3 ms·

You can't count Utah out until they actually do something to walk it back, representatives just talking about doing something is usually them just posturing for

You can't count Utah out until they actually do something to walk it back, representatives just talking about doing something is usually them just posturing for their base. And if we're excluding ballot measures then you also have to drop Maine [0]. If you drop Maine and Alaska as not representing entrenched party politics then you're left with 4/50 states that implemented a measure allowing RCV at the local (city) level and 1/50 states (Hawaii) that implemented a measure allowing it at the federal level (for special federal elections only). Of the four states that officially allowed RCV at the local level by an act of the legislature, Utah has more municipalities taking advantage of that than the rest of the states combined. I'm not arguing that Republicans are champions of RCV, just that it's pretty obvious that Democrats aren't much better if at all. By your rules, 1/50 states voluntarily allowed RCV for any state or federal election (where party politics usually matter, unlike most local elections), and even that one state's law is only for rare special cases. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Maine_Question_5 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_Maine_Ques...

theossuary 2y ago
Except Maine shouldn't be ruled out because its congress passed RCV for presidential races (what I thought the conversation was always about, national level politics) along party lines in 2019[1]. You're also undervaluing that all of the ten states that have preeemptively banned RCV are Republican controlled. Sure there aren't a dozen Democratic states with RCV yet, that should change! We should push for that. But that's a far cry from preemptively banning it; there's no chance for change there. That's my point, yeah Democrats aren't the best, or even great; but at least there's the chance for improvement. Republicans have overwhelmingly banned that chance. 1: https://www.pressherald.com/2019/08/26/maine-senate-passes-ranked-choice-voting-for-march-presidential-primaries/ https://www.pressherald.com/2019/08/26/maine-senate-passes-r...
- lolinder 2y ago
  > presidential races (what I thought the conversation was always about, national level politics) along party lines in 2019 In primaries, which poses no threat to the party structure if the general election is still first past the post. I'm not at all interested in election systems for primaries when the issue at hand is how many parties can exist. > You're also undervaluing that all of the ten states that have preeemptively banned RCV are Republican controlled I'm ignoring that because I think it's more part of the general Republican hysteria about voting integrity than it is a calculated move by Republican politicians specifically to ban RCV for preserving-the-two-party-system reasons. The question at hand is whether both parties would really rather not see RCV, and I see no evidence that there's going to be any significant movement from the Democrats towards it for general statewide elections any time soon. The Democrats just don't feel the need to make a big deal about it like the Republicans do at the moment.
  - theossuary 2y ago
    Maine has it for the general presidential election too. They were the first to use RCV in a general presidential election. I don't care why Republicans did it, the effect is the same: It forces a two party system which benefits them in the states they've banned it. You can claim that there's no movement towards RCV in the Democratic party (there is in the progressive members), but you can't pretend like there's no movement to ban it in the Republican party, as is evidenced by their actions. The future of the Republican party is clearly only more of the same, only the Democratic party is interested in trying something new; which we clearly desperately need.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > Maine has it for the general presidential election too. They were the first to use RCV in a general presidential election. That was as a result of the referendum, though, which you don't want to count because that's the citizens doing it and not the established politicians. That's a reasonable position that I'm happy to make a ground rule for this discussion, but it needs to be applied evenly, not just used to exclude Alaska. > but you can't pretend like there's no movement to ban it in the Republican party, as is evidenced by their actions. No, but it doesn't matter if there was never any risk of it happening, which there isn't in the vast majority of the US. You don't need to ban something if your voters have never heard of it and wouldn't think to ask for it. > only the Democratic party is interested in trying something new; which we clearly desperately need. There's no evidence here in the sources you've cited that shows that the Democratic politicians are interested in trying something new in state and federal general elections (the ones that could actually challenge the two-party system). If you can count Maine then I can count Alaska, which again balances out to not be obviously one-sided.
      - theossuary 2y ago
        You've now gotten the facts about Maine's RCV wrong multiple times, it's to the point I won't continue discussing this with somebody who can't even critically read and understand the sources I've provided. The Maine legislature passed RCV for both the primary and general presidential election[1]. I don't really care if you don't think national primaries don't matter they obviously do; otherwise the Republican party in Maine wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to not have to do RCV for their primaries. 1. https://www.legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/ranked-choice-voting-in-maine/9509 https://www.legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/ranked-choice-v...

