this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
171 points (95.2% liked)

politics

19088 readers
3535 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  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
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21917446

Ballot in question:

Mayor:

District 1:

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 95 points 3 days ago (6 children)

Jesus Christ people are fucking stupid... How hard is this to understand??

Rhetorical question of course. The country is very stupid. Just today my coworker said "see Trump is our next president and the taxes already went down!" (he was referring to the interest rate decrease from the federal reserve...)

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

people voted for the guy that said he would stop future voting

that is where the USA is at

[–] [email protected] 21 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It's not super hard to understand the concept, but the visual display of this implementation is objectively horrifying. No line or column delineation, just a grid of bubbles. I literally look at Excel sheets for a living and this makes my head hurt trying to keep track of what bubble is going where, I don't blame voters for giving up on it.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Yeah that’s odd. How could it be better though and still be paper? Limit you to two votes?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 days ago

In Australia, which has Ranked Choice Voting, you number the candidates from 1 to the max candidates. For Senate races, you can vote for the party, letting the party decide the down ballot representatives. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/how-does-australia-s-voting-system-work

I believe in this process, the ballots are human counted, but the country has less than the population of California, so it probably doesn't take too long. Scaling it up for the backwards US system would be harder, but not impossible to improve.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

It would be better to just give the voter a set of 6 lines, top to bottom, with rank 1 at top and rank 6 at bottom. That is the easiest to visualize and understand, and that's also how almost all of the campaign information about RCV has shown it... Then have some way to identify each candidate to put on each line that's not just hand writing the name. That I'm not 100% sure how to do. My engineer solution says create a lookup table with letters or numbers next to each candidate, but that could easily get confused with the rank in which to put them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Here's an engineer's solution: raise the threshold for the number of signatures required to get on the ballot, and don't let someone sign a petition for more than one candidate for a given race.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 3 days ago

don’t let someone sign a petition for more than one candidate for a given race.

This would be so much overhead work and also defeat the purpose of Ranked Choice Voting. This basically moves the First Past the Post earlier in the process, which will exclude candidates

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (8 children)

I have no idea what party these people belong to. It's not listed on the sheet. Their policy positions aren't shown. Their endorsements aren't shown. Nobody knows who the fuck any of these people are.

What you need Ranked Choice Voting for is Congress and the Presidency. Local elections also need to be partisan. Otherwise how the fuck do you know where any of the candidates even generally stand on the issues?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I prefer having ballots not say what party the person is in. Then people actually have to know who they are voting for, not just blindly check a box beside R or D every time.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 3 days ago

Local candidates usually have websites, do interviews with local papers, and are suuuper excited to talk to potential voters, so people could look at any of that?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Local elections also need to be partisan. Otherwise how the fuck do you know where any of the candidates even generally stand on the issues?

I'd rather parties have no official role so we're actually voting for people to represent us. Candidates have a responsibility to get their message out, and voters have a responsibility to do some research.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago

But that just doesn’t happen. We have to plan for the lowest common denominator.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

... You do research, you have a fucking week minimum after you receive your ballot. This isn't complicated. Parties also have nothing to do with an individual representatives politics.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The city or county will probably have a thing called a website where you can read about all of those things for each candidate.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 2 days ago

Is the website in the voting booth?

[–] [email protected] 9 points 3 days ago (1 children)

We do all of our voting by mail and get a pamphlet with most of the serious candidates. It is really great and we have like two weeks to work on it. It isn't like we showed up at the poll and were confronted with this and had to fill it out on the spot.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

We should also make vote by mail mandatory.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 days ago

Yeah, researching candidates is great and all, but like they didn't exactly set themselves up for success with this ballot design.

It kinda sucks ass. :/

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago

Non partisan elections.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 days ago

As somebody said in another comment, there were 19 candidates to choose from for mayor alone, and then 16-30 candidates for each district. That's up to 50 candidates to research to fill out a ballot, in combination with the poor formatting of these ballots. You've got 30 names with 6 bubbles next to every single one of them that you have to follow across to fill out your 6 choices. I've seen better formatted scantron test sheets.

If this had been the size of a normal primary election or something - around 3-6 candidates or something - I think people would've found it pretty easy to understand.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's less understanding/stupidity and more an issue with laziness/desire. I have no doubt that 99% of people who actually did vote selected their first rank choice and say eff it to the rest of the rankings. Too much effort and time to complete.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think I'd still file that under stupid.

I really hope mail ballots become the norm. It was absolutely wonderful to be able to take the time to look people/propositions I didn't know up while I had the ballot there. That won't help with laziness though. Can't help lazy. :/

[–] [email protected] 5 points 3 days ago

Just a note on mail ballots. Some can often abuse it by coercing their spouses to vote a particular way.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 days ago

"Mission accomplished" 🛩️🪂🛳️