Hitler probably would’ve won in a ranked vote as well [at the time]. Nothing about ranked choice guarantees higher quality candidates. I’m sure most don’t telegraph their corruption either, unless they’re named Trump
Actually, ranked choice voting might’ve been able to delay hitlers election since the KDP and SPD voters probably wouldn’t put the nazi party as their second choice
He was elected by all the locally based media conducting a counterfactual campaign of manufacturing a violent crime crisis and convincing the people of New York that only a cop or a vigilante could save them.
Given that it worked and Sliwa is an absolute maniac and a Republican in a New York election, the fascist cop (but I repeat myself) would have won regardless of the type of voting.
Hopefully the people of New York will be less credulous the next time the billionaire owned media tries to wag the dog, but I doubt it.
RCV doesn’t achieve better results than our current system because they elected Eric Adams who didn’t even live in NYC at the time and is now under criminal investigation. I’m more than willing to wait to see more results from RCV elections before completely damning it, but I have low expectations. Corruption almost always win. That’s the main problem.
Other places, not just a few in the US, use RCV, so there’s plenty of real data to go by, plus the math itself. There are other systems out there that add to RCV, but even by itself it is absolutely better than FPTP which is mathematically shown to favor only two major parties even when started off with lots of evenly preferred parties.
You’re correct on if there aren’t any good selections there can’t be a good pick, but don’t condemn an election system because of that. Make it so parties have to work to stay relevant. Or as Washington warned, just don’t have parties to become this way, but I don’t know if that’s possible in a larger and more complex society.
This guy was elected by rank choice voting, folks.
He was also elected in a democracy, clearly that means democracy is bad.
Hitler probably would’ve won in a ranked vote as well [at the time]. Nothing about ranked choice guarantees higher quality candidates. I’m sure most don’t telegraph their corruption either, unless they’re named Trump
Actually, ranked choice voting might’ve been able to delay hitlers election since the KDP and SPD voters probably wouldn’t put the nazi party as their second choice
Denser than plutonium in a lead case on this particular take man.
Why do you seem to assume that RCV doesn’t require options that aren’t terrible and an educated electorate?
It’s not some magical solution to our problems. If the choices are shit, you still end up with shit, it’s just ranked shit.
He was elected by all the locally based media conducting a counterfactual campaign of manufacturing a violent crime crisis and convincing the people of New York that only a cop or a vigilante could save them.
Given that it worked and Sliwa is an absolute maniac and a Republican in a New York election, the fascist cop (but I repeat myself) would have won regardless of the type of voting.
Hopefully the people of New York will be less credulous the next time the billionaire owned media tries to wag the dog, but I doubt it.
Cool… And?
Are you suggesting the math doesn’t work in RCV, or that the other choices were worse and they dodged bullets by using RCV?
RCV doesn’t achieve better results than our current system because they elected Eric Adams who didn’t even live in NYC at the time and is now under criminal investigation. I’m more than willing to wait to see more results from RCV elections before completely damning it, but I have low expectations. Corruption almost always win. That’s the main problem.
Other places, not just a few in the US, use RCV, so there’s plenty of real data to go by, plus the math itself. There are other systems out there that add to RCV, but even by itself it is absolutely better than FPTP which is mathematically shown to favor only two major parties even when started off with lots of evenly preferred parties.
You’re correct on if there aren’t any good selections there can’t be a good pick, but don’t condemn an election system because of that. Make it so parties have to work to stay relevant. Or as Washington warned, just don’t have parties to become this way, but I don’t know if that’s possible in a larger and more complex society.
What’s that have to do with anything?