Here you go, here’s an olive branch to the “both sides” people. It sounds like, in Nevada, you are correct.

  • rc__buggy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The people who are saying it will confuse us are calling us less sophisticated than WWI era voters.

    The Irish love the system and have used it successfully since 1918. I like to think that I’m at least as smart as a laborer from 1918.

    • Zagorath@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      When Americans say “ranked choice voting”, what they typically mean is Instant Runoff Voting. It’s kinda the bare minimum you can have and actually consider your system democratic. Ireland actually uses the much better (but also much more complicated—on the back end, from the voters’ perspective they have to do the same thing) system of Single Transferable Vote. A system that is not only preferential but also semi-proportional.

      • The main difference is STV is used to elect multiple people. In a general presidential election, STV is IRV. Both IRV and STV are types of Ranked Choice Voting.

        It would make sense to use STV for - for example - state representatives and senators. The simplest way to do this would be to get rid of congressional districts, which would also eliminate gerrymandering - a process that excludes the electorate and yet had a significant impact on the outcome of elections. Alternatively, we’d have to changing the sizes of the Senate and house.

        The reason most efforts in states today advocate RCV is because it leaves open both options: IRV for non-proportional elections, like comptroller, governor, or sheriff; and STV for proportional representation offices, like houses, senates, and board members. RCV is what the voter sees on the ballot; IRV and STV is how votes are proportioned.