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

Ballot in question:

Mayor:

District 1:

16 points

If a system encourages people to not vote when they have no clue who they are voting for, then that might be considered a feature instead of an issue. Though one problem I can think off is that coaching of voters on how to vote becomes even more effective. I’m on the fence on this one.

Ps: is a 20% drop enough to say that something “cratered” or is this just another superlative clickbait title?

permalink
report
reply
2 points

In a state that regularly sees 60+% and 70+% participation, yeah, 20% skipping those lines is a big chunk. I don’t think we have final turnout numbers yet.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

According to the headline it’s 20% of those who voted for the mayor, not 20% of the population. So fe a drop from 60% to 48% voter participation.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

It’s 20% of people who cast valid ballots skipping those lines.

So they chose to vote for other things on the ballot, but skipped voting for mayor and city council, meaning they chose not to participate there.

permalink
report
parent
reply
17 points

Good.

That means it’s working as intended.

The people who are too dumb to use RCV have no business influencing policy with their votes.

permalink
report
reply
1 point

people with poor reading comprehension or who just dont have the time to stare at a ballot for more than a couple minutes still deserve representation. just because someone’s circumstances differ from yours doesn’t make it good if they don’t have a voice

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Those voters… how good do you think they are at resisting disinformation?

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

what do you propose

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I don’t think you know what democracy means…

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

I don’t think you know that we are a Democratic Republic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

So is North Korea.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

https://volokh.com/2012/11/06/the-case-for-abstaining-from-voting-on-issues-where-you-are-ignorant/

It would be dangerous to give government the power to forcibly exclude ignorant voters from the franchise. Incumbent political leaders could too easily abuse it to exclude their political opponents or to target unpopular minorities. But there is no such danger if a voter voluntarily chooses not to vote in a particular race because he or she decides they don’t have enough knowledge to vote responsibly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
21 points

That… doesn’t seem overwhelming?

In the city council election I voted in (Germany) you had ~40 votes (don’t remember the exact number) to distribute among candidates. Each party put up to ~40 candidates on the ballot and you had to distribute your vote among the candidates. You received like 10 ballots, with each party being on a separate one and had to cast your vote in an envelope with the relevant ballots.

Additionally, you can give up to 3 of your votes to any one candidate by putting a digit next to their name or just cast one party’s ballot without entering anything to give one vote to each candidate on that ballot.

Sure, it sounds complicated but you received the ballots with some information two weeks before the election and were encouraged to bring them filled out to the polling station (to reduce waiting time) or register for mail-in voting. Most people probably just casted their entire vote for one party anyways.

permalink
report
reply
13 points

It looks pretty overwhelming, but remember that all of our voting is by mail. I had my ballot and voter guides for at least two weeks before the election. I felt like it took some work, but I had plenty of time and info to make informed choices.

I am in a district that had 30 city council candidates. There are three seats in each district and I already knew a few of the folks running in my district, so it was pretty easy.

Overall I really liked the rank choice, especially for mayor. There was one candidate I really didn’t like and I did not really have to choose between the other front runners based on who I thought had a better chance of winning (I also didn’t have a clear favorite between them).

permalink
report
reply
4 points

The first one is always hard. It does look complicated but with mail ballots should be doable. These are the kind of thing that take at least a few cycles to understand what is working and what is not.

Reducing numbers or ranking the list by order would be helpful. I don’t see any order in this list but that might be helpful

permalink
report
parent
reply
24 points

Those pictures are brutal. You need to run some kind of preliminary if you’re going to have that many candidates over all. This isn’t an RCV failing it’s a failure to narrow the field with things like signature requirements.

permalink
report
reply
6 points

I don’t think it’s that bad really. Someone mentioned 40+ candidates on a ballot in Germany.

I don’t remember ever seeing primaries for local government office positions.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

Apparently they had to vote their entire local government in this time because they reorganized it. In the future it will be a smaller field.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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

Community stats

  • 15K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 189K

    Comments