• Ashyr@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      50
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Ranked choice voting is the solution. So long as we use first past the post voting, voting for a third party candidate is a waste.

      This can be changed by being active and supporting progressive candidates on the state and local levels.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is the answer. Don’t vote for third party candidates, by that point it’s too late.

        Vote for candidates in the primaries that are adamant about voting reform/ranked choice voting. Normalize it at state and local levels. Then, it will become a viable option at the national level.

        This can happen quickly with the right advocacy and the right candidates, but good candidates are indeed hard to come by.

        • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          and the right candidates, but good candidates are indeed hard to come by.

          Ya, I sometimes encourage running for office along with my encouragement to vote. It seems mostly only shitty people run for office, this needs to change.

          • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            Kinda goes with being rich. Which is pretty much a requirement to run for small offices in most of the country (pay is shit) and definitely requires to run in major races (advertising and organizing is expensive). So only rich dudes run, and you generally have to be some type of agile to get rich in the first place (there are exceptions, but not many).

            • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              I think this is mostly true but not a fact. If you’re running for senate in Kentucky then yes. But if you run for local or state lower office and do things a bit differently it’s possible.

              Think https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Jones_(Tennessee_politician)

              I don’t believe he was or is rich and is making a difference.

              Also, the reason for running for office isn’t necessarily to win. Look at RFK Jr. running for president, there is 0% chance of him winning, he has other goals. He’s trying to take votes away from candidates to swing the election.

              Another non-winning goal could be to move or expand the “Overton Window”, i.e. the politically acceptable range of thought. You just need to come out swinging and spitting facts about some topic.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Speaking of state and local, that is where change is going to happen with ranked choice voting. State and local governments can move much faster than the federal government to institute ranked choice voting. Because states have a high degree of autonomy on holding their own elections, they can prove that ranked choice is a viable option for local, state, and maybe even federal offices.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        No, ranked choice has serious issues and won’t likely fix the issue. I’d prefer to avoid citing specific alternatives because they all come with their own biases and trade-offs. One example of surprising results is the Burlington, VT mayoral election, which is contentious because the winner was neither the plurality or majority winner.

        That said, I think it’s a case of “don’t let perfect be the enemy of better.” If RCV is on the ballot, I’ll vote for it. But I’d very much prefer one of the other many alternatives because I think it doesn’t resolve the spoiler effect satisfactorily and can have very surprising results.

        I highly recommend looking into the various alternatives and reading up on condorcet winners before jumping on the RCV bandwagon.

        Regardless I think an even better solution is to focus on fixing gerrymandering. I think we should consider proportional representation in the House, which should get more third parties elected and give us a real shot at breaking the two party system there. I think we’ll always have one of the two major parties in the White House just based on voter demographics, but changing at least on house of Congress should force the President to actually work across party lines instead of waiting until their party gets a majority. Having Democrats and Republicans need to cater to the greens, libertarians, etc would be awesome.

            • pl_woah@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Imagine picking the top 3 candidates instead of only one.

              Combine multiple districts into one, for example.

              Immediately makes things more purple, and closer in proportion to the region

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Wouldn’t you just get more candidates from the same party? It might complicate gerrymandering, but I think it would still happen.

                I’d much rather have proportional representation, so you’d vote in whatever primary you want to select candidates, then vote for your preferred party, and then seats are assigned based on percentage of votes won. That should work well for the House at least.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        10 months ago

        Which acceptable “progressive” candidates are actively advocating for your holy grail of ranked-choice voting, and are you sure that voting for them isn’t “a waste?” that will make trump win?

    • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      I said it once say again IF WE ALL VOTED THRID PARTY THEN THEY WOULD WIN! Unfortunately we can’t get all the poor and working class on the same page to accomplish that. So we need rank choice voting it’s the only way. Also remove the electoral college while we are at it.

      • Djtecha@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        You could start with congress members. Or your city council. Prove a 3rd party can win small battles first.

        • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          10 months ago

          Where we exactly we need to start and Bernie Sanders said that exact thing. If we want to fix society we must take it from the bottom up. Take over towns and cities until we are national.

    • mojo_raisin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      “voting third party is throwing your vote away”? Where did we learn this?

      It comes from an understanding of reality in a first past the post voting system. If you want a third option, focus on ranked choice voting and minimizing corporate control of media rather than promoting a losing strategy.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      10 months ago

      How many of us know by heart the old adage “voting third party is throwing your vote away”? Where did we learn this?

