DC Democrats argue ranked choice voting is confusing to voters in predominantly Black areas as they seek to block potential vote on implementing the system
DC Democrats argue ranked choice voting is confusing to voters in predominantly Black areas as they seek to block potential vote on implementing the system
they always have, if we're honest. Corpo Dems think the working class needs shepherding. they like to pretend they're benevolent while their benefactors fuck us slowly. They're benevolence is only incomparison to the party of "Saying the Quiet Part out Loud".
No, this isn't a both-sides argument. This is a "just because one side is objectively worse doesn't mean the Corpo Dems don't also really suck." argument.
Liberals have always and will always be the natural enemy of the Left and the working class. That's been true for almost 400 years and it isn't changing now.
They didn’t even mention anyone not being able to vote because of race. They mentioned in court that certain areas that happen to have older voters, poorer voters, and black voters could be potentially undermined by ranked choice. And it’s proven to be true. As shown in previous elections time and time again. It is called undervoting.
See:
None of these commenters read the fucking article. You read the headlines and then jump straight to the hot takes, to spew about unrelated agendas.
The Democratic Party officials in DC are like 90% black.
Here are literally the actual people who made the argument in court. You. can see their pictures:
https://www.leadersofcolor.net/team/victor-horton
Just to be clear: I’m for ranked choice. Their concern is not racist. And saying it is in this case means you didn’t read the article.
Here’s Charles Wilson - The leader of the DC democrats, who personally argued in court, as mentioned in the article you all didn’t read:
All I had to do was read the article to not come to the same conclusion as half the people in this thread. Community fail. This thread proves some people can’t be bothered to read. And that’s what the argument made in court was about - confusion.
Doubt they care. They do anything to uphold a two party system where they can raise campaign contributions from the same corporate interests that also contribute to radical regressives, while at the same time being able to hold some offices solely by being the marginally less shitty party (at least publicly). Ranked choice makes a third party a viable option and the Democrats as a political party with no real stances doesn't make sense in the world where they aren't the sole alternative.
That's the argument they're trying for in court, which is not the same as what they think. The reality is much more mundane. Probably more frustrating too.
Ranked choice voting makes it easier for incumbents to lose. It makes it harder (but still... not actually difficult) for retiring office holder to coronate their hand-picked successor. That's all this comes down to. Especially in a place like DC that votes for a single party by such wide margins. Places that lopsided, in a FPTP primary system, once elected a politician is all but incapable of losing. Even to horrible, horrible scandal.
Ranked choice threatens that. If DC switched to it overnight, >90% of the incumbents would win reelection trivially. In fact I'd be surprised if any of them that ran again lost. But they don't like that it goes from just short of a guarantee, to still really highly certain.
Sorry buddy. We can’t trust you with that sort of responsibility. /s
No, they think we're too complacent to fight them, and too stupid to know they are lying.
This is about protecting establishment career politicians, not about what voters want and not about what they are capable of understanding.
Estblishment corporate dems 🤝 All elected republicans:
Disenfranchising the American people in the name of job security.
Surely centrist neolibs and the far right would never collaborate to prevent leftist candidates from being able to have a chance at getting elected... That never has happened before /s
Yep, nailed it.
Damnit democrats all I want from you is voting reform and then we can move onto better parties.
Although I guess this is them realizing that and not wanting to let go.
That’s a bingo. They will never give up power willingly.
Demsocs in the corner: Nooo they'll give up power when the will of the people is clear! They promised they love democracy!
Neoliberals only want business-as-usual. The Reich want to enslave everyone not mega-rich. Neither party want positive change.
I miss r/neoliberal
apparently poor people are to stupid to know they are being talked about that way.
"Poor kids are just as bright as white kids."
Why would only Black Neighborhoods be confused by this? Elaborate.... No go ahead, be my guest, you brought it up, now tell me.
Goddamnit democrats. This is some republican shit.
