4 ms·

I've always advocated for a "no confidence" vote option. If it gets the majority of votes, candidates currently running are all disqualified and replaced then

I've always advocated for a "no confidence" vote option. If it gets the majority of votes, candidates currently running are all disqualified and replaced then a new election is held. This repeats until a candidate can beat nobody. Enough of this lesser of two evils nonsense, we deserve at least 3 evils to pick from.

euroderf 3y ago
The next election has to come pretty briskly tho, and the "no majority" should creep downward some number of percentage points in each round. Otherwise you might get stuck in a local minimum.
- jjk166 3y ago
  You shouldn't have the threshold steadily creep downward as that just incentivizes drawing the process out by purposefully running terrible candidates until eventually the threshold is low enough not to matter. Instead you should have the threshold vary randomly with the actual amount only announced very shortly before the election when there isn't time for anyone to change strategies in response. Eventually the threshold will be low enough that there will definitely be a winner, but you don't know when it's going to happen so you need to treat every race as potentially the real one.
gostintheshell 3y ago
I think the President should be replaced with an automatic veto so we can focus on the rest of the system without listening to what some bully is going to do to us.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > I think the President should be replaced with an automatic veto That only replaces the legislative and not the executive role of the President.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> If it gets the majority of votes, candidates currently running are all disqualified and replaced then a new election is held. This repeats until a candidate can beat nobody. Then either you create vacancies (which leave functions unable to be performed or being performed by someone not elected at all) or incumbents get extended terms, and either of these create strategic reasons to game the system to create and leverage the resulting dysfunction. There are better election methods than the plurality and majority/runoff methods common in the US—lots of them!—but “majority with nuke the slate and start over as an option” is worse, not better.
- willcipriano 3y ago
  > Then either you create vacancies The people voted that the role should be vacant. They haven't authorized anyone to represent them yet. Leave it empty. > There are better election methods than the plurality and majority/runoff methods common in the US—lots of them! When people suggest these "better methods" those always seem to prefer their preferred candidate. Can't say that about mine. All it does is raise the bar to the point where you have to provide somebody who is better than nobody.
magnetowasright 3y ago
Australia's implementation of ranked choice system is pretty great (terms and conditions apply; the wankers made it basically impossible for micro parties to exist cos they were mad the Motoring Enthusiast Party earned a seat. God forbid someone who isn't a generational career politician and who is actually a human person gets voted in!). The mandatory voting and actually facilitating that is pretty great, too. I think we've proven pretty well that you can get an extraordinary turnout and still have fascists voted in, so the US govt could just worry less about voter suppression, too.

euroderf 3y ago

The next election has to come pretty briskly tho, and the "no majority" should creep downward some number of percentage points in each round. Otherwise you might get stuck in a local minimum.

jjk166 3y ago
You shouldn't have the threshold steadily creep downward as that just incentivizes drawing the process out by purposefully running terrible candidates until eventually the threshold is low enough not to matter. Instead you should have the threshold vary randomly with the actual amount only announced very shortly before the election when there isn't time for anyone to change strategies in response. Eventually the threshold will be low enough that there will definitely be a winner, but you don't know when it's going to happen so you need to treat every race as potentially the real one.

gostintheshell 3y ago

I think the President should be replaced with an automatic veto so we can focus on the rest of the system without listening to what some bully is going to do to us.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> I think the President should be replaced with an automatic veto That only replaces the legislative and not the executive role of the President.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> If it gets the majority of votes, candidates currently running are all disqualified and replaced then a new election is held. This repeats until a candidate can beat nobody. Then either you create vacancies (which leave functions unable to be performed or being performed by someone not elected at all) or incumbents get extended terms, and either of these create strategic reasons to game the system to create and leverage the resulting dysfunction. There are better election methods than the plurality and majority/runoff methods common in the US—lots of them!—but “majority with nuke the slate and start over as an option” is worse, not better.

willcipriano 3y ago
> Then either you create vacancies The people voted that the role should be vacant. They haven't authorized anyone to represent them yet. Leave it empty. > There are better election methods than the plurality and majority/runoff methods common in the US—lots of them! When people suggest these "better methods" those always seem to prefer their preferred candidate. Can't say that about mine. All it does is raise the bar to the point where you have to provide somebody who is better than nobody.

magnetowasright 3y ago

Australia's implementation of ranked choice system is pretty great (terms and conditions apply; the wankers made it basically impossible for micro parties to exist cos they were mad the Motoring Enthusiast Party earned a seat. God forbid someone who isn't a generational career politician and who is actually a human person gets voted in!). The mandatory voting and actually facilitating that is pretty great, too. I think we've proven pretty well that you can get an extraordinary turnout and still have fascists voted in, so the US govt could just worry less about voter suppression, too.