this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
940 points (98.0% liked)
You Should Know
38246 readers
1191 users here now
YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.
All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.
Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:
**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content.
**
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.
If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.
Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.
Partnered Communities:
You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.
Community Moderation
For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.
Credits
Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Can anyone explain to me why a BAN was even needed? If a State is FPTP that’s the way it is; why do they need to say a different way is not allowed? Especially because of that different way were to actually be viable enough to become law it would just be a one two step - repeal the old, then institute the new.
It's an attempt to proactively prevent any progressive progress.
Changing the voting system involves changing the law, doesn't it? Can't you just revert the ban in that very same bill?
Edit: Ah, I just saw in another comment that this affects lower levels of government that wouldn't have the power to make this change.
They don't want sub-divisions of the State (cities/towns) to implement RCV in their local elections. Probably to avoid the idea to spread. It like Democracy/Republicanism. When the French got rid of their monarchy, all the monarchs of nearby countries were afraid the sentinment would spread, same thing here.
Edit: spelling
That makes a lot of (unfortunate) sense, other than Kelly approving it (I’m in Kansas). I’ll need to dig in more and make sure it wasn’t just a veto overridden by the Republican supermajorities, or else wasn’t a poison pill attached to must have legislation.
https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1781139
Blue State Republicans are usually more "liberal" than Red State Democrats. State politics and Federal politics are different.
The Ohio HoR just overwhelming voted to remove all state funding from any city that implements ranked choice voting. It threatens the parties in power, so they are both eager to stomp it out
The link gives some arguments. It's mostly stupid right wing claptrap.
It goes on to giving statements for those reasons from such respectable organizations as The Heritage Foundation, so do what you want with that.
I'm an opponent of RCV for none of those reasons.
No, I hate it because it's deeply flawed and provides zero of the benefits that proponents claim it does.
Rather than help third parties, it actually hurts them.
The inventor of the system, created it as an example of a bad voting system. This was in 1790.
There's far more ballot spoilage when compared to any other system.
It doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect, just kicks it down the ballot a bit,
It's confusing to count, which has led to the wrong candidate being sworn in.
It requires centralized counting, which is a single point of failure or attack.
And finally there are better, simpler systems that actually do the things that RCV proponents claim RCV
rcv would threaten gop stranglehold on a state, also would negate certain things like voter suppression toa certain extent.
Alaska passed it. The election results didn't go as expected. Everyone in one party (guess) freaked out and started passing bans nationwide.
They tried to repeal RCV in Alaska too, but it failed by a slim count ~~even after 100:1 repeal money advantage~~. They'll probably try again: https://alaskapublic.org/elections/2024-11-20/alaskas-ranked-choice-repeal-measure-fails-by-664-votes
Edit: misread the fundraising number.
Nope, the "No" campaign (keeping ranked choice voting) outspent the campaign to repeal ranked choice voting by 100:1, largely with out of state money.
My bad. Corrected.
Thanks!
I just read about it. Apparantly, most voters preferred the republican Begich over other 2 candidates and Begich is the Condorcet winner, so I could see why they'd be upset at the result.
Fun fact, Condorcet is the inventor of RCV, and threw it out because it almost never produces the Condorcet winner.
Because they don’t believe in choice, freedom, or even democracy. They merely support the ideal and facilitate the illusion.
Anything that empowers voters to either dilute the two-party hegemony (where both parties are accountable to the same pool of donors) or elect party members that haven’t been carefully vetted by insiders is a threat to entrenched power structures. Adding roadblocks now ensures that transitions to better systems are made that much more challenging via peaceful and lawful means.
To be fair I’m really starting to get tired of “peaceful and lawful means”, solely because it’s being used to trample our rights.