American Politics IV: 1400 Reasons Why(A Stimulus Serial)

[Kowani]

I had hope he really would understand. I mean, his son died of cancer. He knows how expensive things like that can be. It's time for a public option.

Dude, he's an elitist hack. No one should have ever fallen for his "old humble Joe" ploy. It's not as if Biden ever had to scrounge for expenses when it came to his son's cancer battle.

That's not entirely accurate, actually

[Picairn]

It's not always the best form of government for a society especially a mass society.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all other ones.

[Greater Cesnica]

So what I'm hearing is there are some things that can't be solved by voting?

You can elect people who support the changes you want. That;'s how we updated New York's outdated voting laws.

Somehow, my faith in elected officials isn't exactly the greatest at this point in time.

[Dresderstan]

PR is more democratic than RCV

I have never heard that much malarkey. Not even a little bit. Ranked choice voting eliminates the problem of the "lesser of two evils."

Voters really get to vote their conscience.

PR is more representative than RCV, the votes should accurately reflect the votes of the people.

[San Lumen]

You can elect people who support the changes you want. That;'s how we updated New York's outdated voting laws.

Somehow, my faith in elected officials isn't exactly the greatest at this point in time.

Nor is mine. We have a political party that seems democracy and free and fair elections as an annoyance.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

I have no issue with that. a number of cities in the US use that method. Burlington, Vermont recently joined the ranks. Maine and Alaska both used ranked choice voting. In Alaska it will go into effect for the first time next year.

Not good enough, it's PR or nothing.

Actually, RCV is one of the systems that tries to approximate Proportional Representation. PR itself isn't really a system, it's an ideal.

For instance, with a finite number of representatives, all having an equal vote, it is not possible to be perfectly Proportional.

[Dresderstan]

Both are better than FPTP. I'd settle for RCV as a compromise, until all states' election systems are done with FPTP.

RCV is a perfect compromise in my view and I don't see why people dislike it. No vote is wasted.

No it's not, PR or bust.

[San Lumen]

I have never heard that much malarkey. Not even a little bit. Ranked choice voting eliminates the problem of the "lesser of two evils."

Voters really get to vote their conscience.

PR is more representative than RCV, the votes should accurately reflect the votes of the people.

How?

[Sundiata]

Dude, he's an elitist hack. No one should have ever fallen for his "old humble Joe" ploy. It's not as if Biden ever had to scrounge for expenses when it came to his son's cancer battle.

That's not entirely accurate, actually

What's taking him so long to do things that make basic sense?

[Dresderstan]

PR is more representative than RCV, the votes should accurately reflect the votes of the people.

How?

Why should a party receive a majority with less than 50% of the vote?

[Greater Cesnica]

That's not entirely accurate, actually

What's taking him so long to do things that make basic sense?

The cha-ching

[Sundiata]

How?

Why should a party receive a majority with less than 50% of the vote?

What are you talking about?

[Umeria]

So what I'm hearing is there are some things that can't be solved by voting?

You can elect people who support the changes you want. That;'s how we updated New York's outdated voting laws.

I hope you understand that electing people who agree with you isn't just a matter of voting for them.

[San Lumen]

How?

Why should a party receive a majority with less than 50% of the vote?

I dont think you understand how ranked choice voting works.

[Sundiata]

Why should a party receive a majority with less than 50% of the vote?

I dont think you understand how ranked choice voting works.

He's describing first past the post and telling us it's raining.

[Dresderstan]

Why should a party receive a majority with less than 50% of the vote?

I dont think you understand how ranked choice voting works.

I don't think you understand how Proportional Representation works.

[Sundiata]

I dont think you understand how ranked choice voting works.

I don't think you understand how Proportional Representation works.

No, no.

You described the outcome of a first past the post system. Stop responding like we insulted your mother or something.

[The Marlborough]

What don't you like about democracy?

I can't speak for Dres, but the most feasible argument against democracy is the potential of "tyranny by majority". That being said, democratic governance, to the extent that is truly uncorrupted, is absolutely the best means of governance that we have as of now.

For some societies sure. Democracy like any other form of governance is fit for societies that can best accept and handle its specific problems and parameters. However even societies that can best function or at least function well with a democracy may change to the point where, at a minimum, it would result in an illiberal democracy (since for whatever reason only liberal democracies are taken as 'true' democracies) or outright get rid of it.

[A-Series-Of-Tubes]

RCV is a perfect compromise in my view and I don't see why people dislike it. No vote is wasted.

No it's not, PR or bust.

Then bust. See the post above.

Single Transferrable Vote is more descriptive than Ranked Choice Voting. Each person has one vote, and almost all of those votes are "transferred" to either the winner, or the one who comes second.

"Ranked Choice" refers only to how the voter fills out their ballot, and there are better (STV) and worse (weighted) ways to tabulate those ballots.

[Dresderstan]

I don't think you understand how Proportional Representation works.

No, no.

You described a first past the post system. Stop responding like we insulted your mother or something.

[San Lumen]

I dont think you understand how ranked choice voting works.

I don't think you understand how Proportional Representation works.

I know exactly how it works. What is wrong with RCV? No one can be elected without a majority of the vote. I therefore do not understand what your issue is with it.

[Sundiata]

No, no.

You described a first past the post system. Stop responding like we insulted your mother or something.

Come on man.

[Greater Cesnica]

Welp, I'll head out. Goodnight.

[Sundiata]

No it's not, PR or bust.

Then bust. See the post above.

Single Transferrable Vote is more descriptive than Ranked Choice Voting. Each person has one vote, and almost all of those votes are "transferred" to either the winner, or the one who comes second.

"Ranked Choice" refers only to how the voter fills out their ballot, and there are better (STV) and worse (weighted) ways to tabulate those ballots.

That sounds perfect.

[Dresderstan]

I don't think you understand how Proportional Representation works.

I know exactly how it works. What is wrong with RCV? No one can be elected without a majority of the vote. I therefore do not understand what your issue is with it.

Maybe if we didn't have a bankrupt two party duopoly and independents and smaller parties had a hope in hell of winning instead of being muscled out by the fear and propaganda arms of the two to prevent "wasted votes" out of their own fear of being replaced. PR is better, the only compromise I'd be willing is MMP system like Germany, maybe with IRV.