3 ms·

-redacted-

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
Saying "it can't be done" and "nothing will change" for decades is why we've built up a massive backlog of absolutely necessary changes.
- alkonaut 10y ago
  I don't understand who's actually against all the common sense changes? Are people really that conservative? Is congress and state legislators more conservative than the electorate? Surely the average US voter has to see the obvious benefits of a ranked/runoff system over the current one? If they do - how can the laws not be passed (even constitutional changes should be within reach).
  - gizmo686 10y ago
    I don't think "conservative" is the correct word in this case. Our current legislators, by definition, got into power under the current system, so for (almost) all of them the current is preferable to an alternative system where their victory is less certain. Additionally, they are almost all part of one of the two major political parties; both of which benefit greatly from our current system. Ultimately, the problem is that it is very difficult to change the rules of the game when the winners are in charge of making the rules.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      > so for (almost) all of them the current is preferable to an alternative system where their victory is less certain. But publicly holding a position in office that a majority of your constituents disagree with, in a high profile question should be a much worse disadvantage than voting to change the system? > Additionally, they are almost all part of one of the two major political parties; both of which benefit greatly from our current system. At least for primaries, it would be beneficial for the parties themselves (if perhaps not for the candidates) to have both runoff votes and some kind of approval. > Ultimately, the problem is that it is very difficult to change the rules of the game when the winners are in charge of making the rules. This is what I don't understand though as a non american. I don't consider politicians to have much different goals and opinions to my own. If they did, they'd be replaced.
      - adrienne 10y ago
        Nah. Here in the US they just pass laws to suppress voters and rejigger districts until they're guaranteed wins. Much less work for them.
    - alkonaut 10y ago
      > I don't think "conservative" is the correct word in this case. I meant in the "I don't want things to change" way, not inthe abortion/guns/small state (US) political meaning of the word.
  - eli_gottlieb 10y ago
    >Is congress and state legislators more conservative than the electorate? In both the small-c and large-C senses of "conservative", yes, they largely are. The USA currently has an economically progressive, socially moderate majority (when you do non-party-branded, issue-by-issue polling), but a government that largely consists of economic and social conservatives, rather extreme ones actually.

-redacted-

Saying "it can't be done" and "nothing will change" for decades is why we've built up a massive backlog of absolutely necessary changes.

alkonaut 10y ago
I don't understand who's actually against all the common sense changes? Are people really that conservative? Is congress and state legislators more conservative than the electorate? Surely the average US voter has to see the obvious benefits of a ranked/runoff system over the current one? If they do - how can the laws not be passed (even constitutional changes should be within reach).
- gizmo686 10y ago
  I don't think "conservative" is the correct word in this case. Our current legislators, by definition, got into power under the current system, so for (almost) all of them the current is preferable to an alternative system where their victory is less certain. Additionally, they are almost all part of one of the two major political parties; both of which benefit greatly from our current system. Ultimately, the problem is that it is very difficult to change the rules of the game when the winners are in charge of making the rules.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > so for (almost) all of them the current is preferable to an alternative system where their victory is less certain. But publicly holding a position in office that a majority of your constituents disagree with, in a high profile question should be a much worse disadvantage than voting to change the system? > Additionally, they are almost all part of one of the two major political parties; both of which benefit greatly from our current system. At least for primaries, it would be beneficial for the parties themselves (if perhaps not for the candidates) to have both runoff votes and some kind of approval. > Ultimately, the problem is that it is very difficult to change the rules of the game when the winners are in charge of making the rules. This is what I don't understand though as a non american. I don't consider politicians to have much different goals and opinions to my own. If they did, they'd be replaced.
    - adrienne 10y ago
      Nah. Here in the US they just pass laws to suppress voters and rejigger districts until they're guaranteed wins. Much less work for them.
  - alkonaut 10y ago
    > I don't think "conservative" is the correct word in this case. I meant in the "I don't want things to change" way, not inthe abortion/guns/small state (US) political meaning of the word.
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >Is congress and state legislators more conservative than the electorate? In both the small-c and large-C senses of "conservative", yes, they largely are. The USA currently has an economically progressive, socially moderate majority (when you do non-party-branded, issue-by-issue polling), but a government that largely consists of economic and social conservatives, rather extreme ones actually.