorgeStolfi @mcc @modulux is very nice 
Preferential voting I think it's called
@arichtman @JorgeStolfi @mcc @modulux Preferential or ranked choice voting yes. We also have mandatory voting (with early voting and sometimes other forms for people that can't get in on the day). Queues to vote are usually less than half an hour, and there's often someone nearby selling democracy sausages inna bun or cake. It's not perfect. Humans are still prone to right wing fearmongering, but it tends to less extremism.
@ariaflame @arichtman @mcc @modulux
I meant a system where each candidate for Congress declares beforehand "vote for me, but if I am not elected, your vote will go to Mr. XYZ". Wasn't that used in Australia at some point?
@JorgeStolfi @arichtman @mcc @modulux Oh they don't get to choose. Australia you put your preferences in your choice of order. The person who comes last has their second choices redistributed, and then the next last gets theirs redistributed, and so forth and so on. Until someone gets over 50%. We have the House and the Senate that we vote on. So two different papers. One is fairly short because it's just your area. The other is for your State. The candidate can suggest order, but not control.
@ariaflame @arichtman @mcc @modulux
A similar vote redistribution is (was?) used here in Brazil too, but the "recycled" votes (including votes to winners that exceeded the winning threshold) went to better-voted candidates *of the same party*.
@JorgeStolfi @arichtman @mcc @modulux That only applies to the Senate here. The House each party can put up at most one candidate.