4 ms·

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

by 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.

by lukevp 3y ago

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.