politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ranked choice voting tends to boost moderate candidates. While this is valuable in a general election, during a party primary it protects the status quo.
It's hard for me to look at this as anything other than Schumer and Jefferies putting obstacles in the way of Progressives.
What?
The opposite of this is true. Assuming you're not describing a different thing by the same name - an American speciality - ranked choice allows you to vote for the most extreme option as first choice and if/when they are eliminated, your vote is not wasted but assigned to the next most extreme option. How exactly would it boost moderates except in that once the extremes are eliminated, your vote goes to the moderate that you want rather than it failing to oppose the people you don't want.
I think you've pretty much got it. Extreme candidates tend to get eliminated because they tend to be the least popular with other parties voters. RCV punishes this unpopularity. Also candidates with similar goals can work together, this advantage is obviously is going to be unavailable for people running from the fringe.
Just imagine a New York primary where two weak moderates were running against a progressive. The two moderates are almost working together because it's likely that whoever looses will gift their votes to the other. Ranked choice candidates have often "teamed up", with ads asking their supporters to rank the other candidate 2nd.
I think lots of Democrats have been thinking about how the primary in New York could have been different and this is the answer to that question.
I mean, what would you suggest instead? Some system where a simple plurality can elect your fringe candidate? We could give the seat to whatever candidate Passes the Post First?
What you're describing has nothing to do with the voting system. If your candidate is so far to the fringe that they can't overcome the gravity of the primary center then they should probably be in their own party. If the voting public wouldn't rank them above all other weak moderates in the general then that's a problem with your electorate and election funding rules.
Sorry, you don't get how it works or how voters behave at all. This isn't some hypothetical. This works in dozens of other countries, thousands of other elections. You're hand-wringing about who people choose to vote for. Letting people vote for their preference is literally the point. Completely eliminating the biggest thing stopping Americans from voting for the person they actually want to vote for.
America's biggest problem is that votes don't transfer. All this rhetoric that everyone has to weigh in behind the "viable" centrist candidate - consistently drifting right - or "it's a vote for the Republicans". And the establishment expects you to vote for that person who can win, their policies don't matter, so long as they have the best chance of beating the other guy. Republicans are doing this too. Potential third party voters are doing this too.
Ah yes, the Mamdani nominated under RCV "supports status quo" 🙄
You got that math wrong, buddy.