I'll be the last person to say that both sides same bullshit, but Democrats are still politicians. They seek positions of influence and power, and they need public support to do it. There's a certain type of person who thrives in that environment, and they are absolutely the last type of person you want in leadership roles.
Anyone who is currently in power will oppose ranked choice voting because it breaks up the monolithic power structure that so many powerful people use as leverage. It reduces the effectiveness of wedge issues, which means leaders will actually have to present nuanced opinions on many topics. It decreases extremism, which means their opponents will likely be closer ideologically to themselves, all of which is better for the voters and worse for the politicians.
Democrats in power love that the GOP has become unhinged. It makes the rational choice incredibly easy. Ranked choice will break up both parties into smaller categories, killing the demon they would rather be fighting.
Democrats in power love that the GOP has become unhinged
I feel like it's important to point out right now that this was literally Hillary's strategy in 2016. Google "HRC Pied Piper", we have the email where she told the DNC to help boost the campaigns of the crazier republicans like Trump. The theory was that he would be too crazy for the general election. The fact was she vastly underestimated the triumvirate powers of voter apathy, right wing populist rhetoric and the average person's disdain for her personally and was halfway through her victory lap in Texas when she realized that she actually lost.
So yeah, if you were one of the people harmed by the hateful rhetoric and incompetent policymaking of the Trump administration he's absolutely at fault, but it's important to remember that the DNC was willing to gamble with your safety and stability in order to maintain power. They're aristocrats first, then they choose what flavor of aristocrat to be.
Which is exactly where the "both sides" arguments come from. Sure, the Democrats aren't openly pushing the country towards fascism, but they also aren't interested in real change that would fix some of the fundamental problems, like with the electoral system. They'd rather be the one rational choice in a system that enables the Republicans and all of the risks that go along with that than support a system that would have a better chance at making real progress.
Democrats in power love that the GOP has become unhinged. It makes the rational choice incredibly easy.
This dynamic frightens me so much.
They may not be the same but they're both racist as fuck. Republicans see POCs as animals and Democrats see them as children.
I could eat
They talk about buying dinner, then stiff us with the check afterwards
Like they're different? At least Republicans who are racist are honest about their racism. Democrats who are racist just like to pretend they're racist for the good of the minorities they're racist against. "Poor black people, they won't understand how to list their 3 favorite candidates in order, we can't possibly make this change.
Do people honestly think democrats WANT any changes to happen? They're elites in power. They're going to hold onto that power as long as they can.
You almost got it....
Got what? Both sides are the same? Let me check the list:
| Democrat | Republican |
|---|---|
| Don't want ranked voting | Don't want ranked voting |
| Want everybody to have a puppy dog | Want to kill every puppy dog |
Nah, still not the same. It just sucks you are stuck with two parties that don't completely oppose each other on all policy points.
using racist dog whistles to protect shit policies for the entrenched benefactors of said shit policies.
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
The system will fight to prevent systemic changes that weaken the system.
Is it just me or is this statement blatantly racist? Black people are too stupid and so we must limit the way they vote? Where did I hear that before? The democratic party knows they'll lose power if they implemented, but to stoop that low...
From the article:
The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as "undervoting."
"Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office," said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting "would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate."
They aren't saying black people can't figure it out, they're reporting that voters in predominantly black areas haven't. It's not a statement of belief, it's a statement of fact. Now, the solution should be to provide resources to educate them on how the new system works, not to abandon it. That would take effort though, and wouldn't work to maintain the status quo.
It's the "noble savage"/"white savior" trope again. People really think they're fighting racism by implying minorities can't make their own decision.
In not criticizing allies, to be clear. I'm criticizing people who aren't comfortable having personal relationships with minorities, and abuse progressivism to make themselves feel like they aren't part of the problem.
The dude who said it is himself black.
Either he's a self-hating black person, thinks it's too complex for anyone, or more likely he's being disingenuous because he thinks this is bad for the party.
