I’m referring to / summarizing the Ratchet Effect.
Obviously movement for the sake of movement is not inherently good. But when our only allowed form of action is to vote and we see that voting has no or negative effect, it seems fruitless.
Because a slightly more realistic scenario is that the Dems vote to just throw some people off the cliff, and that’s agreed between the two parties.
Many countries claim to be democracies but if the available choices are only x, y or z. The people are not truly expressing their will, 30% could like x, 30% could like y, they could all hate z but z gets elected because 40% like z.
Dunno, the most recent example was Romania. In the first round, 40% voted for the far right cunt and all the others had 20% or less. In the second round where there were only 2 candidates left, Nicușor Dan won with 53% and the far right cunt got 46%. So… Z doesn’t always win.
Ranked choice means it’s easier for voters, but when it’s not available voters are capable of understanding the scenario you describe and voting accordingly.
Many times I haven’t voted for my preferred candidate and instead voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate I couldn’t stomach getting into power. Here in Canada we call it voting strategically and if you look at the polling data it definitely happened last election (and in many others in the past).
I’d like to have ranked choice, but it’s insane to say it’s not a democracy without it. But multiple rounds of voting (like France has) is better than ranked choice as it gives a clear choice to voters in the final round. But having multiple voting rounds is expensive and people might prefer to just vote once and have it done with, so ranked choice may be preferable for many people.
If you don’t have ranked choice voting you do not live in a democracy
So you’d let the bus drive off the cliff because non-vegan ice cream doesn’t fulfill your standards for ice cream?
No, I’d rather vote for vegan ice cream first, then vote against driving off a cliff.
Unfortunately our current system doesn’t allow for that, so obviously I vote against driving off a cliff, but it feels so stagnating.
You will be please to hear that we are currently driving off the cliff. No more stagnation, isn’t this great?
I’m referring to / summarizing the Ratchet Effect.
Obviously movement for the sake of movement is not inherently good. But when our only allowed form of action is to vote and we see that voting has no or negative effect, it seems fruitless.
Because a slightly more realistic scenario is that the Dems vote to just throw some people off the cliff, and that’s agreed between the two parties.
False analogy. The actual choice was had in 2024 was “drive of the cliff at 40 mph, or drive off a cliff at 38 mph.”
And you’d choose 40?
The problem is you only look one election ahead. You’re myopia is what made you drive off a cliff in the first place.
Til that only Australians and the Irish live in democracy. It’s used in other places, ofc, but on smaller scales.
Not to say I’m against it or anything, I’m all for it, but your statement is a bit exaggerated.
Many countries claim to be democracies but if the available choices are only x, y or z. The people are not truly expressing their will, 30% could like x, 30% could like y, they could all hate z but z gets elected because 40% like z.
That’s not democracy.
Dunno, the most recent example was Romania. In the first round, 40% voted for the far right cunt and all the others had 20% or less. In the second round where there were only 2 candidates left, Nicușor Dan won with 53% and the far right cunt got 46%. So… Z doesn’t always win.
Ranked choice means it’s easier for voters, but when it’s not available voters are capable of understanding the scenario you describe and voting accordingly.
Many times I haven’t voted for my preferred candidate and instead voted for the candidate most likely to defeat the candidate I couldn’t stomach getting into power. Here in Canada we call it voting strategically and if you look at the polling data it definitely happened last election (and in many others in the past).
I’d like to have ranked choice, but it’s insane to say it’s not a democracy without it. But multiple rounds of voting (like France has) is better than ranked choice as it gives a clear choice to voters in the final round. But having multiple voting rounds is expensive and people might prefer to just vote once and have it done with, so ranked choice may be preferable for many people.
…how’s that working out for australia?..legitmate question; last i heard they were nearly as fascist as we are stateside…
It’s not bad to have high standards, as long as they don’t get in the way of making things better
Wow. Really? Preferential voting should absolutely be more common.
Was just as surprised as you are. And yeah, it really should be. Shame
Yes, you do. Just a shit one. I hope I don’t have to explain how that it still a lot better than fascism.
It just puts you on the top of the slide towards fascism
Even if you have ranked choice voting, you probably still do not live in a democracy.