4 ms·

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 pol

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...
      - lolinder 2y ago
        > somebody who can't even critically read and understand the sources I've provided I read the article you cited and just reread it. It was about the primaries. The only mention of the general election is referring to Congressional candidates, which was implemented by referendum. I'm now doing my own research into additional sources and seeing that what you're saying is correct, but you sent me a source that said nothing of the sort. I suspect I read that source more carefully than you did, so it's a bit rich for you to berate me for not reading it critically enough. Regardless, I'm not sold on the idea that this is something the Democratic party picked up on their own. Maine's ballot initiative came first and they had to overcome opposition from the legislature to get it through. Now that the people of Maine have spoken quite forcefully the Democrats are going along with it, but they didn't start this process on their own. If it were a Democratic party thing, why are we not seeing this anywhere else?

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...
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > somebody who can't even critically read and understand the sources I've provided I read the article you cited and just reread it. It was about the primaries. The only mention of the general election is referring to Congressional candidates, which was implemented by referendum. I'm now doing my own research into additional sources and seeing that what you're saying is correct, but you sent me a source that said nothing of the sort. I suspect I read that source more carefully than you did, so it's a bit rich for you to berate me for not reading it critically enough. Regardless, I'm not sold on the idea that this is something the Democratic party picked up on their own. Maine's ballot initiative came first and they had to overcome opposition from the legislature to get it through. Now that the people of Maine have spoken quite forcefully the Democrats are going along with it, but they didn't start this process on their own. If it were a Democratic party thing, why are we not seeing this anywhere else?