5 ms·

This is the danger of having shitty gop candidates, then the dems can roll with some uninspiring, corrupt, hillaryesque candidate like Hochul and manage to hold

This is the danger of having shitty gop candidates, then the dems can roll with some uninspiring, corrupt, hillaryesque candidate like Hochul and manage to hold onto power. When one party gets shittier, it allows the other one to get shittier as well

akira2501 3y ago
This is the danger of a two party system. They both have an incentive to disenfranchise voters, because our great loophole is that, a "no" vote actually does not count in any meaningful way. So, if you can get 50% to 75% of the eligible population to not vote, then it becomes much easier to maintain power without actually having to take any responsibility for your actions. It should be that if less than 50% of the eligible population turns out, the election is null, and needs to be re-run. We have a right to say "none of the above" and have it stick. The parties need to bear the costs of creating these terrible ballots and candidates that actually appeal to no one.
- lukevp 3y ago
  Our HOA elections are unable to proceed without a defined quorum, yet the US has no such rules… strange! I think first past the post is a big part of the issue though, and am holding on hope for ranked choice voting to expand
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Two things: * Abstention from voting or refusing to vote are a form of political expression. Mandating that everyone must vote is an attack on freedom of speech and expression and will not fly. * Ranked Choice and all the other alternatives often floated run afoul of the most basic criteria: They are complicated. The people either will not or cannot understand and consequently will not tolerate complicated voting schemes. Anything more complicated than "<XYZ> gets my vote." is impractically useless. FPTP remains popular because it is fucking simple enough that anyone can understand it, that it's also generally beneficial to the political parties is merely a side effect.
    - spaceribs 3y ago
      I actually think STAR voting has a chance. The complexity is limited to how things are tabulated, who can't understand a 5 star rating system?
    - hedora 3y ago
      Ranked choice isn’t that complicated, but anyway, Australia has a reverse poll tax (they fine you for not showing up, but you can turn in a blank ballot for free). Apparently <crude drawing of penis> is a perennially competitive write in candidate. It still seems better than the US system (especially vs. here in California, where we have a one party system, and primaries are often uncontestable).
      - throwup238 3y ago
        > It still seems better than the US system (especially vs. here in California, where we have a one party system, and primaries are often uncontestable). Huh? California has had jungle primaries for years. The top two candidates with the most votes in the primaries run in the general election, even if they're both from the same party. That makes the primaries a lot more competitive than usual like when Kevin de León (D) ran against Dianne Feinstein (D) for the US Senate seat in 2018. The only chance Republicans even have of running against a Democrat is when the Democrat is so popular that no one bothers running. This past gubernatorial election, the next closest Democrat won 50x less votes than Newsom so Brian Dahle (R) got to go to the general election with only 17% of the total turnout (Newsom had 56% in the primaries and won the general with 59%). Ever since we managed to extricate the GOP from state government, one party rule has been going pretty well. Not perfect, but a lot better than the "bipartisan" shit show Davis and Arnold left us.
    - skissane 3y ago
      > Ranked Choice and all the other alternatives often floated run afoul of the most basic criteria: They are complicated. The people either will not or cannot understand and consequently will not tolerate complicated voting schemes. Australia has had "ranked choice voting" ("preferential" is what we call it here) for over a century now - starting with the 1919 Australian federal election. If Australians can "understand" and "tolerate" it, why not Americans too? > Anything more complicated than "<XYZ> gets my vote." is impractically useless. In America, campaign signs say "Vote For Whoever". In Australia, they say "Vote 1 For Whoever" instead. No real difference. Some people just fill out the rest of the boxes randomly, some people follow a "how to vote" card issued by their preferred candidate, some people think hard about who gets their 2nd/3rd/4th etc. Some Australian states now have "optional preferential", where your vote is still valid even if you don't make a 2nd/3rd/etc choice.
- ryukoposting 3y ago
  > So, if you can get 50% to 75% of the eligible population to not vote, then it becomes much easier to maintain power without actually having to take any responsibility for your actions. Except, this isn't actually the strategy employed by Dems in several battleground states. Growth in voter turnout has correlated with strong outcomes for democrats pretty reliably over the last 10 years, at all levels, especially in the rust belt.
  - akira2501 3y ago
    Will you point me to a dataset that demonstrates this? I've looked at state level data for a few states, and while I have seen higher turnout in Presidential elections, I see very low and declining turnout in those Primaries which I think just causes the same problem and allows the general election turnout to mask this problem. Then, looking at off year and congressional elections, the data is much less hopeful. It's almost _always_ the case that you see less than 50% eligible, and even less than 50% _registered_ turnout.
  - TylerE 3y ago
    That’s because it’s the Republicans who are by the far the worst offenders. Lately there been steam rolling far right people inyo places like achool boards in off years.
- yummypaint 3y ago
  Ranked choice voting solutions are the way out
  - judge2020 3y ago
    Good luck getting that in the constitution when all the leaders who'd vote on the amendment would be directly burdened by its passing, and trying to educate your average voter on how it works.
    - chimeracoder 3y ago
      > Good luck getting that in the constitution when all the leaders who'd vote on the amendment would be directly burdened by its passing, and trying to educate your average voter on how it works. Actually, NYC is the largest jurisdiction in the country with ranked choice voting. The problem is that governor is a statewide race, and there are no statewide ballot initiatives in NY. Any ballot initiatives on the state ballot are for issues that the legislature has already approved, as opposed to initiatives that can be brought independently of the legislature.

