PhilipTheBucket

Guy. Relax. I'm being honest with you about what I think and asking some questions. You can stop yelling.

You sent me 15 different links. I didn't read them all because I don't have all night. I sort of looked them over. If you're going to start yelling because I didn't read your half day presentation, you can stop talking with me.

Aspen, CO 2009 Burlington, VT 2009 Telluride, CO 2019 Arlington, VA 2023

Okay, so by many places repealed in the last few years, you meant two. Telluride and Arlington, and then 15 years ago, two other places. Do I have that right? Any locations to add to that that are post-2009? It looks like Glenn Youngkin had something to do with taking it away in Arlington That's not exactly a crushing endorsement for its badness, from my point of view.

Places where politicians are fighting against the effort means nothing to me. I told you that. You can yell as much as you like. I'm pretty convinced that any type of reform is going to get that kind of resistance. Places where the voters tried it and didn't like it will make an impact on me, but as far as I know, anywhere it's been tried recently, the voters have liked it. Do you have any counterexamples? Interviews with voters, polls of voters, places where with some experience people thought it was bad?

I'm trying to honestly make sense of this, give you an honest hearing-out without staying up all night. What's your take on this?

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jIhFQfEoxSdyRz5SqEjZotbVDx4xshwM/view

What's your take on that paper? It looks like something happened in Burlington in 2009 that's a real flaw. But it looks like the Condorcet winner wins with RCV pretty much all the time outside of that one time. Look at the long list of checkmarks. I like this paper's proposed fix fine, since even once that it happens is a problem. Off the top of my head, STAR and 3-2-1 also sound fine. Mostly, I'm in favor of moving away from FPTP and unconvinced by your panic about RCV.

This is completely pointless to have this discussion then. Preemptively banning it is a great sign that you’re not going to have a strong enough market to retain the voting style after it’s implemented. If it’s already this difficult to get it implemented then having entire states that are hellbent on banning it is exactly the kind of thing you shouldn’t be trying to get past. You should choose a method that 1. doesn’t have any of the problems that republicans could even slightly pin on the voting method. 2. is easier to understand and therefore harder to convince citizens it’s a boogieman 3. doesn’t have an organization that is repeatedly lying about the problems with the method in order to convince voters. All it does is make it easier to attack.

It sounds like you don't draw a distinction between the voters trying something and not liking it, and a bunch of politicians trying to fight it to stop it from happening. I do draw that distinction. All you're doing by yelling at me that the second one is a problem with the voting method itself, instead of an inherent difficulty in anything that changes the system that you're going to have to overcome regardless, is just wasting time that I could be using to read your other arguments.

All of this you would have known if you bothered to read anything I linked, which I know you didn’t because those links take hours to read. You didn’t even do a good job scanning one of them.

It's getting hard to take you seriously. Do you seriously expect me to spend hours reading all your links in order to respond to your message? I doubt that you'll be able to find one person on Lemmy who would ever be willing to do that. Would you? If I sent you fifteen different links of this type of length, would you click them all open and read them and not get back to me until you had? That's absurd. And to keep yelling like this and then turn people around to your way of looking at things?

I am trying to keep an open mind and look at your ideas, but you're making it pretty difficult.

That is the main criteria we should be going for, because we have seen it all over the country where RCV was approved by voters, was either too confusing or caused ‘spoiled’ results, and then was immediately repealed back to plurality and those regions have never gone back to RCV.

You just triggered my bullshit alarm. Sorry. I was with you up until then, looked up details of 3-2-1, all that good stuff. But you're drawing conclusions that are strained to the point of Stretch Armstrong.

I don't know why Yonkers authorized RCV in 1940, and then stopped again in 1947. I'm not going to automatically assume it was because it was too confusing or something. This list you sent means almost completely nothing.

RCV has been getting wide adoption:

https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/

I'm not just going by the happy graph. It's spreading and you're having to go back to the 1940s to tell me how it's getting repealed.

Let me ask a couple more detail questions, just to check how grounded what you're saying is with reality, because it seems like you're running way, way off the rails here.

Aside from being removed from use in many locations in the US in just the past few years

Where has it been removed from use in the US in just the past few years? I'm not talking about somewhere where the Republicans got scared and preemptively banned it. That's different. I'm talking about somewhere where people tried it, the voters reported not liking it, and there was a consequent removal of it from use.

The fact that you're conflating places where the Republicans got scared and preemptively banned it, with places where the people using it didn't like it and wanted to switch away from it, is another of those bullshit-alarm things.

Aspen, or Burlington

Aspen had a weird situation where the same person was winning every time as would have won anyway with plurality voting, they only used it once, in 2009, someone sued the city, I don't know. I couldn't follow it. It doesn't look like there was any kind of uprising against RCV.

What are you talking about with Burlington?

https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/191/Ranked-Choice-Voting

They did it once, there was controversy, then they kept it. What's the issue?

Yeah, I really don't understand this "it's only 150% better than FPTP, it is HORROR, we need to avoid" point of view.

If there's something else better, then great. Advocate for that. In the meantime please don't try to stop us switching from FPTP to RCV. Some of their other points, that experimenting with thing 1 one time will lead to not wanting to experiment with thing 2 a different time, just seem nutty to me.

I’ve been trying to limit my election posting to the explicitly politics communities. I think that by blocking all of them, the non US people can hopefully keep the election chatter down to at least a dull roar, although I realize a lot of it is also spilling out into everywhere.

You folks have my sympathy, in other words. Hopefully in a week or so, we won’t need yours.

I can see that. I never messed around with NCD for this exact reason, but I viewed them as an outlier on SJW, mostly.

almost guaranteed to confuse people and then result in us rolling back RCV because people don’t like it

The places where it's been tried in the US, people generally have really liked it. The only places I've seen rollback campaigns have been from scared Republicans, which I interpret as a good sign.

Let’s start with an actual good polling option, we really only get one chance at it because there’s no way in hell people are going to want to experiment a second time.

What? That's usually the opposite of how it works.

I don't have any kind of strong preference among the not-FPTP voting options, but I think grabbing one that's getting traction and making an improvement to the existing system sounds like a good thing, even if what we're replacing things with isn't yet the perfect option.

What would you replace it with? What's the best or a couple of the best of the so much better options?

I think Democrats are divided between ones who want RCV because it's a good idea, and ones who want to kill it because it threatens their power.

Anyone who tells you that all Democrats are the first thing, or all the second thing, and then draws a conclusion about what you need to do with your vote because of these things we all know, is not to be trusted.

Makes perfect sense, thank you.

What on earth did sh.itjust.works do?

I saw that Beehaw defederated from them, and it's just confusing to me. There's all kinds of weird nonsense coming from lemmy.world, that defederation makes complete sense to me, but... what did sh.itjust.works do? They seem fine.

What are the toxic communities? Did I just miss them so far? I really don't understand.

Let me have my comically unrealistic scenario, please. The alternative is that he’ll keep killing with American weapons until hundreds of thousands more are dead, and all Palestine is a blasted wasteland, and no one will stop him.