4 ms·

People with middle-ground attitudes seem to just get attacked by both sides nowadays.

by causi 4y ago

ethbr0 4y ago
Given the current state of voters, ranked choice seems like the best way to break the logjam by creating situations where palatable-to-all get elected over loved-by-most-hated-by-many.
- refurb 4y ago
  That’s exactly how Chesa Boudin got elected to DA in SF - ranked choice.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    It can be a bad option, but still the best of the alternatives.
    - refurb 4y ago
      You can look up who lost. Basically an “old timer” Democrat and a “hard(er) on crime upstart”. Not sure we got the least worst.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        I meant ranked choice can be the least worst way of conducting democratic elections. Individual results will still rightly depend on voters. You can blunt the attraction of extremism, but hearts and minds need shifting before voters will take a fundamentally different approach.
  - toyg 4y ago
    The alternatives might have been even worse.
  - _vertigo 4y ago
    Boudin got the most votes in the first round. He would have won in first past the post too.
- mindslight 4y ago
  Ranked Choice Condorcet. Instant Runoff is a band aid for the most glaring failing of the plurality system, but it doesn't actually support moving away from the two party system. Most places that have adopted IRV seem to have mitigated its failings by having multiple election stages, but we'd be better off with a voting system that directly chooses the winner from the entire field of candidates (when that's possible).
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    The downside of high-plurality systems is the lack of voter knowledge, especially without the historical press function. I'd support that if it were coupled with multiple-choice position forms that were required to be filled out by each candidate, covering core issues and options. That is, no free response, not-an-answer answers.
    - mindslight 4y ago
      Given the type of candidates that tend to occupy the low plurality spots, I'd say that problem is there regardless. But yes, I totally agree with your proposal. I can even see it helping with cutting through all the boilerplate verbiage candidates are having to use to pay respects to various things, and return some focus on actual policies.
      - ethbr0 4y ago
        Vote Smart tried to do something similar... but the effective end result was that few candidates wanted to go on the record. https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/ https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/ Which is a shame, because "knowing what you're voting for" seems like a critical component of democracy, and campaign ads are useless (and expensive).
giraffe_lady 4y ago
It makes sense, I think in this case a "middle ground" position is actually a legitimate opposition to both sides. The rightward view of american policing is basically they're functioning as intended but are not powerful enough to achieve their desired effect and must be reinforced to succeed. The leftward view is that they're functioning as intended, the violence and fear they cause is success, and so the entire thing must be dismantled. The "centrist" view is I think something like the goal of policing is good & correct but the system is malfunctioning and must be adjusted. Neither side will agree with that: the right doesn't agree that it's malfunctioning (except so far is that it's held back from achieving its goal) and the left doesn't agree that its goal is just.
- causi 4y ago
  The problem is they get treated as if they're a member of the opposite side, not a third viewpoint. I can't count the number of times I've been called a Nazi and a communist in the same day.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    FWIW, coming from the far left here, I don't really consider either of these positions "opposite" me but they are both clear opponents to my vision of meaningful change. There's no neutrality or inherent virtue in a centrist position: it's a side like any other and you don't get credit just for inhabiting it. That doesn't make anyone calling you a nazi or communist justified in doing so or correct in their assessment. But it does indicate that neither considers your stance a compromise or allied position in relation to their own.
    - causi 4y ago
      It's not a centrist position, it's just one that doesn't adhere to the doctrine of either the Right or the Left.
    - latency-guy2 4y ago
      There's also no value in being an extremist either, you're not a significant member of any party that would lead to change in this country, nor will any of your goals come to fruition, you are outnumbered heavily and it looks like thankfully that will be the case for the remainder of my lifetime.
thuuuomas 4y ago
Centrism is a meta-heuristic concerned only with who said what. It’s no surprise that many people find centrist beliefs superficial & uninformed.
- phpnode 4y ago
  that's ridiculous, most humans are natural centrists with very few people making up the extremes.
- kakapo88 4y ago
  Posts such as this are sociologically amusing, "meta-heuristic" and the like. Using prepackaged terms to disparage people and dismiss them, without actually having to think objectively and consider opposing viewpoints. Also interesting how the choice of language completely outs people, as the extreme right/left adhere 100% to their respective terminologies, to signal membership and loyalty to their group. This post is a good example.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

People with middle-ground attitudes seem to just get attacked by both sides nowadays.

by causi 4y ago

People with middle-ground attitudes seem to just get attacked by both sides nowadays.

