Human802 t1_j6erysy wrote on January 29, 2023 at 9:00 PM

Reply to comment by HeadPen5724 in Debating ranked-choice voting in Vermont by orange_wires

Kinda seems like saying, don’t improve anything because… it is what it is.

HeadPen5724 t1_j6eumb0 wrote on January 29, 2023 at 9:16 PM

It’s kind of like say if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. And it was tried before and then immediately soundly rejected 🤷🏼‍♂️. History is predictive

Human802 t1_j6evqaz wrote on January 29, 2023 at 9:23 PM

Well I am glad you are fine with the political situation in Vermont and America.

I think lots of reform is needed, this is a great step in the right direction.

HeadPen5724 t1_j6ew66x wrote on January 29, 2023 at 9:26 PM

A lot of reform as in educating voters on their civic duty and the danger of party/identity politics… id agree with that. Having an instant runoff v traditional runoff… I think that’s making things worse.

InformationHorder t1_j6fzryw wrote on January 30, 2023 at 1:39 AM

You have yet to describe how it actually makes anything worse. So far you're just grumping about how it's different as though it's bad without specifying.

HeadPen5724 t1_j6g1yms wrote on January 30, 2023 at 1:55 AM

Well I did allude to the fact that the last time we tried it, we ended up with the criminal incumbent mayor that had less than 30% of the first round vote, and no one really wanted as Mayor, yet somehow that’s who we got. Within months IRV was gone (with near unanimous support) and we were back to the tried and true traditional runoff which works as elections should. The match up of candidates is clear and upfront. Voting shouldn’t take a statistics degree to figure out every possible match up and how their vote may play out. It also violates the one vote one person principle in some instances where someone doesn’t rank the entire field.

There are lots of issues with it, and it’s not necessary. The system we have works.