4 ms·

I can't resist responding to this [dead] comment: > Ranked choice voting is pushed by the Globalist network to erode democracy. It allows advanced gaming and s

I can't resist responding to this [dead] comment: > Ranked choice voting is pushed by the Globalist network to erode democracy. It allows advanced gaming and surprise candidates without a clear mandate from the people. Voting needs to be simple and the person that wins needs to have a clear majority. Rank choice takes that away. My response is: If you're worried about candidates gaming the system and getting a surprise win without a clear majority and a mandate from the people, then you should be campaigning against the electoral college. You also need to reject plurality voting (or having more than 2 parties), and advocate for something like a two-rounds system system.

jwozn 5y ago
"Globalist network to erode democracy" doesn't scream rational to me...
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Were they ever rational?
rbanffy 5y ago
The electoral college is not a bad idea in itself. It can be one more layer of defense against a populist like Trump. Unfortunately, it didn't act in the best interests of the country when it was needed the most. At this point, I am much more worried with disinformation campaigns and extremism, the latter of which is neatly dealt with by IRV.
- specialist 5y ago
  What are some examples of the electoral college thwarting populism?
  - rbanffy 5y ago
    Can't remember one in the US, but it can vote against the popular vote and, therefore, it can be used to protect the integrity of the office. Much like the Queen could have stopped Brexit (and produce an institutional crisis), because it's her job to protect the country above all else. Unfortunately, she didn't.
    - magikaram 5y ago
      I would like to point out that it does vote against 'the popular vote' as both Bush jr. and Trump were elected without the popular vote (though during Bush's second bid for president he won the popular vote by less than 3%) [a] [a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
      - rbanffy 5y ago
        Not quite where I was going, but that's true.
    - dane-pgp 5y ago
      > it's her job to protect the country above all else. As reality has proven, she's not allowed to do that job at all. "Having expressed her views, The Queen abides by the advice of her ministers"[0]. What this shows is that there is a power vacuum at the heart of the elective dictatorship that is the UK constitutional system. Actually implementing this mythical "safety valve" would require someone with a proper mandate to exercise the powers of the monarch (vetoing laws, treaties, and wars, for example). That person could be the "Governor General" of the UK, for nominal consistency with the Commonwealth realms, and they would report directly to the Queen, just as the PM does, except they would be elected by the whole country. To keep them accountable, they could be impeached by a majority vote in both houses of parliament, but removing them would trigger a new Governor General election (with the current holder of that office not eligible). Also, someone could only become a candidate for that role if they received the support of 20% of MPs, which should hopefully prevent a populist sweeping into power. The voting system could be something like the Supplementary Vote[1]. Specifically in the case of Brexit, we could have seen a principled Governor General (perhaps someone like John Major) threaten to resign (during the crisis of May failing to get her Brexit deal through parliament) unless a second referendum was called. An election for Governor General under those circumstances would effectively be a single-issue election on the question of Brexit anyway (without the constituency/gerrymandering problems of FPTP), so I imagine the government would have granted Major's request. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100414023100/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20100414023100/http://www.royal.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_vote
