A new poll finds that only about 1 in 10 U.S. adults give high ratings to the way democracy is working in the United States or how well it represents the interests of most Americans.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Ribbit
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.
You have to vote to change all that too. You think people would?
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.