4 ms·

Glad we got this passed. Still more work to be done nationwide on this and similar issues. As someone else mentioned, the auto industry ran disgusting ads claim

by nwsm 6y ago

Glad we got this passed. Still more work to be done nationwide on this and similar issues. As someone else mentioned, the auto industry ran disgusting ads claiming local mechanics will get your address from your car data, follow you home, and rape you. Here's a Vice article on it [0]; I can't find online videos of the ads anymore. I wish we'd also passed ranked choice voting, but it did alright at 45% yes (93% reporting). [0] https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4ayw/auto-industry-tv-ads-claim-right-to-repair-benefits-sexual-predators https://www.vice.com/en/article/qj4ayw/auto-industry-tv-ads-...

lsllc 6y ago
I know tons of people who voted no for RCV simply because they didn't understand it or thought it was too complex. Sadly when I have explained it to them, they usually change their mind over it. Just need better voter education next time I guess.
- cure 6y ago
  Yes. It's much harder for a complicated subject like RCV. The right-to-repair question was simple and very clear. It explained the ballot initiative within the question: > A "yes" vote supported requiring manufacturers that sell vehicles with telematics systems in Massachusetts to equip them with a standardized open data platform beginning with model year 2022 that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access to retrieve mechanical data and run diagnostics through a mobile-based application. Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...): > A "yes" vote supported enacting ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional and senate seats, and certain county offices beginning in 2022. Both ballot initiative questions were preceded by a wall of text explaining the details, of course. But I bet most people didn't read those paragraphs.
  - btilly 6y ago
    Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...) Here is a reasonable try. Everyone lists candidates in the order that they like them, then candidates get knocked out one by one with votes always being for the remaining candidate that the voter liked best. Don't ask me to explain any Condorcet method in one sentence though. :-)
    - lsllc 6y ago
      So my example to friends & family was if you wanted to vote Green but didn't want to "spoil" the vote for Biden, you could vote for Howie Hawkins as #1, then Biden as #2. If Howie didn't win, then your vote for Biden would be counted. The usual response is "ahhh ... that's cool". The problem in US politics is that it's polarizing (by design?) and always boils down to either voting for the least-worst candidate (rather than the candidate you actually like), or voting for someone you hate simply because there's a key issue that aligns with your thinking.

by nwsm 6y ago

lsllc 6y ago

I know tons of people who voted no for RCV simply because they didn't understand it or thought it was too complex. Sadly when I have explained it to them, they usually change their mind over it. Just need better voter education next time I guess.

cure 6y ago
Yes. It's much harder for a complicated subject like RCV. The right-to-repair question was simple and very clear. It explained the ballot initiative within the question: > A "yes" vote supported requiring manufacturers that sell vehicles with telematics systems in Massachusetts to equip them with a standardized open data platform beginning with model year 2022 that vehicle owners and independent repair facilities may access to retrieve mechanical data and run diagnostics through a mobile-based application. Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...): > A "yes" vote supported enacting ranked-choice voting (RCV) for primary and general elections for state executive officials, state legislators, federal congressional and senate seats, and certain county offices beginning in 2022. Both ballot initiative questions were preceded by a wall of text explaining the details, of course. But I bet most people didn't read those paragraphs.
- btilly 6y ago
  Compare with the RCV question, which didn't define RCV (that is probably impossible in a single sentence...) Here is a reasonable try. Everyone lists candidates in the order that they like them, then candidates get knocked out one by one with votes always being for the remaining candidate that the voter liked best. Don't ask me to explain any Condorcet method in one sentence though. :-)
  - lsllc 6y ago
    So my example to friends & family was if you wanted to vote Green but didn't want to "spoil" the vote for Biden, you could vote for Howie Hawkins as #1, then Biden as #2. If Howie didn't win, then your vote for Biden would be counted. The usual response is "ahhh ... that's cool". The problem in US politics is that it's polarizing (by design?) and always boils down to either voting for the least-worst candidate (rather than the candidate you actually like), or voting for someone you hate simply because there's a key issue that aligns with your thinking.