3 ms·
> which does just about as much as voting Did you expect something else? No matter what system of voting we use, unless we go back to only white landowning me
by hammock 2y ago
> which does just about as much as voting
Did you expect something else?
No matter what system of voting we use, unless we go back to only white landowning men can vote or something (doubt we want to do that), you can’t avoid the fact that 160 million+ people vote together for President.
The most viable solution looks less like changing to ranked choice and more like returning more governing power to lower levels of government (state and local) where there is less competition
- pksebben 2y agoWait, though. It's not that there are too many voters. It's that the system of voting we use doesn't connect the vox populi to the means of social control. If you're given the choice between two bad options, you aren't really given the choice. There's massive cross-aisle support for a lot of things (proper healthcare, more support for working families, lower inflation, holding the banks to some kind of standard, reducing corruption, etc.) that we could actually move the needle on if our votes mattered, but because the two parties have us between a rock (whoever we identify as our party) and a hard place (whoever the other guys are) it doesn't really matter who we vote for. Now, I'm willing to concede that what you're talking about might be a thing, but there's really no way to know until we actually fix what we have and see if that becomes a problem. We've never really tried what we're supposed to have in the modern era. Frankly, I'd like to see some format of direct democracy rather than representative. Always seemed a little like an obvious grift to me.