This is the same, tired argument Sarah Palin and other Republicans made here in Alaska when it didn't go their way. How stupid do you think voters are? If they're that easily confused, maybe do a better job at educating them, in say, a classroom when they're young. Maybe bring back Civics classes.
Then they couldn’t push blue-no-matter-who. The threat of the republic party is their primary means of staying elected. They can’t give us more options. It’s be against their interests.
How stupid do you think voters are?
Extremely.
To be fair for about half the population they're kinda right.
I mean they are but they aren't. They are doing this because it only benefits them to deny ranked choice voting. There is literally no negative to it beyond it being only slightly better than FPTP, which we have been stuck with for centuries.
Note: Splitting the vote and the spoiler effect are stupid problems of FPTP and we shouldn't have to deal with them.
Most of the arguments Republicans made after that election were bad.
But that election was genuinely an example of a number of the unfortunate pathological edgecases in ranked choice.
In particular, it failed a number of the mathematical fairness criteria that people have come up with over the years to compare voting systems. Much of it stems from the failure to elect the Condorcet winner, Begich. Basically, Begich could have beaten either Peltola or Palin in a head-to-head election, but he had fewer first place votes than either so he was eliminated first and Peltola beat Palin in the last round.
So first, it failed 'favorite betrayal' - Palin voters would have been better off voting for Begich. It failed participation: if a bunch of Palin voters stayed home, Begich would have won and they'd be better off. It failed monotonicity: Palin voters could have defeated Peltola by voting for her. Obviously, it failed independence of irrelevant alternatives; Palin acted as a spoiler candidate to Begich.
All of which isn't an argument for regular party primaries + plurality, which is theoretically much worse. But it's the example advocates of alternative systems like approval or STAR will reach for for a while, just like Burlington used to be.
That doesn't sound like a failure to me, unless you wanted a Republican representative. And saying "if more people had voted for Palin she would have won" is pretty laughable. All Republicans had to do was vote Palin 1st, Begich 2nd (or vice versa) and they would have then had their pick in the next round, but Palin was such an awful candidate, Begich's supporters would rather see Peltola over her (as they should), and Palin's supporters seemingly didn't vote for Begich either. No matter how you slice it, the Republicans screwed themselves, and I am here for it.
Oh no, poor people are too dumb to know that the only right choice is the corporate democrat! They might want people who represent their interest and not just some guy who will uphold the status quo!
The more I think about it this is a brilliant strategy for democrats to establish ranked choice nationally. Nothing gets a republican harder then something the democrats don't want. And if I've learned anything if conservatives want something it is all but inevitable.
Unfortunately the Republicans agree with them on this point
Reverse psychology….bold
"Someone could get the most votes, and not win!" McCarthy said at the time.. "So if you come in 3rd, you win. What? 'I got a lot of second votes, I got a lot of 3rd vote — what does that mean?'"
I don't think it's the "Black areas" that are getting confused about how it works. Or perhaps he's just pretending to not understand? 🤔🤔
His heart is black
If the dems actually cared about the voters, their primaries wouldnt be rigged.
lmao ok sure
We wanted Bernie. We got a Clinton.
The polling place where I was during Bernie's first primary was turning away people with provisional ballots, telling them they weren't allowed to vote with those in a primary. They were allowed, it was just that the vast majority of provisional ballot holders were Bernie voters who were voting for the first time because there was finally someone they felt excited to vote for.
I raised a fuss and Karened my way to getting the director on the phone and demanded that she tell the supervisors that they needed to allow the voters to vote. I said that this was a huge problem and had obviously been happening all day. She said "Were you there all day to see it? No? Then there is nothing you can do about it!"
Also there is the part where the DNC's defense in court (when they were sued for taking donations from Bernie supporters who believed they were unbiased) was "We were so obviously biased that anyone who didn't notice was not paying attention, we gave no illusion of fairness. Also, the rule that says we have to be unbiased is our own rule, not a law and we can break our own rules if we want to!" And they won.
