this post was submitted on 23 Nov 2024
313 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19120 readers
2967 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Red_October@lemmy.world 9 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Thank fuck something went right.

[–] NewWorldOverHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I watched it closely.

For ~a week, it RCV was down by 4K votes.

It was only in the last couple days that it started to pull ahead.

Final tally had it win by only 664 votes.

[–] LegoBrickOnFire@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

Why not simply ranked choice voting? why the open primary?

[–] Lyrl@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Partisan primaries tend to produce more extreme candidates. The hope is switching to a combined primary will result in moving candidates of more general appeal on to the general election.

[–] jballs@sh.itjust.works 30 points 12 hours ago (2 children)

Ranked choice voting was on the ballot here in Colorado this election cycle. It failed because both Republicans and Democrats opposed it. One of the most progressive people I know voted against it because her "progressive voting guide" from the Democratic Party said it was bad.

Weird how the two party system both don't want meaningful changes made.

[–] jagged_circle@feddit.nl 2 points 3 hours ago

Somehow it passed in Maine. Seems like a no brainer

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 7 points 10 hours ago

Win big or lose big. Ultrapartisonship and division will continue as long as only two viable choices exist.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

Guess who's getting disenfranchised?

[–] TachyonTele@lemm.ee 64 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

In Alaska’s new system, all candidates regardless of party run in one primary that is open to all voters. Then, the top four candidates advance to the general election, at which stage voters can rank them. The state then tabulates the ballots and rankings until one winner emerges.

I like it. More please.

[–] BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world 8 points 10 hours ago

Better than "top two" primaries for sure. You do need choices in ranked choice but some ballots I've seen, almost a dozen candidates in a race, is a good way to encourage apathy or pretend it's a straight ticket vote.

[–] Montagge@lemmy.zip 22 points 19 hours ago

I'm still not sure I can forgive Oregon voters for voting RCV down

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 18 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Ooo, this was a close one, right? I seem to recall that it was looking like RCV was going away in AK.

[–] NewWorldOverHere@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

664 votes.

For a good 1.5 weeks, it was lost. The last couple days it started to get saved. The day before they stopped counting votes, it was only ahead by 45 votes.

[–] silence7@slrpnk.net 15 points 20 hours ago

Yes. Came down to a few hundred votes