ranked-choice is the wrong choice here. it’s expensive to print new ballots and the process is needlessly convoluted and wasteful. approval voting is not only cheap and effective, it more accurately represents the will of the people
First I think both approval voting and ranked choice are both vastly superior to first past the post.
Ranked choice does have some weak points and can create some non optimal outcomes on occasion. Approval voting has its own distortions and issues too though.
I’m personally a little undecided about which one I like better. It might make the most sense to use different voting systems for different types of elections to minimize sub optimal outcomes and avoid their respective weaknesses as much as possible. But honestly I don’t care, either is great, anything except first past the post please.
we already have an approval voting party here that runs candidates and they’ve done literally nothing useful to advance the voting method (nor do i think it’s a good voting method or RCV “needlessly convoluted and wasteful”–it’s literally just single-winner STV and i’ve never seen anything but in-the-weeds arguments against STV) so i can’t say i’m sympathetic to this argument
I’m generally in favor of approval voting over RCV, but saying it’s expensive to print ballots is pretty silly. Printing is so cheap it may as well be free. Either that, or all the companies that send me junk mail have some wildly delusional ideas about how effective it is.
They just print my ballot out on a laser printer when I go to my polling place. My town has one poling place but you can have different districts depending on where you live.
all candidates for elective office from the state legislative level on up would run on a single ballot, regardless of their party affiliation. The top four vote-getters would advance to the general election
you don’t need to do this weird blanket primary nonsense!! you don’t need to do that!! just let whatever parties run candidates be ranked by people on a general election ballot!!
Not sure that’s much better. Most so-called libertarians I know are just GOP-lite and only say they’re “libertarian” in order to feel good about the label they give themselves. The Venn diagram almost completely overlaps.
Yeah, I mean ranked choice should eliminate the need for primaries. I would love to see that nationwide. It would be the first big step toward eliminating parties (or at least making them less required/important).
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !politics@beehaw.org
In-depth political discussion from around the world; if it’s a political happening, you can post it here.
Guidelines for submissions:
Where possible, post the original source of information.
If there is a paywall, you can use alternative sources or provide an archive.today, 12ft.io, etc. link in the body.
Do not editorialize titles. Preserve the original title when possible; edits for clarity are fine.
Do not post ragebait or shock stories. These will be removed.
Do not post tabloid or blogspam stories. These will be removed.
Social media should be a source of last resort.
These guidelines will be enforced on a know-it-when-I-see-it basis.
ranked-choice is the wrong choice here. it’s expensive to print new ballots and the process is needlessly convoluted and wasteful. approval voting is not only cheap and effective, it more accurately represents the will of the people
I always advocate for STAR voting but anything is better than FPTP.
Also, all ballots should be printed, and they should be tallied by hand.
First I think both approval voting and ranked choice are both vastly superior to first past the post.
Ranked choice does have some weak points and can create some non optimal outcomes on occasion. Approval voting has its own distortions and issues too though.
https://electionscience.org/voting-methods/ten-critiques-and-defenses-on-approval-voting/
I’m personally a little undecided about which one I like better. It might make the most sense to use different voting systems for different types of elections to minimize sub optimal outcomes and avoid their respective weaknesses as much as possible. But honestly I don’t care, either is great, anything except first past the post please.
we already have an approval voting party here that runs candidates and they’ve done literally nothing useful to advance the voting method (nor do i think it’s a good voting method or RCV “needlessly convoluted and wasteful”–it’s literally just single-winner STV and i’ve never seen anything but in-the-weeds arguments against STV) so i can’t say i’m sympathetic to this argument
I’m generally in favor of approval voting over RCV, but saying it’s expensive to print ballots is pretty silly. Printing is so cheap it may as well be free. Either that, or all the companies that send me junk mail have some wildly delusional ideas about how effective it is.
They just print my ballot out on a laser printer when I go to my polling place. My town has one poling place but you can have different districts depending on where you live.
this is otherwise cool but for FUCKS SAKE stop!!
you don’t need to do this weird blanket primary nonsense!! you don’t need to do that!! just let whatever parties run candidates be ranked by people on a general election ballot!!
the Colorado GOP is exploding from unpopularity and the libertarian party might legitimately replace them
Not sure that’s much better. Most so-called libertarians I know are just GOP-lite and only say they’re “libertarian” in order to feel good about the label they give themselves. The Venn diagram almost completely overlaps.
I don’t think I’ve ever met an evangelical Libertarian, so hey, maybe they can discard that demo at least
Good point.
Yeah, I mean ranked choice should eliminate the need for primaries. I would love to see that nationwide. It would be the first big step toward eliminating parties (or at least making them less required/important).
A good first step, if it passes.