Guno צְבִי (06-23-2021)
Guno צְבִי (06-23-2021)
"There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone," McConnell wrote. "His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended."
The bookkeeping can be long and laborious. If nobody hits 50 percent plus one, they go to the ballots of the last place candidate and his second-ranked vote is counted and his first eliminated. If you have a lot of candidates it could take a month or more. Every vote will have to be rescanned.
Of course, but we do not go by popular vote, They are not stripping people of their rights. What is un-American is gerrymandering giving the reds seats that they do not deserve. The Dems are almost 55 percent in Mich and they never get the house majority due to gerrymandering. That Is not Democracy in action.
Cypress (06-23-2021)
Why is it bad??
Mitt was everyone in the gop 4th choice..
There have been many times when a compromise candidate was put to the top of the tix because the big boys could not agree on their boy/girls not getting it.....
Difference here seems to be on who is making the call, the voters or the power brokers in the "smoke filled back rooms"......................??
"There is no question former President Trump bears moral responsibility. His supporters stormed the Capitol because of the unhinged falsehoods he shouted into the world’s largest megaphone," McConnell wrote. "His behavior during and after the chaos was also unconscionable, from attacking Vice President Mike Pence during the riot to praising the criminals after it ended."
Jack (06-23-2021)
I don't like gerrymandering or the screwing around with voting rights, but what they were talking about is getting rid of the EC. First, I doubt such an amendment would pass and, second, it's a really bad idea.
Ranking is easier and can be done by each state. I think it is fair and will be a popular idea.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/22/10088...ty-mayors-race
"Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"
Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you will be PERMANENTLY Ignore Listed. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I'll never read a word you write, even if quoted by another, nor respond to you, nor participate in your threads. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: Feel free to adopt my PIP. It works well.
Jack (06-23-2021)
No. Ranked voting assumes that you would make the same choices as the number of names on the ballot dwindle.
That is, let's say there are 6 names on the ballot. You have to pick choices from first to sixth.
The first problem comes when people only pick say a first and second choice leaving the rest blank. This weights the resulting ranking in favor of those that rank all six. That skews the results.
Then comes the problem of how someone might rank the ballot if one or more of the choices were removed. That is, we don't know how someone might rank the choices if these were more limited.
Since reallocation of votes is done on a proportionate scale, as the ranking continues it is possible for a second or third place contender to end up being the winner over the original leader in votes.
Because you have to rank each candidate, many voters will worry about how their rankings will alter the outcome when the rounds of re-ranking occur and not vote for their best choice but to either help a particular outcome occur, or to avoid the worst outcomes.
It's all very much like a Vegas crap table. You roll the dice and get your point. The next roll is either craps or not. What's the odds you get the outcome you are looking for?
Jack (06-23-2021)
Not true. As with most states, the distribution of voters by party isn't even within districts even if there is zero gerrymandering going on. Democrats tend toward urban and Black population districts. Republicans towards more affluent, suburban, and rural districts.
Thus, you might have in Michigan districts that are overwhelmingly Democrat or Republican. If you have some that are dense urban Democrat districts, while the majority of the state is rural / suburban Republican dominated, you end up with a legislature that is Republican dominated on the number of districts were they have a majority while the Democrats only have a solid lock on a smaller number of very high percentage Democrat voter urban districts.
Your statement assumes even distribution of voters by district, and that isn't going to happen without massive amounts of gerrymandering to distribute voters evenly throughout them.
I totally oppose ranked voting.
If a candidate doesn't reach majority, he has no mandate.
I don't like sending the election to the House, either.
Have a runoff of the top two, just as if you were electing a president of your chess or garden club.
How Papa Bush is any better than Bubba, Oom, I'll never know.
I supported Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown in '92. He was the most progressive candidate in the Primaries.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. Samuel Johnson, 1775
Religion....is the opiate of the people. Karl Marx, 1848
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose. Kris Kristofferson, 1969
Bookmarks