akira2501 3y ago

This is the danger of a two party system. They both have an incentive to disenfranchise voters, because our great loophole is that, a "no" vote actually does not count in any meaningful way. So, if you can get 50% to 75% of the eligible population to not vote, then it becomes much easier to maintain power without actually having to take any responsibility for your actions. It should be that if less than 50% of the eligible population turns out, the election is null, and needs to be re-run. We have a right to say "none of the above" and have it stick. The parties need to bear the costs of creating these terrible ballots and candidates that actually appeal to no one.

lukevp 3y ago
Our HOA elections are unable to proceed without a defined quorum, yet the US has no such rules… strange! I think first past the post is a big part of the issue though, and am holding on hope for ranked choice voting to expand
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Two things: * Abstention from voting or refusing to vote are a form of political expression. Mandating that everyone must vote is an attack on freedom of speech and expression and will not fly. * Ranked Choice and all the other alternatives often floated run afoul of the most basic criteria: They are complicated. The people either will not or cannot understand and consequently will not tolerate complicated voting schemes. Anything more complicated than "<XYZ> gets my vote." is impractically useless. FPTP remains popular because it is fucking simple enough that anyone can understand it, that it's also generally beneficial to the political parties is merely a side effect.
  - spaceribs 3y ago
    I actually think STAR voting has a chance. The complexity is limited to how things are tabulated, who can't understand a 5 star rating system?
  - hedora 3y ago
    Ranked choice isn’t that complicated, but anyway, Australia has a reverse poll tax (they fine you for not showing up, but you can turn in a blank ballot for free). Apparently <crude drawing of penis> is a perennially competitive write in candidate. It still seems better than the US system (especially vs. here in California, where we have a one party system, and primaries are often uncontestable).
    - throwup238 3y ago
      > It still seems better than the US system (especially vs. here in California, where we have a one party system, and primaries are often uncontestable). Huh? California has had jungle primaries for years. The top two candidates with the most votes in the primaries run in the general election, even if they're both from the same party. That makes the primaries a lot more competitive than usual like when Kevin de León (D) ran against Dianne Feinstein (D) for the US Senate seat in 2018. The only chance Republicans even have of running against a Democrat is when the Democrat is so popular that no one bothers running. This past gubernatorial election, the next closest Democrat won 50x less votes than Newsom so Brian Dahle (R) got to go to the general election with only 17% of the total turnout (Newsom had 56% in the primaries and won the general with 59%). Ever since we managed to extricate the GOP from state government, one party rule has been going pretty well. Not perfect, but a lot better than the "bipartisan" shit show Davis and Arnold left us.
  - skissane 3y ago
    > Ranked Choice and all the other alternatives often floated run afoul of the most basic criteria: They are complicated. The people either will not or cannot understand and consequently will not tolerate complicated voting schemes. Australia has had "ranked choice voting" ("preferential" is what we call it here) for over a century now - starting with the 1919 Australian federal election. If Australians can "understand" and "tolerate" it, why not Americans too? > Anything more complicated than "<XYZ> gets my vote." is impractically useless. In America, campaign signs say "Vote For Whoever". In Australia, they say "Vote 1 For Whoever" instead. No real difference. Some people just fill out the rest of the boxes randomly, some people follow a "how to vote" card issued by their preferred candidate, some people think hard about who gets their 2nd/3rd/4th etc. Some Australian states now have "optional preferential", where your vote is still valid even if you don't make a 2nd/3rd/etc choice.
ryukoposting 3y ago
> So, if you can get 50% to 75% of the eligible population to not vote, then it becomes much easier to maintain power without actually having to take any responsibility for your actions. Except, this isn't actually the strategy employed by Dems in several battleground states. Growth in voter turnout has correlated with strong outcomes for democrats pretty reliably over the last 10 years, at all levels, especially in the rust belt.
- akira2501 3y ago
  Will you point me to a dataset that demonstrates this? I've looked at state level data for a few states, and while I have seen higher turnout in Presidential elections, I see very low and declining turnout in those Primaries which I think just causes the same problem and allows the general election turnout to mask this problem. Then, looking at off year and congressional elections, the data is much less hopeful. It's almost _always_ the case that you see less than 50% eligible, and even less than 50% _registered_ turnout.
- TylerE 3y ago
  That’s because it’s the Republicans who are by the far the worst offenders. Lately there been steam rolling far right people inyo places like achool boards in off years.
yummypaint 3y ago
Ranked choice voting solutions are the way out
- judge2020 3y ago
  Good luck getting that in the constitution when all the leaders who'd vote on the amendment would be directly burdened by its passing, and trying to educate your average voter on how it works.
  - chimeracoder 3y ago
    > Good luck getting that in the constitution when all the leaders who'd vote on the amendment would be directly burdened by its passing, and trying to educate your average voter on how it works. Actually, NYC is the largest jurisdiction in the country with ranked choice voting. The problem is that governor is a statewide race, and there are no statewide ballot initiatives in NY. Any ballot initiatives on the state ballot are for issues that the legislature has already approved, as opposed to initiatives that can be brought independently of the legislature.