Party primaries are under no legal obligation to be fair and thr DNC are pretty open about changing policies to rig the outcomes of their primaries.
Don't patronize your own voters. Not a good idea.
How else are establishment Democrats gonna stay in power? They're afraid they're going to lose to progressive candidates. Voters are going to vote more confidently in the candidates they believe in rather than the ones they believe will win. In rank voting there's less fear that the worst candidate will win since it's not a 1 or the other anymore.
That's a bit backwards.
Instant runoff voting makes it so ranking a second choice can't hurt your first choice. But voting honestly for your first choice instead of e.g. staying home could cause your second choice to lose and your last choice to win.
That happened in the recent Alaskan election. If a bunch of Palin voters stayed home, they'd have gotten Begich. Instead, Palin voters single-handedly elected Democrat by voting honestly.
Nobody ever lost an election underestimating the intelligence of the average voter.
That said, "because we might lose" is not a good reason to not make the system better.
That said, “because we might lose” is not a good reason to not make the system better.
Establishment Democrats aren't refusing to make the system better because Democrats in general might lose; they're refusing because each of them individually is worried he might lose to a more progressive or leftist challenger. It's blatant power-hungry selfishness.
Establishment Dems cutting their face to spite their nose. Everyone knows ranked choice means more Dem support than Repub, but also opens up 3rd party influence.
This shit is why the rest of the developed world says the US has two right wing parties.
Or what, you’ll vote 3rd party? Good luck with that. /s
Maybe they know their Base rather well.
This is the same Base that election after election after election needs to be reminded to keep their ID's up to date as if that was some kind of new rule all of a sudden.
And they need to be reminded all the time that Republicans will try to trick them by making fake calls about polling places being closed or moved.
Ranked choice voting is like the little brother of March Madness brackets, and plenty of people take part in that every year.
This is entirely about wanting to force strategic voting so as to not lose power for the mainstream within their own party.
When you can win under an unrepresentative voting system even good people will feel compelled to hood onto that.
What a terrible excuse too, if you think someone is ignorant then enlighten them. Teach voting systems to the public.
An ideology based on an educated voter is doomed to failure when it decides it does not want educated voters.
Remember: Democrats are just as dependent on FPTP for power as republicans
Id say even more so. Few if any one votes for Republicans for the sole reason of them not being democrats. A much larger portion of the democrats voter base is people who simply dislike republicans more.
Really I am not even talking about voters when I am talking about power, I am talking about funding.
The duopoly grants the 2 parties extra funding that third parties can't access. This prevents real third party candidates from running unless they are already billionaire-connected. It saves the billionaires the trouble of trying to buy many parties. They can just buy the 2. So Dems and Republicans have safe sources of funding / power that can't be challenged by more competent representatives.
I think dems and republicans both correctly see their representatives as 'bought' to some extent and want real alternatives.
What is confusing about, " pick your favorite, pick your second favorite"? You think if you asked them the same question about ice cream, they would be confused? Also, you don't HAVE to pick more than one. My understanding is that if you vote for an eliminated candidate, then your 2nd choice will be used on the next round. But they don't even need to know that to pick their favorite ice cream. It seems good for democracy? Someone let me know why it isn't.
Both sides are scared to death to lose power. It's a nice little rig they have. They more or less choose your options and you vote for one.
Ranked choice makes it FAR easier for an independent to make it in and dismantle the rest of their two-party shenanigans.
It's not confusing. It could let in a third party, they don't like that.
It's not confusing at all and everyone knows it. This is just the narrative they choose when trying to deny people the opportunity to uproot their cushy little scam. You'll notice that they're not campaigning to get people to vote against implementing this system, they're trying to stop people from getting to choose in the first place.
