https://www.npr.org/2024/11/08/nx-s1-5183210/nonpartisan-primary-ranked-choice-voting-results
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/results/2024/11/05/ranked-choice-voting-ballot-measures/
Alaska: had ranked-choice voting in place for certain statewide elections, but it looks like they've voted to get rid of it and go back to using the first-past-the-post system
Arizona: had a ballot question that would have created non-partisan open primaries, but voted it down
Colorado: had a ballot question that would have created top-four non-partisan open primaries AND ranked-choice voting in general elections, but voted it down
Idaho: same thing as Colorado, voted it down
Missouri: had a ballot question that would do two things: prohibit ranked-choice voting, and require voters to be US citizens. It passed.
Montana: had a ballot question that would have created top-four non-partisan open primaries, as well as a separate ballot question that would have "required a majority vote to win election". Both were voted down.
Nevada: same thing as Colorado and Idaho, voted it down
Oregon: had a ballot question that would have created ranked-choice voting, but voted it down
South Dakota: had a ballot question that would have created a "top-two" primary election system, voted it down.
The only places where ranked-choice voting was adopted this year were at the city level, in Washington DC and a few mid-sized cities in the Midwest.
This is depressing. Ranked-choice voting is something that I've supported for, like, almost my entire adult life (EDIT: although I've also learned about score voting recently and now I think that would be better), but it doesn't look like other Americans want it very much. Why did this happen? Am I out of touch?
Am I out of touch?
If you weren't out of touch with the median US voter, you wouldn't be on this website.
I voted against the CO ranked choice voting because it seems to me that the "open" primary that goes with it would result in the rankable choices being exactly four of the same ghoul by allowing the two party duopoly to shut third parties out completely just by running an extra ghoul each.
It was, total poison pill to my vote and to the possible benefits of RCV. When I was researching my ballot, I read that the "for" campaign was funded to the tune of millions by some fucking private healthcare CEO, who wanted it to reduce "polarization" in politics.
Portland, OR has RCV for city positions and there was a lot of hand-wringing about how a significant portion of the electorate didn't fill out the ranked choice part of the ballot because they found it too confusing.
My response was that if people are going to self-select as too stupid to handle the simple task of ranked choice voting, then I do not have a problem with them not voting.
It would be made extremely confusing on purpose to exclude people too poor to attend private schools, where using it would be taught.
It would be made extremely confusing on purpose to exclude people
I am sure this is true but it reminded me about that Dem a few years back that said ranked choice voting was discriminatory because POC wouldn't understand it
they don’t want
powerranked choice voting,
they want to endlessly “critique”powerfirstpastthepost votingthe bundling of the open primary with ranked confuses and is opposed by more people. just ranked choice would do better i think, people can wrap their heads around that but you start talking about how two (enemy party) candidates can go to the general and your (good party) candidates wouldn't in an open primary--even though the enemy winning would be fait-accompli in the old system too--but I guess not being able to cast your FPTP protest votes on candidates who never win in solid districts would break the kayfabe
I don't understand US primaries at all, why does the state help political parties choose which candidates to run in real elections
"If we pick the person who provokes the least revulsion among the peons, we can prepare a bloodfeast for Moloch without having to answer so many questions"
In the case of the open primaries, if you’ve got a state where one party regularly gets 55-60 percent of the vote, open primaries just opens up the possibility of the minority party voters plus 10-ish percent of majority party voters with independent/antiestablishment streaks banding around a moderate/independent majority party candidate. Which threatens the majority party, so they campaign against it.
In the case of RCV, in primaries there’s often several antiestablishment candidates and one establishment candidate. FPTP ensures the establishment candidate wins whereas in RCV it means the antiestablishment vote could be great enough to filter to one winning candidate. In the general, the same principle applies as in open primaries, so once again the parties campaign against it.
I've talked with people about it ant they found it confusing at first. Once I had the chance to explain it usually they came around to support it, but there wasn't enough of that in my state to push it over the edge.
EDIT: This is a big reason why doorknocking is so important, and why I hammer on it all the time. Other issues like ballot measures can be championed by organized individuals on the ground.
I've also learned about score voting recently and now I think that would be better
Why would the US need a trojan horse for fascism? it's fascist party has it's two wings locked in power under it's existing FPP system.
Im talking about smaller elections my bad
Exhausted barely hanging on today
Ignore em
and 
don't want to see their precious:
lose ground