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > The electoral college is not a bad idea in itself. I'm prepared to grant the idea that an extra layer of defence against populism is in-keeping-with the idea of representative democracy itself, and even that there is some merit in giving extra representation to low-population rural states in order to reward them for joining a union where they may be out-voted by the more populous states. What I can't concede, though, is my position that the electors for each state should be assigned proportionally, as would have been the case if the bipartisan Lodge-Gossett amendment had been adopted. The article below explains why it is an inferior solution to just implementing a national popular vote, and I don't disagree, but I think the Lodge-Gossett proposal is a more "conservative" reform and thus harder to argue against: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/analysis-fractional-proportional-lodge-gossett-method-awarding-electoral-votes https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/analysis-fractional-prop...
olliej 5y ago
As a friendly reminder, when people are saying “globalist” like this it is a dog whistle for Jew.
- newfriend 5y ago
  If you immediately think "Jew" whenever you read the word "globalist", maybe you're the one with the problem?
  - olliej 5y ago
    No. "Globalist" is an established anti-semitic slur, it derives from the "Global Elites" of the anti-semitic New World Order conspiracy. While "Globalist" specifically has become much more prominent over the last 20 years, but Jews being the secret globalists is not new, even Hitler referring to Jews as “international elements” who “conduct their business everywhere,” posing a threat to all people who are “bounded to their soil, to the Fatherland.”. Here's some recent stuff for you to read * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Right-wing_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Right-wing_usage * https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-origins-of-the-globalist-slur/555479/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-ori... * https://twitter.com/adl/status/972235098853724161?lang=en https://twitter.com/adl/status/972235098853724161?lang=en * https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-globalist-became-an-anti-semitic-slur-blame-bannon-1.5895925 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-gl... * https://forward.com/community/412627/globalism-anti-semitism/ https://forward.com/community/412627/globalism-anti-semitism... * https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/what-does-the-term-globalist-mean-when-it-comes-to-jews-gary-cohn-donald-trump-1.461072 https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/what-does-the-term-glo... * https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/quantifying-hate-a-year-of-anti-semitism-on-twitter#globalist-as-code-word-for-jew https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/quantifying-hate-a-yea... * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/globalism-right-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/globalism-rig... * https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-jewish-democrats-attack-trump-for-calling-biden-a-servant-of-the-globalists-1.9250569 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-jewish-democrats-at...
unethical_ban 5y ago
RCV is not nearly the best alternative to FPTP, but ones that are better are much more complex to compute and the average (ahem) citizen would be skeptical of the results. RCV, to me, is a compromise which meets the "cloneproof" criterion of voting systems, which is the glaring, known-to-all-society-as-awful things about FPTP. I see RCV as, quite truly, one of the major initiatives we need in this country to make it more democratic. Conspiracy theorists like the one you respond to are enraging. They are not only clearly wrong about something, and have no merit to their assertion, but they are fighting against democracy, not for it. https://wannabewonk.com/our-votes-could-mean-more/ https://wannabewonk.com/our-votes-could-mean-more/

