Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

thomcchester t1_j6ht70t wrote

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

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