Alaska to try Ranked Choice Voting

[ciaban2.0]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alaska-is...193615285.html

From a purely electoral sense, this should help Murkowski a lot who's facing a strong primary challenge and will also have a dem on her back. As Yang points out, rank choice free's candidates up from having to appeal to the most extreme elements of their base.

I felt like this was thread-worthy.

I know many of you complain about states rights (you mean federalism but w/e) is dumb, but this is one of the major advantages of letting states determine how their elections are run, and determining their own laws, rather than having everything mandated down to them from the top. Your allowed to run experiments and try new things on a smaller level, see what works and what doesn't.

[valade16]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alaska-is...193615285.html

From a purely electoral sense, this should help Murkowski a lot who's facing a strong primary challenge and will also have a dem on her back. As Yang points out, rank choice free's candidates up from having to appeal to the most extreme elements of their base.

I felt like this was thread-worthy.

I know many of you complain about states rights (you mean federalism but w/e) is dumb, but this is one of the major advantages of letting states determine how their elections are run, and determining their own laws, rather than having everything mandated down to them from the top. Your allowed to run experiments and try new things on a smaller level, see what works and what doesn't.

And the ulterior motive of your post reveals itself.

The bad part about States rights is when things like this are proven to be effective and we should go to a national ranked-choice voting system, it will be State's rights that prevent it from happening.

[ciaban2.0]

And the ulterior motive of your post reveals itself.

The bad part about States rights is when things like this are proven to be effective and we should go to a national ranked-choice voting system, it will be State's rights that prevent it from happening.

It won't be the states rights that stop it from happening. But If Montana wants to do ranked choice, and Idaho doesn't then Idaho shouldn't have to.
Generally if things prove to work, then over time they get adopted without conversion.

But the main point of the thread is to talk about Alaska and ranked-choice voting. Maine also has it and so do several large cities like SF and NY.

NY did a terrible job with it because the party machine is horribly corrupt and run by incompetent people hand-selected because they know the right people.
Other cites and states have done a better job.

[valade16]

It won't be the states rights that stop it from happening. But If Montana wants to do ranked choice, and Idaho doesn't then Idaho shouldn't have to.
Generally if things prove to work, then over time they get adopted without conversion.

But the main point of the thread is to talk about Alaska and ranked-choice voting. Maine also has it and so do several large cities like SF and NY.

NY did a terrible job with it because the party machine is horribly corrupt and run by incompetent people hand-selected because they know the right people.
Other cites and states have done a better job.

This is not even close to true. Much of the time things that are proven to work do not get adopted specifically because states argue it should be their right not to adopt it.

[ciaban2.0]

This is not even close to true. Much of the time things that are proven to work do not get adopted specifically because states argue it should be their right not to adopt it.

It is their right to do what they want.

You want top-down mandates because you believe it's easier, even if the people you're forcing your ideas on, don't like, or don't believe in it or actively hate it.

Look how many states have legalized recreational pot, it's even happening in a lot of red states now. Some states have even legalized pot successfully (not California but other states) that's how democracy and buy-in work. When you force people to do things they don't want to do you wind up with failing policies because no one participates.

[valade16]

It is their right to do what they want.

You want top-down mandates because you believe it's easier, even if the people you're forcing your ideas on, don't like, or don't believe in it or actively hate it.

Look how many states have legalized recreational pot, it's even happening in a lot of red states now. Some states have even legalized pot successfully (not California but other states) that's how democracy and buy-in work. When you force people to do things they don't want to do you wind up with failing policies because no one participates.

Just because the people hate it doesn't mean it's a bad idea. The US forced the abolition of slavery on the South and they didn't like it, didn't believe in it, and actively hated it. So much so, the US later had to force the abolition of discrimination upon them.

Do you think they should have the right to decide to be able to discriminate again? Or are there some things that morally, should definitely be universal across the US?


As for recreational pot. This is actually hurts your point. Advocates of marijuana want it legalized on the federal level. It's literally states rights keeping the absurdity of illegal marijuana a thing. The majority of people want marijuana legalized by the way, even in many states where it's still illegal. The State's Rights in those states are literally forcing their idea, that marijuana be illegal, on their citizenry that doesn't want it, doesn't like it, and actively hates it.

[MRSpock]

Whenever Republicans ***** about states rights it's just white noise to me now. Especially after the last presidential election.

But hey. I'm interested in this experiment. If it make the right less racist and the left race-bait less. That's a good thing imo.

