politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
It would fix a hell of a lot, including things like this. But there’s no conceivable path to getting ranked choice voting.
Eh, no single winner system will change much, and I think Approval Voting does a better job of getting results all the other advanced voting methods agree with while being simpler than RCV and providing more data about losing candidates. Anyway, we'll have to switch to some kind of proportional method like Sequential Proportional Approval Voting if we want the legislature to have the political diversity of the people. Such a legislature would naturally nominate less extreme judges.
Ranked choice voting alters the value and costs of voting for third party candidates. That enables third parties to run without taking votes from the nearest of the two dominant parties.
Sorta. It depends on how the second choices are distributed. It also depends on the relative popularity between the three candidates. Spoilers can and do happen under RCV, it's just they're confusing. Often times when you explain that a particular race had a spoiler—a losing candidate that changes the winner by running, all else being equal—people will argue that it wasn't a spoiler for reasons that are either tautological or outside the definition of a spoiler.
Anyway, RCV and approval often agree on the results, even including who should take 2nd, 3rd, and so on, but approval is simpler and won't hides second preferences.
Practically anything is better than "choose one," but we're still going to have a two party system unless we allow for more than one winner in any given election.