3 ms·

We have a built-in filter for this already, which are the primary and general elections. The problem is not politicians refusing to retire, but voters refusing

by duped 2y ago

We have a built-in filter for this already, which are the primary and general elections. The problem is not politicians refusing to retire, but voters refusing to vote them out. The Democrat/Republican party system is what gives incumbents such a lead over challengers. I don't think term limits are the fix, I think we need to change how campaigns are financed - because right now, the parties pick who gets money in downticket races, and incumbents have their own war chests. That leads to challengers being outspent. I just keep thinking about how the national party rolled over for Dianne Feinstein in the 2018 senate election, even though she lost the support of the state party. No big democrats were willing to drop their support of her, and the national party wasn't going to spend money on a primary/general challenge to a seat that would stay blue.

jjk166 2y ago
> Since those committee chairs are very powerful, they get lots of campaign donations which help keep them in office Incumbency is a huge thumb on the scales. A functional system needs to have certain checks on those in power that balance the playing field, otherwise democracy is a sham. The two party system is a problem, but term limits are meant to solve a different issue.
lazyeye 2y ago
"The problem is not politicians refusing to retire, but voters refusing to vote them out..." Or is it the media running cover for the regime and gaslighting the public on the presidents fading mental capacity?
ProllyInfamous 2y ago
>voters refusing to vote them out. US states are rapidly banning ranked-choice voting †, in efforts to prevent loss of their two-party systems. Campaign finance reform is definitely necessary, but so is the fundamental nature of how citizens choose representation. †: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Just one example would be Tennessee, which recently banned the practice after a Memphis suburb attempted to implement the practice.
- s1artibartfast 2y ago
  Interesting, I view ranked Choice voting as diversifying the candidate pool. I expect this would increase third party voting not decrease it
  - ProllyInfamous 2y ago
    Ranked-choice voting does exactly as you say, increasing the diversity of candidates (because no vote is ever "wasted").
  - illiac786 2y ago
    It also completely blocks extremists. They are ranked first by their supporters but last by every single other voter. This effect is mostly visible in a 3+ party system though.
- gwd 2y ago
  Wow: https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-choice-voting-despite-citizen-support/ https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-c... This is naked anti-democratic power-mongering. The only reason to ban it outright (rather than, say, letting people try it and switch back if they find it "confusing") is because you're afraid that people might get the hang of it and think it should be used for state and national elections as well.
  - ProllyInfamous 2y ago
    Their official reason (for banning RCV) is that it is too confusing for voters. So what do I know, I'm just a moron..? ...thanks for the great Reason/link.
  - alanh 2y ago
    Voters do find it confusing. Not all of them, but enough that it matters. E.g.: In San Francisco, Chesa Boudin only won as District Attorney in the final stage of the final vote count because his supporters were more likely to know about and use RCV than moderate, conservative, and/or low-information voters.

by duped 2y ago

jjk166 2y ago

> Since those committee chairs are very powerful, they get lots of campaign donations which help keep them in office Incumbency is a huge thumb on the scales. A functional system needs to have certain checks on those in power that balance the playing field, otherwise democracy is a sham. The two party system is a problem, but term limits are meant to solve a different issue.

lazyeye 2y ago

"The problem is not politicians refusing to retire, but voters refusing to vote them out..." Or is it the media running cover for the regime and gaslighting the public on the presidents fading mental capacity?

ProllyInfamous 2y ago

>voters refusing to vote them out. US states are rapidly banning ranked-choice voting †, in efforts to prevent loss of their two-party systems. Campaign finance reform is definitely necessary, but so is the fundamental nature of how citizens choose representation. †: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting Just one example would be Tennessee, which recently banned the practice after a Memphis suburb attempted to implement the practice.

s1artibartfast 2y ago
Interesting, I view ranked Choice voting as diversifying the candidate pool. I expect this would increase third party voting not decrease it
- ProllyInfamous 2y ago
  Ranked-choice voting does exactly as you say, increasing the diversity of candidates (because no vote is ever "wasted").
- illiac786 2y ago
  It also completely blocks extremists. They are ranked first by their supporters but last by every single other voter. This effect is mostly visible in a 3+ party system though.
gwd 2y ago
Wow: https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-choice-voting-despite-citizen-support/ https://reason.com/2022/04/28/florida-tennessee-ban-ranked-c... This is naked anti-democratic power-mongering. The only reason to ban it outright (rather than, say, letting people try it and switch back if they find it "confusing") is because you're afraid that people might get the hang of it and think it should be used for state and national elections as well.
- ProllyInfamous 2y ago
  Their official reason (for banning RCV) is that it is too confusing for voters. So what do I know, I'm just a moron..? ...thanks for the great Reason/link.
- alanh 2y ago
  Voters do find it confusing. Not all of them, but enough that it matters. E.g.: In San Francisco, Chesa Boudin only won as District Attorney in the final stage of the final vote count because his supporters were more likely to know about and use RCV than moderate, conservative, and/or low-information voters.