4 ms·
Did you even read the article? Well, think about it a little bit. It started with a sensationalist, click-bait headline that received no clarification or supp
by A_D_E_P_T 1y ago
Did you even read the article? Well, think about it a little bit.
It started with a sensationalist, click-bait headline that received no clarification or support in the text.
Then it bellyached a little bit over how ranked-choice voting (1) penalizes candidates that are disliked by broad segments of the populace, and (2) enables strategic "coalitions" and endorsements. As if that's somehow undemocratic? It merely enables practices that are somewhat akin to the old practice of voting against somebody, which the ancients would recognize as far more democratic than the alternative.
We live in the worst and most limited form of "democracy" possible -- if it is even worthy of the name. Anything that gives the populace more choices, more options, more power is always good.
- watwut 1y agoYour rant about Athens and Sparta is wholy irrelevant to any of that and to the article. Just because Athens is effectively an origin myth for democracy does not mean an incoherent rant about it is relevant to anything today nor to how we define the word.
- A_D_E_P_T 1y agoWhen somebody says "X is democratic" or "Y is not democratic" I find it's often very helpful to compare it to the original. By that token, we're not a democracy right now, and ranked-choice voting -- far from making things worse -- is a small step in the right direction. (And plebiscites on all important bills would be far better still.) Read the classics. Everything important about politics, and about the classification of political structures, has already been hashed out. > relevant to anything today nor to how we define the word. I take it you have a better definition?
- watwut 1y agoI do not find it useful at all. Athens would not even qualify as democracy by our todays standards. Sparta was oppressive dictatorship, effectively nazi like country.