Holy shit, this makes sense to me. I'm in a historically red state and our RCV is massively disliked by the Trumpers. They also lost the last election. If the incumbent DC voters see RCV as a reason they would lose their current candidates, they would say the same shit. And they are.
Also, you don't HAVE to pick more than one.
In my experience that’s where people can get confused. We switched to ranked choice voting in university student government elections and that idea was not well-explained for the first election. We eventually got the hang of it though.
Still a bit surprised that it’s the Democrats objecting to this one. It might be a function of them having a near stranglehold on local DC government, and not necessarily indicative of how they’d react in more competitive states.
Yes exactly. Whichever party has a stranglehold in a given state/county/whatever will object because ranked choice voting has the potential to allow previously marginal (or zero chance) candidates to be elected.
Democrats are not inherently more fair-minded than conservatives. Both parties' (all parties, actually) first priority is to maintain power. Everything else is secondary to that.
I find it interesting that politicians never seem to make this argument about taxes.
Oh they did, but for rich people. Rich people, titans of industry, incredibly smart and deserve every penny they've ripped from a dead workers hand. But also too dum to do taxie waxies.
See, this is the sort of shit folks are talking about when they say both parties are the same.
Absolutely not. Criticize things like this is correct but this does not equate to a coup, banning abortion and gender care. Don't give ammo to a shit takinge point.
Don't give ammo to a shit takinge point.
You need to be addressing this complaint to the Democratic party officials in this story who are doing that. The Republicans didn't start off with a coup, they started with years of lesser voter suppression/democracy undermining methods that escalated to a coup when they got backed into a corner, but it's been the same basic "to hell with the voters, we want power" thinking the whole time, and that's the exact same kind of thinking Dems are engaging in here.
A rare instance, on some issue, because a broken clock is right twice a day.
And yet... gestures broadly to the numerous liberal progressive Democrats
You won't find that side in the Republican party lol.
Didn’t DC politicians also reverse a ballot initiative that succeeded requiring restaurants to pay staff a full wage?
They don’t give a shit about what people actually want.
And there it is.., time to move the goalposts. /s
yea i like to make up complete bullshit all the time
Surely they were misquo-
Nope that's what they said. Yikes.
"This totally just seems like something the article itself added --"
"Oh. Nope. They... They actually. God damnit."
"The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as "undervoting."
"Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office," said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting "would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate."
"I have a similar concern for seniors and persons with disabilities," Wilson added."
I find it interesting that most of these commenters seem to have not read the article.
People aren't stupid we know how to fucking rank things. Undervoting occurs when they don't like any of the candidates, having ranked choice means independents and non dem/rep parties can actually have a chance and so people will be more willing to vote. You act like this isn't a wildly successful model for democratic voting used throughout the rest of the world. Fuck off...
If it's actually confusing then put in the effort to explain it better. But I seriously doubt it would confuse people.
People all over the world understand it, Americans can do it
Sounds like a racist excuse from people who want to keep their power.
SMH. Read the article. Take a look the “racist” group making the argument in court:
https://www.leadersofcolor.net/team/victor-horton
Here’s the head of DC dems Charles Wilson, who literally is listed in the article you read(?):
Here’s why they’re concerned (hint it’s not because they’re racist against themselves):
When they tried this many people actually didn’t cast a second choice. Which gave more voting power to the other group. That’s all they are saying. And it’s not racist.
Well well well if it isn't the hard bigotry of no expectations
Cool that's not racist at all
Of course they do, an the Republicans as well.
They don't want to give up their power to some random amazing third party. They want to keep the power between the 2 of them.
Ranked choice voting would not see third parties be more successful.
Ranked choice will definitely encourage third, fourth, fifth and maybe even a sixth party.
The two party system you have in the US is a stunted version of the party system.
https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo explains how our current system works and alternatives
Is it time to start scratching them to see what we find?
Selfish, power-mad assholes, same as always, just different colors.