      Through a basic understanding of the First Past the Post election mechanism. Voting third party does not help move the establishment parties left, it only hurts the left. The best thing for the left to do is turn up every single election (especially local elections) to vote D down the whole ticket en masse, until the Republican party is defunct. Additionally, voting for progressives in the primary.

      The only way out of “voting third party is throwing your vote away” is to move away from FPTP. That means showing up and holding your nose until we elect enough candidates who support Ranked Choice.

      • c0c0c0@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        This is truth. The old adage about throwing your vote away isn’t exaggeration, or even opinion. In a First Past the Post election, is just math. And math doesn’t care about anyone’s sense of moral righteousness.

      • pingveno@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        until the Republican party is defunct

        Everything is true except this. It’s good to have at least two healthy parties competing for voters. So often, single party states allow the dominate party to get lazy because it no longer has to work hard to get votes.

        At least ideally, the end result would be an electorate that is further to the left and Republican party that is not as crazy conservative. Overton window shifting and all that.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          You misunderstand me. Once the Republican party is defunct, the Democratic party can fill in as the center-right neo-liberal party while a progressive party can emerge to the left. Two healthy parties.

          • pingveno@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I think your misreading the US electorate as being much further to the left than it actually is. What we have now is a fairly delicate dance between the two major parties, attempting to suck up various constituencies. It’s resulted in an almost perfect equilibrium nationally. What you’re suggesting leaves an enormous group of ex-Republican voters without a political home. In that scenario, the Democrats would move right to appeal to ex-Republicans for political advantage and the Progressive Party would move to the center to appeal to center-left voters. You would land more or less where we are now in the end.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Eh, the further left portion of the electorate has much lower turnout that the further right, largely due to apathy toward the centrism of Democrats. I think you’re right that a Democrat/Progressive landscape would result in both moving right, but I think the Progressive would be firmly to the left of the modern Democrats, and the Democrat would be firmly to the left of the modern Republican.

            • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Actually what we currently have is unbridled capitalism specifically the military industrial complex, with two vaguely different coats of paint. Culture warrior shit is just used as a rhetorical differentiator, “nothing fundamentally changes” under either party. I don’t really want to ote for the party the has roe v wade abolished under it’s watch, and then just uses it as a fund raising talking point.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          10 months ago

          What attitude? You asked where we learned the adage that “voting third party is throwing your vote away”, I stated that it was evident in the basic math of the First Past the Post mechanism. It’s not a notion to be challenged, it’s a mathematical inevitability. The FPTP system is what obstructs free democracy. The futility of third parties is only a symptom of FPTP elections. Attacking the notion of third party futility is ignoring the symptom. The only cure is changing from FPTP to a different electoral model.

              • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                10 months ago

                So then there shouldn’t be any issue with me voting for socialists, since they are who represent me and my views best. Sounds good.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  I’m the primaries? Of course! In the general? Of course not, did you completely ignore everything that’s been said? Splitting the vote on the left only hurts us. The only people who advocate leftists voting third party are people who don’t understand FPTP, and people who want the left to lose.

                  • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    10 months ago

                    My ballot must be different then yours, I don’t see any leftist parties who represent “us” in the general election at the federal level.

            • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              If you think acknowledging basic math is offensive I don’t know how to communicate the principle here. Your basic premise is either uninformed, or a deliberate bad faith attempt to divide the left.

              Pretending that the principles of FPTP are different doesn’t make them so. As I said before, the cure is ranked choice. The mechanism of getting there is consistent turnout in primaries and all elections, especially local. That’s the only way to push the Democratic party toward ranked choice, which is the only reasonable way to achieve ranked choice, which is the only way to make third parties viable.

              Voting third party in FPTP only splits the vote and hurts the left. Your point about he media narrative, while not false, is not particularly relevant. The main issue is FPTP.

                • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  Have a good one

                  Thank you, I will try my hardest.

                  Presently, the biggest obstacle to that goal is the combination of ignorance and propaganda affecting the upcoming election cycle, which has been empowering the right and fragmenting the left. The goodness of the one I am going to have is largely proportional to leftist turnout, and largely inversely proportional to the percentage of leftists confused by that ignorance and propaganda.

      • PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        But why would any current candidate that benefits from first past the post prefer ranked choice voting and why is it that magically a candidate that supports ranked choice voting will inevitably be preferred choice?

        It really sounds like you are using RCV as a Shangri-La, but really just enforcing the status-quo.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          This has happened already. Even though the landscape is dominated by the power hungry, there are in fact principled people who run to actually make a positive difference, from time to time. And yes, I would say that generally candidates who support ranked choice also agree with me on other issues.