5 ms·
Most US districts are not competitive. E.g., there's an almost zero chance that AOC, MTG, Cawthorne, etc. loses in the general election. You have a higher proba
by abirch 4y ago
Most US districts are not competitive. E.g., there's an almost zero chance that AOC, MTG, Cawthorne, etc. loses in the general election. You have a higher probability of losing a primary than a general.
If a moderate of their party runs, it'd be easy for their own members to vote for the moderate as #1 ahead then #2 the more extreme person, and not for the awful evil other party person. The opposition can also vote for the moderate of the dominant party, #1, their candidate #2, and not for the aweful extremist.
- dllthomas 4y agoI think that's true, and pushes things more extreme, but is pushed against (incompletely) by jungle primaries and to a lesser extent by open primaries; and ... I don't see the relationship with RCV, which was all I was discussing. Did you mean to respond one level up?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- abirch 4y agoI'm not disagreeing with you about the instant runoffs for competitive elections. Then the more moderate could get squeezed out. The relationship with RCV for non-competitive races (e.g., those districts that are gerrymandered or naturally not competitive which is the majority in the USA) is the RCV can easily address the extremes versus moderates. Moderate candidates don't run because they won't get support from their party and are perceived to be stealing votes. E.g., If you're not voting for $EXTREMIST you're voting for the $THEM. RCV lets you vote for the moderate AND your party's extremist in order to thwart the other side.