The person who said that isn't a "neo" anything; racism is millenia old. Nor are they liberal; liberals love ranked choice voting.
Seems more and more that "neoliberal" is the latest conservative dogwhistle.
You should look up a list of notable neoliberals.
I'll never forgive them for the way they did Bernie. When every neoliberal dropped from the field to consolidate power behind joe biden, when Bernie was clearly winning. While elizabeth warren, who accused Bernie of being anti-woman, stayed in the race just long enough to make sure she divided the progressive vote.
They colluded to keep Bernie out of the presidency, and it's because they are corrupt, greedy, and power hungry. Bernie represents people, and they don't.
FTFY
controlled by the same people - republicans Wall Street.
Wait what? Thafuq is so hard!? 1st choice, second choice, third choice…. Seriously?
Think about the stupidest person you know, and then realize they are average.
You're topping the list for me, right now.
Classic Democrats, saying that blacks are too dumb to be able to vote for anybody except them.
Except it's just the asshole editors making headlines that put a spin on what actually happened.
In the complaint, the local party and its chair Charles Wilson pointed to voting patterns in Wards 7 and 8, which encompass predominantly-Black communities east of the Anacostia River.
The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as "undervoting."
"Many of those voters report their confusion about selecting more than one candidate for what appears to be the same office," said Wilson in the lawsuit, arguing that implementing ranked-choice voting "would introduce an additional layer of confusion to the electorate."
So no it's not AcKsUaLlY DeMoCrAtS are the racists! They're just pointing to a trend that they've noticed in specific areas that they have data on.
We've been using ranked-choice for mayoral elections in my city for years. It's not confusing.
I did it for the first time in the most recent NYC mayoral election and it was pretty straight forward. If people are confused then it's up to local government to show people how it works.
This reminds me of when my brother told me that black people can't be friends with racially prejudiced white people, and if they are friends with racist people then it's because the black people don't understand racism.
I did that like Stewie sitting on the couch next to Brian head turn at him and was like whaaaaaaaat?
That is absurd, what the fuck
Did anyone read the article? It’s not saying ever you guys think it’s saying. The DC Democrats are saying that in two predominantly black areas, having voters pick two choices on ballots has already led to confusion and that ranked choice will lead to even worse confusion.
They’re not speculating here, they’re describing what’s already known.
I was fully ready to be skeptical about these comments, and to agree with you. But I read the article and nowhere does it make the situation any better than the headline.
The fact that certain districts (black and low income) undervote doesn't itself justify the suit to prevent ranked choice voting. In fact, nowhere in the article is there an explanation by anyone why ranked choice voting would be worse for these groups, just that it would be confusing.
Yes, changing things can be confusing. People will get over it and learn. It's definitely not exactly a good progressive look for democrats to be arguing, "oh, it's hard for people to learn a new way, so the old way is better." Kind of the opposite of what democratic voters are looking for.
nowhere in the article is there an explanation by anyone why ranked choice voting would be worse for these groups, just that it would be confusing.
Uh, being confusing is what would make it worse.
I'm not saying that they're right or wrong. What I'm saying is that the reactions in this comment section of people saying "oh the racist Democrats think black people are too dumb to understand ranked choice" is a complete misrepresentation. The Democrats are saying that the evidence has shown that people in these low-income, predominantly black areas, under-voted when expected to choose two candidates on a ballot, and they're concerned that this will be an even worse problem on a ranked choice ballot where people may be expected to choose up to 5 candidates.
Disenfranchisement of poor and minority voters should be a concern.
It's racism point blank, no need to act like these assholes are anything more than that. Democrats are now also trying to pander to some of the racists as Trump has, we need ranked choice now more than ever.
I read the article, and it doesn't change the argument. Undervoting is a problem, but one that doesn't affect ranked choice voting any more than fptp. Voters were able to select two candidates and only voted for one, and probably don't even realize they did not complete their ballot. If anything, a little ballot education outreach that would be necesaary while implementing ranked choice might reduce undervoting overall.