jwozn 5y ago

"Globalist network to erode democracy" doesn't scream rational to me...

rbanffy 5y ago
Were they ever rational?

rbanffy 5y ago

The electoral college is not a bad idea in itself. It can be one more layer of defense against a populist like Trump. Unfortunately, it didn't act in the best interests of the country when it was needed the most. At this point, I am much more worried with disinformation campaigns and extremism, the latter of which is neatly dealt with by IRV.

specialist 5y ago
What are some examples of the electoral college thwarting populism?
- rbanffy 5y ago
  Can't remember one in the US, but it can vote against the popular vote and, therefore, it can be used to protect the integrity of the office. Much like the Queen could have stopped Brexit (and produce an institutional crisis), because it's her job to protect the country above all else. Unfortunately, she didn't.
  - magikaram 5y ago
    I would like to point out that it does vote against 'the popular vote' as both Bush jr. and Trump were elected without the popular vote (though during Bush's second bid for president he won the popular vote by less than 3%) [a] [a] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presiden...
    - rbanffy 5y ago
      Not quite where I was going, but that's true.
  - dane-pgp 5y ago
    > it's her job to protect the country above all else. As reality has proven, she's not allowed to do that job at all. "Having expressed her views, The Queen abides by the advice of her ministers"[0]. What this shows is that there is a power vacuum at the heart of the elective dictatorship that is the UK constitutional system. Actually implementing this mythical "safety valve" would require someone with a proper mandate to exercise the powers of the monarch (vetoing laws, treaties, and wars, for example). That person could be the "Governor General" of the UK, for nominal consistency with the Commonwealth realms, and they would report directly to the Queen, just as the PM does, except they would be elected by the whole country. To keep them accountable, they could be impeached by a majority vote in both houses of parliament, but removing them would trigger a new Governor General election (with the current holder of that office not eligible). Also, someone could only become a candidate for that role if they received the support of 20% of MPs, which should hopefully prevent a populist sweeping into power. The voting system could be something like the Supplementary Vote[1]. Specifically in the case of Brexit, we could have seen a principled Governor General (perhaps someone like John Major) threaten to resign (during the crisis of May failing to get her Brexit deal through parliament) unless a second referendum was called. An election for Governor General under those circumstances would effectively be a single-issue election on the question of Brexit anyway (without the constituency/gerrymandering problems of FPTP), so I imagine the government would have granted Major's request. [0] https://web.archive.org/web/20100414023100/http://www.royal.gov.uk/MonarchUK/QueenandGovernment/QueenandPrimeMinister.aspx https://web.archive.org/web/20100414023100/http://www.royal.... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_vote https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supplementary_vote
dane-pgp 5y ago
> The electoral college is not a bad idea in itself. I'm prepared to grant the idea that an extra layer of defence against populism is in-keeping-with the idea of representative democracy itself, and even that there is some merit in giving extra representation to low-population rural states in order to reward them for joining a union where they may be out-voted by the more populous states. What I can't concede, though, is my position that the electors for each state should be assigned proportionally, as would have been the case if the bipartisan Lodge-Gossett amendment had been adopted. The article below explains why it is an inferior solution to just implementing a national popular vote, and I don't disagree, but I think the Lodge-Gossett proposal is a more "conservative" reform and thus harder to argue against: https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/analysis-fractional-proportional-lodge-gossett-method-awarding-electoral-votes https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/analysis-fractional-prop...

olliej 5y ago

As a friendly reminder, when people are saying “globalist” like this it is a dog whistle for Jew.

newfriend 5y ago
If you immediately think "Jew" whenever you read the word "globalist", maybe you're the one with the problem?
- olliej 5y ago
  No. "Globalist" is an established anti-semitic slur, it derives from the "Global Elites" of the anti-semitic New World Order conspiracy. While "Globalist" specifically has become much more prominent over the last 20 years, but Jews being the secret globalists is not new, even Hitler referring to Jews as “international elements” who “conduct their business everywhere,” posing a threat to all people who are “bounded to their soil, to the Fatherland.”. Here's some recent stuff for you to read * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Right-wing_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globalism#Right-wing_usage * https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist * https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-origins-of-the-globalist-slur/555479/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-ori... * https://twitter.com/adl/status/972235098853724161?lang=en https://twitter.com/adl/status/972235098853724161?lang=en * https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-globalist-became-an-anti-semitic-slur-blame-bannon-1.5895925 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-how-did-the-term-gl... * https://forward.com/community/412627/globalism-anti-semitism/ https://forward.com/community/412627/globalism-anti-semitism... * https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/what-does-the-term-globalist-mean-when-it-comes-to-jews-gary-cohn-donald-trump-1.461072 https://www.thejc.com/comment/comment/what-does-the-term-glo... * https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/quantifying-hate-a-year-of-anti-semitism-on-twitter#globalist-as-code-word-for-jew https://www.adl.org/resources/reports/quantifying-hate-a-yea... * https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/globalism-right-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/globalism-rig... * https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-jewish-democrats-attack-trump-for-calling-biden-a-servant-of-the-globalists-1.9250569 https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-jewish-democrats-at...

unethical_ban 5y ago

RCV is not nearly the best alternative to FPTP, but ones that are better are much more complex to compute and the average (ahem) citizen would be skeptical of the results. RCV, to me, is a compromise which meets the "cloneproof" criterion of voting systems, which is the glaring, known-to-all-society-as-awful things about FPTP. I see RCV as, quite truly, one of the major initiatives we need in this country to make it more democratic. Conspiracy theorists like the one you respond to are enraging. They are not only clearly wrong about something, and have no merit to their assertion, but they are fighting against democracy, not for it. https://wannabewonk.com/our-votes-could-mean-more/ https://wannabewonk.com/our-votes-could-mean-more/