theossuary 2y ago

Except Maine shouldn't be ruled out because its congress passed RCV for presidential races (what I thought the conversation was always about, national level politics) along party lines in 2019[1]. You're also undervaluing that all of the ten states that have preeemptively banned RCV are Republican controlled. Sure there aren't a dozen Democratic states with RCV yet, that should change! We should push for that. But that's a far cry from preemptively banning it; there's no chance for change there. That's my point, yeah Democrats aren't the best, or even great; but at least there's the chance for improvement. Republicans have overwhelmingly banned that chance. 1: https://www.pressherald.com/2019/08/26/maine-senate-passes-ranked-choice-voting-for-march-presidential-primaries/ https://www.pressherald.com/2019/08/26/maine-senate-passes-r...

lolinder 2y ago
> presidential races (what I thought the conversation was always about, national level politics) along party lines in 2019 In primaries, which poses no threat to the party structure if the general election is still first past the post. I'm not at all interested in election systems for primaries when the issue at hand is how many parties can exist. > You're also undervaluing that all of the ten states that have preeemptively banned RCV are Republican controlled I'm ignoring that because I think it's more part of the general Republican hysteria about voting integrity than it is a calculated move by Republican politicians specifically to ban RCV for preserving-the-two-party-system reasons. The question at hand is whether both parties would really rather not see RCV, and I see no evidence that there's going to be any significant movement from the Democrats towards it for general statewide elections any time soon. The Democrats just don't feel the need to make a big deal about it like the Republicans do at the moment.
- theossuary 2y ago
  Maine has it for the general presidential election too. They were the first to use RCV in a general presidential election. I don't care why Republicans did it, the effect is the same: It forces a two party system which benefits them in the states they've banned it. You can claim that there's no movement towards RCV in the Democratic party (there is in the progressive members), but you can't pretend like there's no movement to ban it in the Republican party, as is evidenced by their actions. The future of the Republican party is clearly only more of the same, only the Democratic party is interested in trying something new; which we clearly desperately need.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Maine has it for the general presidential election too. They were the first to use RCV in a general presidential election. That was as a result of the referendum, though, which you don't want to count because that's the citizens doing it and not the established politicians. That's a reasonable position that I'm happy to make a ground rule for this discussion, but it needs to be applied evenly, not just used to exclude Alaska. > but you can't pretend like there's no movement to ban it in the Republican party, as is evidenced by their actions. No, but it doesn't matter if there was never any risk of it happening, which there isn't in the vast majority of the US. You don't need to ban something if your voters have never heard of it and wouldn't think to ask for it. > only the Democratic party is interested in trying something new; which we clearly desperately need. There's no evidence here in the sources you've cited that shows that the Democratic politicians are interested in trying something new in state and federal general elections (the ones that could actually challenge the two-party system). If you can count Maine then I can count Alaska, which again balances out to not be obviously one-sided.
    - theossuary 2y ago
      You've now gotten the facts about Maine's RCV wrong multiple times, it's to the point I won't continue discussing this with somebody who can't even critically read and understand the sources I've provided. The Maine legislature passed RCV for both the primary and general presidential election[1]. I don't really care if you don't think national primaries don't matter they obviously do; otherwise the Republican party in Maine wouldn't have fought tooth and nail to not have to do RCV for their primaries. 1. https://www.legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/ranked-choice-voting-in-maine/9509 https://www.legislature.maine.gov/lawlibrary/ranked-choice-v...