Voters were able to select two candidates and only voted for one
Clarification: low-income voters from predominantly black areas did this, which is effectively disenfranchisement. That's the concern: that low-income minorities may be disenfranchised by more complex/confusing ballots. The concern is real because it already happened.
I share your frustration. I live in ward 6 which shares political influence with ward 7 and 8.
the confusion isn't from the ranked vote as much as the way the ballot is currently arranged.
the ranked choice just happens to be the change used to fix the disenfranchisement and the complaint is that's not enough.
I agree.
Our both choices were not great and having a system where you arent choosing between corporate shill one and two would aid that.... stop apologizing for assholes being racist and power hungry. Black people aren't stupid. Say what you really mean instead of pandering around it....
You guys are exhausting.
No one is saying black people are too dumb to understand ranked choice. They're saying that people from low income, predominantly black areas, under-voted when required to choose two candidates on past ballots. That means those people were effectively disenfranchised. If the evidence shows that ranked choice could potentially disenfranchise people from low-income minority areas, that is something to be concerned about.
No, no one read the article. They're just spouting nonsense.
"I have a similar concern for seniors and persons with disabilities,"
Gotta love the casual racism
Idiots. Ranked choice voting is the only way they are going to win in some places.
then they'd have to pay more than lipservice to dc statehoood if there was a chance for a statehood candidate to win.
This is my personal grudge against Newsom: he said the same thing when he vetoed ranked choice in CA. This is an establishment move, and about as racist as any Republican move.
Established democrats in WA state and even the almighty progressive city of Seattle did the same thing.
Weird how they have such hardons for some popular policies but bend over backwards to avoid the ones that could actually help fix this broken and deeply divided country.
Welp, there goes a talking point against 3rd party voting….
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a lawsuit filed earlier this month seeking to block ranked choice voting in Washington, DC, the local Democratic Party argued that implementing the system would be particularly confusing for voters in predominantly Black areas.
The 33-page lawsuit filed in DC Superior Court by the District of Columbia Democratic Party argues that implementing the voting system would violate the DC Human Rights Act, a portion of local law prohibiting discrimination.
In the complaint, the local party and its chair Charles Wilson pointed to voting patterns in Wards 7 and 8, which encompass predominantly-Black communities east of the Anacostia River.
It's been implemented in federal and state elections in both Maine and Alaska, where it arguably helped Democratic Rep. Mary Peltola pull out a victory last year and contributed to the smooth re-election of Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski.
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy trashed the system during a podcast appearance with Donald Trump Jr. in January.
And Republican Rep. Mike Lawler of New York recently introduced a bill to block the implementation of ranked-choice voting in Washington, DC.
I'm a bot and I'm open source!
If Aussie bogans can figure it out they will be fine
Do we need to do a ranked-choice vote on the next flavor of mountain dew or something so we can put this "people won't get it" argument to rest
Didn't they end up ignoring the last "name a mtn dew flavor" vote because it got won by "Hitler did nothing wrong" or something of the sort?
I don't think Republicans particularly care for ranked choice either - as it is a far better gauge of popular opinion than the first past the post. However, the Democratic party is the first bulwark against actual reforms in the American system. It's not surprising they are being borderline racist in their opposition to it.
They fairly loathe it. They are relying on low Information voters, suppression , and gerrymandering currently. Ranked choice would decimate their ranks. That said the fact that Dems want to cherry-pick the areas they support this in reeks of malfeasance.
the Democratic party is the first bulwark against actual reforms in the American system.
What diseased corner of your brain vomited this up?
It might confusingly offer a choice other than neoliberal or fascist
The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as "undervoting."
I don't know how useful rank choices voting would be for at-large seats. Those are usually uncontested.
Got a minute (literally a minute)?