Given the current state of voters, ranked choice seems like the best way to break the logjam by creating situations where palatable-to-all get elected over loved-by-most-hated-by-many.

refurb 4y ago
That’s exactly how Chesa Boudin got elected to DA in SF - ranked choice.
- ethbr0 4y ago
  It can be a bad option, but still the best of the alternatives.
  - refurb 4y ago
    You can look up who lost. Basically an “old timer” Democrat and a “hard(er) on crime upstart”. Not sure we got the least worst.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      I meant ranked choice can be the least worst way of conducting democratic elections. Individual results will still rightly depend on voters. You can blunt the attraction of extremism, but hearts and minds need shifting before voters will take a fundamentally different approach.
- toyg 4y ago
  The alternatives might have been even worse.
- _vertigo 4y ago
  Boudin got the most votes in the first round. He would have won in first past the post too.
mindslight 4y ago
Ranked Choice Condorcet. Instant Runoff is a band aid for the most glaring failing of the plurality system, but it doesn't actually support moving away from the two party system. Most places that have adopted IRV seem to have mitigated its failings by having multiple election stages, but we'd be better off with a voting system that directly chooses the winner from the entire field of candidates (when that's possible).
- ethbr0 4y ago
  The downside of high-plurality systems is the lack of voter knowledge, especially without the historical press function. I'd support that if it were coupled with multiple-choice position forms that were required to be filled out by each candidate, covering core issues and options. That is, no free response, not-an-answer answers.
  - mindslight 4y ago
    Given the type of candidates that tend to occupy the low plurality spots, I'd say that problem is there regardless. But yes, I totally agree with your proposal. I can even see it helping with cutting through all the boilerplate verbiage candidates are having to use to pay respects to various things, and return some focus on actual policies.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      Vote Smart tried to do something similar... but the effective end result was that few candidates wanted to go on the record. https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/ https://votesmart.org/for-candidates/ Which is a shame, because "knowing what you're voting for" seems like a critical component of democracy, and campaign ads are useless (and expensive).

giraffe_lady 4y ago

It makes sense, I think in this case a "middle ground" position is actually a legitimate opposition to both sides. The rightward view of american policing is basically they're functioning as intended but are not powerful enough to achieve their desired effect and must be reinforced to succeed. The leftward view is that they're functioning as intended, the violence and fear they cause is success, and so the entire thing must be dismantled. The "centrist" view is I think something like the goal of policing is good & correct but the system is malfunctioning and must be adjusted. Neither side will agree with that: the right doesn't agree that it's malfunctioning (except so far is that it's held back from achieving its goal) and the left doesn't agree that its goal is just.

causi 4y ago
The problem is they get treated as if they're a member of the opposite side, not a third viewpoint. I can't count the number of times I've been called a Nazi and a communist in the same day.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  FWIW, coming from the far left here, I don't really consider either of these positions "opposite" me but they are both clear opponents to my vision of meaningful change. There's no neutrality or inherent virtue in a centrist position: it's a side like any other and you don't get credit just for inhabiting it. That doesn't make anyone calling you a nazi or communist justified in doing so or correct in their assessment. But it does indicate that neither considers your stance a compromise or allied position in relation to their own.
  - causi 4y ago
    It's not a centrist position, it's just one that doesn't adhere to the doctrine of either the Right or the Left.
  - latency-guy2 4y ago
    There's also no value in being an extremist either, you're not a significant member of any party that would lead to change in this country, nor will any of your goals come to fruition, you are outnumbered heavily and it looks like thankfully that will be the case for the remainder of my lifetime.

thuuuomas 4y ago

Centrism is a meta-heuristic concerned only with who said what. It’s no surprise that many people find centrist beliefs superficial & uninformed.

phpnode 4y ago
that's ridiculous, most humans are natural centrists with very few people making up the extremes.
kakapo88 4y ago
Posts such as this are sociologically amusing, "meta-heuristic" and the like. Using prepackaged terms to disparage people and dismiss them, without actually having to think objectively and consider opposing viewpoints. Also interesting how the choice of language completely outs people, as the extreme right/left adhere 100% to their respective terminologies, to signal membership and loyalty to their group. This post is a good example.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]