Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thomcchester t1_j6g4caq wrote

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

Nope, it is ranked choice

10

HeadPen5724 t1_j6g70lk wrote

Care to explain how IRV would eliminate the two party system better than eliminating party designations? I would argue when people don’t know what parties the candidate are from, parties become irrelevant and as an added bonus people will vote for the actual candidate. Parties lose power. IRV if anything will encourage a two party system in the greater Burlington area. It just switched republicans with progressives. No where else in the state will it make a difference. I’d love to hear your analysis though.

−6

thomcchester t1_j6ht70t wrote

Because eliminated official parties, will 1. Never happen, rank choice already is 2. Eliminated official parties will just regroup as an non-official and still run the same. Most importantly, rcv is much more bang for you buck.

5

HeadPen5724 t1_j6huxvi wrote

I’m not talking about eliminating parties all together, just eliminating them on the ballot. Which is doable.

I don’t agree IRV is more “bang for the buck”. The cost savings would be pretty minimal and IRL it saved Burlington tens of thousands of dollars and then cost them $17M. It’s also kind of silly to mass mail out ballots including 10% more than we even have voters, and then worry about the cost of holding a simple run off every few years. Besides the fact is a traditional runoff is transparent, straight forward, and ensures each person gets a chance to vote. IRV prevents people who don’t want to rank all choices from having equal voting representation compared to those that rank all choices. I thought we were supposed to trying to ensure everyone’s vote counts, IRV seems to do the opposite for those that don’t want to rank a candidate they don’t like, or don’t feel like they can make an informed choice about. Not to mention no one knows what that 3rd round match up is going to look like, it completely obscures the process.

−1

thomcchester t1_j6i303z wrote

Removing from ballad doesn’t do anything. Everyone knows who’s who.

3

HeadPen5724 t1_j6i5p4c wrote

If that were true, the Franklin county sheriffs race would’ve turned out differently snd David zuckerman wouldn’t have been reelected.

−1

thomcchester t1_j6i6idd wrote

Evidence? How the hell do you know that changed anything

3

HeadPen5724 t1_j6i940i wrote

Well, this thread alone showed that most people didn’t realize Zuckerman blatantly stole taxpayer funds. As for the sheriff, do you really think people would have voted for a guy that openly abused handcuffed people on camera if they actually knew about it. on top of that, a previous poster on this thread, who is an advocate, has stated that party affiliation is necessary, because people don’t know the candidates name. Do you have any evidence suggesting otherwise?

−1

HeadPen5724 t1_j6i9o2v wrote

Also, many posters on this thread, I’ve already stated that they vote a party ticket without learning the candidates. I could go back and find the post, but it doesn’t seem to be a very controversial position that some people vote for party without getting to know the candidate

−1

builtforcameron t1_j6htztv wrote

Getting rid of the party designation on ballots would be a bit of a mess, mainly cuz people don't always know the names of the candidates they support, party indicators are a helpful shortcut for that. Ive also thought about how it might phase republicans out (rcv would prevent the left from splitting the vote,) but all it does is ensure the candidate actually has majority support. Having it state wide would be interesting, I'm sure a lot more republicans would lose but that only means they never really had the majority support of their constituents. (Sorry, i work advocating for this stuff, hope this helps)

3

HeadPen5724 t1_j6hwfgc wrote

If you don’t know the name of the candidate you support and are instead using their self described party affiliation then you aren’t really casting an informed vote or participating in democracy in a positive way. I don’t think we should be encouraging or advocating for that.

It IS OK to not cast a vote in every box if you aren’t informed, in fact it’s preferred.

1

builtforcameron t1_j6hwssb wrote

The issue isnt whether we encourage people to make uninformed decisions when voting, its about understanding HOW people vote. If you take party affiliations off the ballot, a lot of people won't vote/won't know who to vote for. We want MORE people voting, which RCV encourages

3

HeadPen5724 t1_j6hxcvz wrote

I disagree. We want MORE INFORMED voters, not more uninformed voters. Uninformed voters are not a positive thing.

And IRV actually discounts the votes of people that don’t rank candidates they don’t know anything about, so it’s not benefitting that aspect either. At least with a traditional runoff it gives the voter some time to read up and learn about the two remaining candidates. And no one should ever be forced to vote for a particular candidate to have their vote count, which in some IRV scenarios is the case.

1