5 ms·

I find it truly inspiring how many people suddenly care about democracy, even though "this isn't about the 2016 election". /s Some might say that any support f

I find it truly inspiring how many people suddenly care about democracy, even though "this isn't about the 2016 election". /s Some might say that any support for a better system is good, despite the motivations, but I disagree. All this support will vanish as soon as our current system chooses the "right" (well, the left) candidate.

lordCarbonFiber 10y ago
I think the fact that twice now in a generation we've watched the current system pick a candidate who's lost the popular vote while at the same time having to live through an increasingly polarized political climate shouldn't be overlooked. Considering people have been interested in alternative voting schemes for decades, I think your conclusion is likely off the mark.
- lotharbot 10y ago
  > "twice ... pick a candidate who's lost the popular vote" interestingly, those two elections were massively different. Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote both by tiny margins. The election was statistically speaking basically a tie, and settled by something only slightly stronger than a coin flip. The largest margin in terms of raw votes in any single state was 1.7 million (Gore, NY). Two states were closer than 0.1% (NM and Florida). Clinton won the popular vote by a much bigger margin, and lost the electoral vote by a much bigger margin. She won California by over 4.2 million votes (blowing Obama's 3.2 million vote edge out of the water; he won that election by a total of 10 million votes.) She had stronger-than-expected showings in areas where she was already strong, and weaker-than-expected showings in areas where she was weak. It was a much more polarized election, with fewer close results (no states under 0.1% margin) and more blowouts.
Shivetya 10y ago
the end result is that any system electing a leader over many different groups cannot rely on simply majority votes as it tips the power to coastal city areas which tend to be major population centers simply because of commerce. now where voting like that proposed in the article is a good idea is state and local governments where the effect is not so out sized. people always want change when they don't get their way and worse when some get their way they ignore the fact that nothing they supposedly supported happens, they are just merely happy they won. oddly or worse there are those just happy the other person lost and could care less who they themselves vote for
boomboomsubban 10y ago
There has been quite a bit of discussion about this over the past eight years, I've seen numerous videos and discussions about it. The main proponents are the people that are sick of the two party system in general This result will surely cause some upset Democrats to care more about it, but there's a good chance Trump's presidency will also cause Republicans to care more as well. The system is broken, each example will bring more people to the group that wants reform. Yes the losing side will run faster, but both parties have a large contingent of members that would like more options.

lordCarbonFiber 10y ago

I think the fact that twice now in a generation we've watched the current system pick a candidate who's lost the popular vote while at the same time having to live through an increasingly polarized political climate shouldn't be overlooked. Considering people have been interested in alternative voting schemes for decades, I think your conclusion is likely off the mark.

lotharbot 10y ago
> "twice ... pick a candidate who's lost the popular vote" interestingly, those two elections were massively different. Gore won the popular vote and lost the electoral vote both by tiny margins. The election was statistically speaking basically a tie, and settled by something only slightly stronger than a coin flip. The largest margin in terms of raw votes in any single state was 1.7 million (Gore, NY). Two states were closer than 0.1% (NM and Florida). Clinton won the popular vote by a much bigger margin, and lost the electoral vote by a much bigger margin. She won California by over 4.2 million votes (blowing Obama's 3.2 million vote edge out of the water; he won that election by a total of 10 million votes.) She had stronger-than-expected showings in areas where she was already strong, and weaker-than-expected showings in areas where she was weak. It was a much more polarized election, with fewer close results (no states under 0.1% margin) and more blowouts.

Shivetya 10y ago

the end result is that any system electing a leader over many different groups cannot rely on simply majority votes as it tips the power to coastal city areas which tend to be major population centers simply because of commerce. now where voting like that proposed in the article is a good idea is state and local governments where the effect is not so out sized. people always want change when they don't get their way and worse when some get their way they ignore the fact that nothing they supposedly supported happens, they are just merely happy they won. oddly or worse there are those just happy the other person lost and could care less who they themselves vote for

boomboomsubban 10y ago

There has been quite a bit of discussion about this over the past eight years, I've seen numerous videos and discussions about it. The main proponents are the people that are sick of the two party system in general This result will surely cause some upset Democrats to care more about it, but there's a good chance Trump's presidency will also cause Republicans to care more as well. The system is broken, each example will bring more people to the group that wants reform. Yes the losing side will run faster, but both parties have a large contingent of members that would like more options.