[dbroncos78087]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alaska-is...193615285.html

From a purely electoral sense, this should help Murkowski a lot who's facing a strong primary challenge and will also have a dem on her back. As Yang points out, rank choice free's candidates up from having to appeal to the most extreme elements of their base.

I felt like this was thread-worthy.

I know many of you complain about states rights (you mean federalism but w/e) is dumb, but this is one of the major advantages of letting states determine how their elections are run, and determining their own laws, rather than having everything mandated down to them from the top. Your allowed to run experiments and try new things on a smaller level, see what works and what doesn't.

Ranked choice frees candidates up from having to appeal to the most extreme elements of their base? Any time you start with "As Yang points out", I highly recommend reconsidering the statement. Because odds are it will end up being wrong.

[ciaban2.0]

Ranked choice frees candidates up from having to appeal to the most extreme elements of their base? Any time you start with "As Yang points out", I highly recommend reconsidering the statement. Because odds are it will end up being wrong.

Are you guys still salty that Andrew Yang left the Dems to start a third party?

[ciaban2.0]

So there are some things that make Alaska's version unique.

But no state has tried what Alaska will do this fall. There will be no party primary in the new system. All candidates of all parties will run against one another in the Aug. 16 primary contest. The primary will not be a ranked-choice election. The top four vote getters will proceed to the Nov. 8 general election, a new system known as “final four” voting.

Only then, in the fall election, will ranked-choice voting — also known as instant-runoff voting — be implemented. Under ranked choice, voters are asked to list candidates in order of preference. Candidates are then gradually eliminated, and votes are reallocated to the next person on the list. This continues until one candidate secures over 50 percent of the vote.

[ciaban2.0]

Just because the people hate it doesn't mean it's a bad idea. The US forced the abolition of slavery on the South and they didn't like it, didn't believe in it, and actively hated it. So much so, the US later had to force the abolition of discrimination upon them.

Do you think they should have the right to decide to be able to discriminate again? Or are there some things that morally, should definitely be universal across the US?


As for recreational pot. This is actually hurts your point. Advocates of marijuana want it legalized on the federal level. It's literally states rights keeping the absurdity of illegal marijuana a thing. The majority of people want marijuana legalized by the way, even in many states where it's still illegal. The State's Rights in those states are literally forcing their idea, that marijuana be illegal, on their citizenry that doesn't want it, doesn't like it, and actively hates it.

That's not what happened, the south seceded in response to Lincoln winning the election, they assumed he would try to abolish slavery, though we know from his letters that he was surprised by this, and had no intention of doing it.

Also, just because you can force someone to do something doesn't make it a good idea. And the fact that you HAVE to force people to go along with your ideas instead of convincing them that it's a good idea says a lot of negative things about either the quality of your idea or the quality of your persuasiveness.

[valade16]

That's not what happened, the south seceded in response to Lincoln winning the election, they assumed he would try to abolish slavery, though we know from his letters that he was surprised by this, and had no intention of doing it.

Also, just because you can force someone to do something doesn't make it a good idea. And the fact that you HAVE to force people to go along with your ideas instead of convincing them that it's a good idea says a lot of negative things about either the quality of your idea or the quality of your persuasiveness.

A. That’s not true in that it is nowhere near the complete story but even then you are literally admitting they seceded because they were afraid they would be forced to abolish slavery. Which they then were by the 13th and 14th Amendments. In fact, the US Government had to keep troops stationed in the South after the end of the war to ensure they didn’t try to keep slavery, then when Federal Troops left in 1877, the South immediately implemented Jim Crow and Segregation until once again the Federal Government had to force them to stop via Civil Rights Acts and Judicial decisions like. Brown v Board of Education.

Which really makes your sentence paragraph ironic since having to force the south to not be racist didn’t say much negative about that prospect did it. It says more negative things about those who must be forced.

[valade16]

Ciaban, do you think slavery and segregation should be left to the States to decide?

[MRSpock]

Ranked choice frees candidates up from having to appeal to the most extreme elements of their base? Any time you start with "As Yang points out", I highly recommend reconsidering the statement. Because odds are it will end up being wrong.

I don't think that's fair. He has good points he's just not very good at politics

[MRSpock]

Are you guys still salty that Andrew Yang left the Dems to start a third party?

I mean after his impressive run at New York Mayor... who wouldn't be sour.

Yang is really smart. But completely lacks the mannerisms and natural leadership needed to be a politician.