5 ms·
Most of the arguments against this center on the fact that ranked systems would be too complex for voters to understand. Which I used to think was pure hogwash,
by labster 9y ago
Most of the arguments against this center on the fact that ranked systems would be too complex for voters to understand. Which I used to think was pure hogwash, but Americans have since proved that they can't handle even two candidates for a major office. Hint: the worst one was the one with zero government experience.
- ajmurmann 9y agoThe parent didn't mention ranked choice voting unless I read it wrong. I read them to argue in favor of multiple representatives per district. You can have that even with the current voting system. The top n candidates get the job with n > 1. There only difference is right now n = 1. That being said there is also the much simpler approval voting.
- acjohnson55 9y agoYep, you read me correctly. Approval voting is great too, but I don't know that it addresses the issue of district boundaries on its own. And to address the question of complexity from the first person to reply to me, I don't think that's a realistic concern. Basically it would work like this: you vote normally (whether singe vote, approval, ranked, or whatever), then each party gets at most the number of winners proportional to their aggregate share of the vote, with representatives chosen in order of performance.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- realusername 9y agothe current system is 10x more complex than a ranked system since they don't vote directly for the president at the moment.