Seeing as how some people here on Lemmy get upset at any mention of Ranked Choice Voting and respond that, in their opinion, it’s not perfect, and that we should therefore keep the voting system we have while we debate which alternative is perfect for several decades, allow me to preemptively respond.

========

RCV has the momentum and is infinitely superior to what we have now. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of fantastic.

I’d be happy if a community chose one of the other options. I don’t care. They’re all better than what we have and we should be celebrating every city, county and state that switches to any of them. That’s the purpose of this post.

Trying to demonize one option because you don’t think it’s perfect is just muddying the waters and subjecting us to decades of more of the shit sandwich we have now while we debate which alternative is flawless (hint: none of them are).

You’ll never get everyone to agree on which option is best. A vast majority of us can agree, though, that FPTP is garbage, and RCV is way way better.

It’s like you’re sitting there with nothing to eat but spoiled meat and it’s making you deathly sick, someone comes by and offers you a fresh juicy hamburger, and you respond, “No! I’ll accept nothing less than Filet Mignon!” Dude! You’re eating spoiled meat! Take the damn burger!

  • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    4 months ago

    I hope they implement ranked choice, so many of the current problems are from the two party system which is inevitable from first past the post.

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Unfortunately, RCV doesn’t end the two party system. It’s better than what we have, but only marginally. My hope is that when voters complain about it, the next step is not to repeal RCV but to evolve into Star voting.

      • JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        4 months ago

        RCV at least allows for options, and it’s pretty easy to understand. First past the post is literally the worst.

        • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          4 months ago

          Agreed. But it still encourages strategic voting and discourages third-party spoilers. It’s fptp with extra steps, and it gets worse the more candidates you have. If you don’t pick a frontrunner first or second, there’s a chance your vote isn’t counted at all.

  • TheDemonBuer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    4 months ago

    Trying to demonize one option because you don’t think it’s perfect is just muddying the waters and subjecting us to decades of more of the shit sandwich we have now while we debate which alternative is flawless (hint: none of them are).

    I really have been quite surprised over the past eight years or so by how opposed so many people are to any kind of change. I suppose it’s because the status quo is working well enough for them, and, I mean, good for them, but I hope they can recognize that not all of us are so lucky.

  • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    4 months ago

    some people here on Lemmy get upset at any mention of Ranked Choice Voting and respond that, in their opinion, it’s not perfect

    To those people, I say: do not let perfection be the enemy of progress.

    Also, it’s absurd, because it’s clearly better than what we have now. I suspect many of those people are trolls.

  • Omega@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I am extremely in favor of RCV as long as it applies to the national level.

    It CANNOT end at the state level. If my electoral vote has a chance of being wasted on a 3rd party candidate that has no chance, then the system is EVEN WORSE than our current system.

    As an example, if there was a chance that Trump could win because a few electoral votes went to Bernie, I would just put Biden as my first vote. But if the electoral vote would also shift to the next available candidate, then I would vote Bernie first.

    • poweruser@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Good news! RCV already solves that problem

      If Bernie didn’t get enough votes to win, the votes for him go to the voters’ second choice candidate (Biden – few voters would want Bernie-Trump). If those combined votes are enough for him to win, then Biden wins in that state. In RCV, Trump would only win if people actually preferred him over Biden

      • Omega@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        My entire comment was addressing that assumption. That assumption requires 2 levels of RCV, state vote and national (electoral) vote.

        If RCV was implemented only at the state level, and the state chose Bernie, and that was the end of it, then it would pull electoral votes away from Biden.

        If the electoral vote was also allowed to shift after the national electoral total was determined, then it’s all good.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Then you may be interested in the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

          We can’t directly institute RCV in the electoral college but we can control how the delegates to the electoral college are pledged. Unfortunately since the 12th amendment we are no longer able to have multiple votes in the EC. It either succeeds or throws the vote to Congress. Which solved the problem at the time but tied our hands now.

          • Omega@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            I’m actually well aware of that. It’s essentially a way to get rid of the electoral college for the popular vote without actually getting rid of the EC. And I’d love for it to be implemented in enough states to work.

            However, I think RCV can still work. It’s just that the state allocated votes would need to first look at the state level race for president, determine a ranking, then look at the national level race, and allocate to the highest rank that can possibly win.

            • Maggoty@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              4 months ago

              Oh I agree that it’s possible. We’re just in the weird position of having to work around the Constitution.

  • Resonosity@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    I think the analogy would be a plant-based burger from Beyond or Impossible, but I totally agree with the sentiment!