[Deleted]

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    232 months ago

    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.

    • Drusas
      link
      fedilink
      362 months ago

      It’s an attempt to proactively prevent any progressive progress.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        18
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]OP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      18
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12 months ago

      rcv would threaten gop stranglehold on a state, also would negate certain things like voter suppression toa certain extent.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        6
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        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.

        Former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman, an advocate for repeal, said he hopes the Legislature will pass a law getting rid of the voting system, but if that doesn’t happen, another repeal initiative is possible.

        “I would say half of Alaskan voters were influenced, at least in part, and maybe in large part, by big money from outside the state,” he said by phone. “And ours was a grassroots, homebody campaign.”

        The No on 2 campaign attracted nearly $14 millionin contributions, largely from outside the state, and outspent the Yes on 2 campaign by a 100-to-one margin.

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        32 months ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          22 months ago

          Fun fact, Condorcet is the inventor of RCV, and threw it out because it almost never produces the Condorcet winner.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      132 months ago

      The link gives some arguments. It’s mostly stupid right wing claptrap.

      Opponents of ranked-choice voting argue that it benefits voters with more time and information, leads to decreased voter confidence in elections, and disconnects voting from important issues and debates. Opponents of ranked-choice voting also argue that RCV winners do not necessarily represent the will of the voters.

      It goes on to giving statements for those reasons from such respectable organizations as The Heritage Foundation, so do what you want with that.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        22 months ago

        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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      152 months ago

      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

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        22 months ago

        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.