Minnesota’s group is approaching this a smart way, from the local up. They’re not spending much time in the high-profile positions; they’re tackling local elections. Gets people used to the idea, and they stack higher and higher positions as they’re going. It’ll take time, but starting at the top and working down is a lot harder.
Same, local approach. There’s a specific local city we’re targeting the city council etc as well as spreading awareness to the locals that this is even an option. Your average person doesn’t know it exists!
Except where it’s been implemented. We have had several successes at the local level in Minnesota; we’re a long way from the governor, but it’s always moving forward, with a win every year and - so far - no screw-ups causing a regression.
I’ll preface this by saying that near any voting system, ranked choice voting included, is better than FPTP. That being said, ranked choice voting does have some issues. Some that, arguably, can make it almost as bad as FPTP. To be more specific for this argument, I’ll focus on the IRV type. The main negative aspects of this voting system, imo, are that it doesn’t satisfy the monotonicity and Condorcet criterions. Regarding this topic, I highly recommend reading this article. It is very well written, and very informative.
The one issue with this way of thinking is that since changing such a fundamental system is typically (and, imo, understandably) quite difficult, one doesn’t want to squander the opportunity with an arbitrary decision (I’m not accusing you of making an arbitrary decision, I’m just stating generally), as having another chance is unlikely. Furthermore, experimentation on a mass scale, i.e. country-wide, is generally not a wise idea. One should be firm in their convictions for the decision that they choose to support. It’s possible to cause considerable damage within the edge cases.
You’re right, best deliberate about which one is best instead.
Aha, well, up to a point. Certainly worse to be stuck deliberating while society rots away under FPTP. There is certainly truth to your original point of not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Experimentation? New Zealand, Ireland and Australia already stage elections using forms of RCV.
Interesting. I wonder how prevalent the issues were that I mentioned earlier. I also wonder what type of ranked ballot they use. I’ll have to look into this more. Would you have any good sources for studies looking at the outcomes of them using that voting system?
Get involved with your local Ranked Choice Voting group.
The one for California is https://www.calrcv.org/
I know this won’t fix everything but I also think it’s a good idea. First past the post contributes to problems we have now. Check it out people!
The one for Washington State is https://fairvotewa.org/
Minnesota’s.
Minnesota’s group is approaching this a smart way, from the local up. They’re not spending much time in the high-profile positions; they’re tackling local elections. Gets people used to the idea, and they stack higher and higher positions as they’re going. It’ll take time, but starting at the top and working down is a lot harder.
Is this how CA is approaching it?
Same, local approach. There’s a specific local city we’re targeting the city council etc as well as spreading awareness to the locals that this is even an option. Your average person doesn’t know it exists!
Except where it’s been implemented. We have had several successes at the local level in Minnesota; we’re a long way from the governor, but it’s always moving forward, with a win every year and - so far - no screw-ups causing a regression.
Commenting in support!
Is there one for every state? Better question: is there a page that I can link to literally everyone that lists every such group by state?
Thank you for this!
I’ll preface this by saying that near any voting system, ranked choice voting included, is better than FPTP. That being said, ranked choice voting does have some issues. Some that, arguably, can make it almost as bad as FPTP. To be more specific for this argument, I’ll focus on the IRV type. The main negative aspects of this voting system, imo, are that it doesn’t satisfy the monotonicity and Condorcet criterions. Regarding this topic, I highly recommend reading this article. It is very well written, and very informative.
Understood, but don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
We just need to improve not perfect.
The one issue with this way of thinking is that since changing such a fundamental system is typically (and, imo, understandably) quite difficult, one doesn’t want to squander the opportunity with an arbitrary decision (I’m not accusing you of making an arbitrary decision, I’m just stating generally), as having another chance is unlikely. Furthermore, experimentation on a mass scale, i.e. country-wide, is generally not a wise idea. One should be firm in their convictions for the decision that they choose to support. It’s possible to cause considerable damage within the edge cases.
You’re right, best deliberate about which one is best instead.
Experimentation? New Zealand, Ireland and Australia already stage elections using forms of RCV.
Aha, well, up to a point. Certainly worse to be stuck deliberating while society rots away under FPTP. There is certainly truth to your original point of not letting perfect be the enemy of good.
Interesting. I wonder how prevalent the issues were that I mentioned earlier. I also wonder what type of ranked ballot they use. I’ll have to look into this more. Would you have any good sources for studies looking at the outcomes of them using that voting system?