5 ms·

I worry that making voting more complicated and giving people more candidates to vote for might actually backfire. We already see this in American primary elec

I worry that making voting more complicated and giving people more candidates to vote for might actually backfire. We already see this in American primary elections where the incumbent runs against a half dozen or more “nobodies” and seems to win on name recognition and vote splitting alone.

washadjeffmad 5y ago
The problem is any winner-takes-all process. Ranked choice solves ticket splitting. For instance, many Americans heavily favored Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who were both policy candidates in 2020. With ranked choice, they would have been the P/VP pairing. Instead, it went to Joe Biden because the candidates all dropped out and gave him their endorsements months prior to the end of the primaries to prevent Sanders' nomination and to secure a little political capital. The current system is designed (to be able to) rob any candidate who builds popular support over the establishment. For instance, superdelegates are bullshit, but they're the tool the DNC decided on to prevent another Carter from happening, which is how they viewed Sanders. Biden didn't even campaign and ended up POTUS, and he hasn't done anything towards enacting any of the promises he gave lip service to during the debates. I just wonder if that's not backfiring, what is?
benlivengood 5y ago
Primaries are also winner-take-all which is why incumbents have such an advantage. Alaska got rid of party primaries and so it'll be interesting to see how the next primary goes, which will be between the top four candidates voted for in the primary. Arguably 4 is too low a number to represent the varied interests of any state, and the first round will likely leave people unsatisfied until candidates can start researching the actual values preferences of their electorate and offer e.g. the top 4 ways to order the most important issues and alignments. I think there will be a strong force to abandon divisive hot-button issues that sound good on TV but are actually lower on most people's preference ordering.

washadjeffmad 5y ago

The problem is any winner-takes-all process. Ranked choice solves ticket splitting. For instance, many Americans heavily favored Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren who were both policy candidates in 2020. With ranked choice, they would have been the P/VP pairing. Instead, it went to Joe Biden because the candidates all dropped out and gave him their endorsements months prior to the end of the primaries to prevent Sanders' nomination and to secure a little political capital. The current system is designed (to be able to) rob any candidate who builds popular support over the establishment. For instance, superdelegates are bullshit, but they're the tool the DNC decided on to prevent another Carter from happening, which is how they viewed Sanders. Biden didn't even campaign and ended up POTUS, and he hasn't done anything towards enacting any of the promises he gave lip service to during the debates. I just wonder if that's not backfiring, what is?

benlivengood 5y ago

Primaries are also winner-take-all which is why incumbents have such an advantage. Alaska got rid of party primaries and so it'll be interesting to see how the next primary goes, which will be between the top four candidates voted for in the primary. Arguably 4 is too low a number to represent the varied interests of any state, and the first round will likely leave people unsatisfied until candidates can start researching the actual values preferences of their electorate and offer e.g. the top 4 ways to order the most important issues and alignments. I think there will be a strong force to abandon divisive hot-button issues that sound good on TV but are actually lower on most people's preference ordering.