What a giant load of bullshit rofl
The old "don't vote, surely that will prevent a fascist takeover" bullshit propaganda from 2016. It's tired, it's old news, find a new angle.
Thanks, I saw this somewhere else, and never watched it. Truth does indeed hurt sometimes.
Voting should be compulsory, like jury duty.
They'll vote off the advertising presented, not for their best interest.
It's stupid to make things like this compulsory. Whoever spends the most in advertising will win the apathy vote.
Arguably advertising is already a problem and I can't believe everyone is voting in their own best interest.
I disagree. Compulsory voting removes many forms of voter suppression which seems to be a huge problem over in the US.
Yeah, that already happens. If it was compulsory, at least then people would have to think about it.
I agree
Some of yall didnt read the article and it shows.
Democrats think it's confusing to the Black population? Sounds like the party of racism by low expectations. The same party that views voter ID as racist because black people don't know where to get an ID.
The overwhelming voter ID arguments I've heard is that those laws disproportionately impact poor people. ID is an excess cost and requires the ability to take off work in the middle of a week day and travel to a designated location. Which is difficult for people working multiple minimum wage jobs and people without reliable transportation. The racial aspect is that these holdbacks disproportionally impact the black community so much so it can almost be used as a proxy for "black" in some areas.
I have never once heard anyone say the reason is that they won't know where to get an ID.
There's a difference between "people who have trouble voting" with "people who just don't want to vote"
Sorry… had to..,,
.jpeg){kind=link}
Yeah, I agree with them. Ranked Choice voting is extremely confusing. First you have to rank the candidates in the order you prefer to win, then…oh wait, no. It’s really not confusing at all.
But these poor black people can't count to five!
How fucking patronizing.
As a citizen of a country with ranked choice voting the hardest thing is choosing which of the loonies you want to put last!
Is it patronizong if it's backed by data? The article discusses how they're not just claiming it's confusing for these districts out of nothing, they're pointing to existing voting data that shows when there are multiple seats to fill for the same position, such as City Council seats, voters in these districts neglect to cast votes for the additional seats at a higher rate than other districts. "Undervoting" it's apparently called.
This is a horrifically self-serving bullshit "solution" to this problem, but there does appear to be a real problem that ought to be addressed as part of a ranked-choice rollout.
I would need to see the ballot to say for sure, but the article lists this example:
"The lawsuit notes that in elections for at-large seats on the DC city council — where voters can currently choose two candidates — voters in Wards 7 and 8 are less likely to cast a second vote, a phenomenon known as "undervoting.""
So, when presented with a relatively simple "Vote For Two" choice, Ward 7 and 8 are less likely to vote for a second person.
If that's a problem, then the idea of not only voting for multiple people, but ranking them 1-2-3, may be a big issue.
Remember, back in 2000 Florida voters struggled with the butterfly ballot.
But in the end, this could be solved by a combination of education, clear instructions, and an easy to understand ballot design.
But undervoting isn't really a problem. No one is being disenfranchised by not casting a second vote (or ranking all options), they just aren't availing themselves of the full range of options. Even just voting for one person could be an intentional choice if you don't really care about the other options or want your first choice to have a better chance of winning an expected head-to-head.
This is at worst an indicator the government should run some informational campaigns, not a reason not to use multi-voting systems.
I get this in theory but it gave me the hilarious mental image of someone gathering their phone, keys, wallet, going to their local polling station, showing their ID, walking to the voting machine, then thinking, "Oh no, I'm allowed to vote for TWO people?" and immediately bolting out the door.
It's a design and execution problem, not a voter problem. The Florida ballots had a stupid design that met the needs of a counting machine, not the needs of voters
Maybe the second candidate was s*** and nobody wanted to vote for them? Or maybe voters really only wanted the one person.
No, it's only confusing for people in predominantly black areas! Wait... this statement seems problematic...
Quick grab your kente cloth and kneel to make it all better!
https://archive.ph/rWKVm
Undervoting is a real issue.