You must log in or register to comment.

mkt853 t1_j66f5j5 wrote

Yes let's go with the RCV. If Alaska can do it, why can't we?


x6tance t1_j66hqyr wrote

I hope Connecticut does this. I'm sick of FPTP voting. It's not as democratic as it should be


mjg13X OP t1_j65zvw6 wrote

Curious to hear your thoughts about this! I think RCV seems like a great innovation.


silasmoeckel t1_j66irzj wrote

Need to open up the primary's and get RCV into them. The dem primary is the election in many ways. That's a state constitutional amendment to get done I think.


smkmn13 t1_j68cggk wrote

If you want to read more specifics, I found this helpful. It's from an advocacy organization, so it's one sided, but it addresses the standard complaints against RCV:


Emblazin t1_j68l87k wrote

The issue with RCV is solved with an even simpler and easier to use system, S.T.A.R. voting. Which stands for Score Then Automatic Runoff. It is approval voting on a 0-9 scale, 0 meaning no preference 1 least and 9 the most. You score your candidate but because the top two go into a run off if you do not differentiate your preferences your vote essentially cancels out. Unfortunately it's unlikely to see anyone talking about it because RCV is the popular solution as it was the first.


smkmn13 t1_j68lnwt wrote

I don't see how a system where you have to grade a candidate (as opposed to rank them) is "simpler," but I don't know much about STAR so I'll have to read up on it - I'm all for changing what we have now to any more well-thought-out alternative!


Emblazin t1_j68tyo6 wrote

The website I recommend is and it explains it quite simply. I think it's easier to understand and most importantly easier to score as RCV can have some edge cases that can be confusing and rile up the stolen election narratives.


RunnyDischarge t1_j68dq57 wrote

You’re gonna get downvoted to oblivion. RCV is Reddit’s current hardon and all who question it get blown away.


smkmn13 t1_j68dvuf wrote

I think you misread, or I wasn't clear - I'm part of the "hardon" myself, apparently, and the linked post is one sided in favor of RCV and addresses (rebukes) the complaints


RunnyDischarge t1_j68e9iz wrote

I meant even mentioning that complaints even exist is enough to get you downvoted. It’s gonna revitalize democracy dammit just like it did in NYC!


the_lamou t1_j67eg4d wrote

You think you want it, until Ranked Choice gets you Mayor Adams and you lose all faith in humanity.


Darrone t1_j68e9y4 wrote

"a more accurate system is better unless I don't like the outcome."


the_lamou t1_j6a0i5d wrote

Sorry, you're going to have to elaborate: accurate at determining what, exactly? "Accurate" without context is a meaningless descriptor. I will agree that it's the most accurate way to identify the one person out of a group that is the least disliked save least offensive to the most people. Personally, I think regressing to mediocrity isn't great for any political system.


Darrone t1_j6an08n wrote

A better representation of who the populace actually wants to vote for without fear of wasting their vote on someone who can't win.


the_lamou t1_j6asj07 wrote

That's not what Ranked Choice Voting gets you, though. What if gets you is the same "least of all evils" candidate, except with extra steps and less chance of getting someone you really like. It's a system that mostly keeps you from getting anyone truly terrible at the expense of also preventing you from getting anyone truly great.


Darrone t1_j6b2gkl wrote

How would ranked choice would ever prevent someone from winning if they would have received a majority of votes in a two party race? The only way they'd lose in ranked choice is if their opponent received more votes on the last cut than they did, and if so, would have beaten them anyway head to head. Sure, Ds and Rs are still winning because they are part of a massive political machine that will takes decades to dismantle if it even can be. But winning larger vote shares increases the power of third party candidates and parties even if they don't win an election. For example, many states require a % for a party to be listed on ballots, and that is much easier to achieve with ranked choice than with single vote.


Justinontheinternet t1_j67qd2w wrote

Guys, there’s only one party in CT. Wtf is everyone talking about ranked choice when there is no choice in this state. It’s been blue for over 20 years 🤣


Darrone t1_j68dzs9 wrote

That's, uh, the point? Instead of a single candidate, with all other votes being "thrown away" you can rank your choice to empower 3rd parties and in primaries, candidates less mainstream. It tackles the problem of "vote for X? You're throwing your vote away!".


smkmn13 t1_j68bsyj wrote

I think the point is RCV would allow for legitimate 3rd (and 4th and 5th) choices that would benefit everyone. There are plenty of Democratic voters, for example, that would be interested in voting for a different, perhaps even more liberal candidate if it didn't mean implicitly supporting the nominated Republican.


hillarysabortedson t1_j68g6r6 wrote

You’re finally seeing the true colors with some of the commentary here. It’s a hope that by implementing RCV, the state can be pushed even further to the left.


CoarsePage t1_j6936qb wrote

Yeah I'd like to vote for a politician marginally to the left of Nixon.


hillarysabortedson t1_j6abz4r wrote


  • raised the minimum wage by 40% in 1974
  • proposed the Family Assistance Program that would have guaranteed a minimum annual wage for families
  • proposed expanding Medicare / Medicaid so that everyone would be covered by a government program
  • signed the Clean Air Act and created the EPA and OSHA
  • expanded the food stamps program

Maybe do some research.


CoarsePage t1_j6bk4rg wrote

Yes, the majority of democrats are less progressive then Nixon, that's my point.


Ice1789 t1_j6604vx wrote

Can we please just for a week have a sub where it is just fun things to do around the state with like minded people


DayZnotJayZ t1_j66p7c1 wrote

Not sure why you were voted down but I personally appreciate your point of view.