this post was submitted on 28 May 2024
67 points (91.4% liked)

politics

19036 readers
3253 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

No? Under the usual American implementation of RCV only the highest ranked candidate on a ballot gets the vote from that ballot. If no one has a majority of the remaining votes the person in last place is eliminated and their votes are redistributed according to the individual ballot preferences. So if the American presidency was ~50/50 red v blue as first choices (with a few people picking third party candidates) whichever third party candidate that took last place would get eliminated. In fact, mathematically speaking, if red and blue each got at least 1/3 of the first place cuts votes, one of them must be the eventual winner and the other must take second place.

There are other systems that could cause chaos with your suggested rankings, but they're generally not considered serious methods exactly because they are chaotic under reasonable circumstances.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

That makes much more sense. I grossly misunderstood the basis of RCV. Thanks!

Edit: You sent me down a rabbit hole. lol

https://fairvote.org/archives/alternatives-to-rcv/

[–] Liz@midwest.social 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, FairVote is.... Okay. In terms of objective vs political, they tend to be as political as they can get while still being objective. They used to actually say a few things that weren't exactly true, but opponents kept calling them out on it so they quit as far as I know. Wikipedia would be a better source, though be aware that proponents of any system will try to sneak in promotional language. But, at least on Wikipedia there's also people trying to keep things objective.

These are what I would consider the most relevant articles if you're looking to understand the realistic options in America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting (called RCV in the US)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems

I would say that you don't actually need to read any of these articles particularly closely. They can get very technical. You can just skim them for the parts you find interesting.

[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

I’m most interested in the mechanics and potential sway types of each model. I’ll check them out. Thanks again!

[–] Liz@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago