• DocMcStuffin@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lack of voting is one problem, but the overarching problem is how we select our representatives. We have a two party system with winner takes all elections which cements the two party system. You pretty much have to vote for one party or the other otherwise you’re essentially throwing away your vote. Personally, I think a system like ranked choice would be an improvement. At least then you could vote your conscience, and if your first choice doesn’t make it then your vote goes towards your 2nd, 3rd, etc. A system like that should produce a result that is closer to the ideological center of the voters.

      • chaogomu@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Ranked Choice is about the worst voting system designed. Possible only beaten by Plurality.

        This 3-hour long video goes pretty in depth on why it’s horrendously bad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-dzK3YIAf8

        The TLDR is that Ranked Choice is complex, meaning that it cannot be counted at the polling location. It must be counted at a single location, which is a single point of failure. This has led to real world failures in the 2011 Alameda County election and the 2021 NYC Mayoral Election.

        Note that these were direct failures that were only possible under Ranked Choice.

        Then there are cases like the 2009 Burlington Mayoral election that resulted in the repeal of their Ranked Choice election laws.

        Which is the main issue I have with the system. It’s so bad that it actually sets voting reform efforts back. It makes it that much harder to implement an actually good voting system.

        I am currently recommending STAR. It’s easy to understand because everyone knows how 5-star reviews work. It’s easy to count, because it’s just addition, and then a second round of addition. It can be counted at the polling locations, so there’s no single point of failure.

        • asparagus9001@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You have to vote to change all that too.

          I think if you crack open a history book you’ll find that the vast, VAST majority of changes did not come about by voting. Historically it hasn’t done much at all, actually.

    • tallwookie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      if one could vote without being signed up for a lot of ancillary bullshit, more people would vote. I personally am not registered to vote in the state I live in because I dont want anything to do with the jury system.

    • Coreidan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Voting doesn’t matter when your only choices are bevis and butt head. That is by design.