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 It’s spreading and you’re having to go back to the 1940s to tell me how it’s getting repealed.

you didn’t even bother reading enough to find out it was repealed in Aspen, CO the state this vote is occuring in in 2009, in Telluride, CO (once again the state this vote is occurring in) in 2019. It was repealed in Burlington, VT in 2009, in Virginia in 2023. Did you just randomly choose Yonkers from the middle of the list and completely ignore the first four entries? Come on. You’re better than that. It’s on the ballot right now in Alaska, did you ignore that link too? The one where Ballotpedia is saying it’s been banned in 5 states just in 2024 alone??? https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/07/16/more-states-banned-ranked-choice-voting-in-2024-than-any-other-year/

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 It’s spreading and you’re having to go back to the 1940s to tell me how it’s getting repealed.

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.

dude. you’re literally just cherry picking data out of the links I provided. There was a list of locations that repealed it, just in the past decade alone. You’re ignoring it.

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

Alaska is on the ballot to repeal this year as well

40 bills just this year to repeal or ban RCV. https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/04/02/rcv-bans-and-repeals-advancing-at-higher-rate-than-new-authorizations/

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.

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.

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

they didn’t keep it. they repealed it for 14 years. It was brought back last year in a much smaller form, which you literally would have seen if you read the list of locations.

None of what you have said at all matters anyway. RCV not only has a bad name (as is evidenced by the GOP continually attacking it and implementing bans across the nation), but it’s just not a good voting method. It has sooooo many problems, the LEAST of which is it getting repealed. It’s confusing, results in strategic voters, lower Voter Satisfaction, harder to count, allows spoilers, has several organizations that lie about the problems with it, and it will prevent us from moving to a better system in the future.

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.

Your bullshit o-meter is miscalibrated. Maybe look at other sources besides FairVote (here’s a nice little article covering just one of fairvote’s complete misrepresentations https://www.rangevoting.org/LNH.html) and then come back to the conversation. I was trying to be completely non-adversarial here and just explain my reasoning, and then you come in with ‘bullshit alarms’ and then reveal you didn’t even bother to read the sources I provided. Not a good look, especially not with other members of the community acting like this.

3-2-1 is by far the best from a “works in every situation” perspective, it’s literally just a better RCV without all the strategic voting concerns. STAR is second best but only because it’s more complicated and has possible worse outcomes, even though best case outcomes are far better. Most results say that STAR is better, but I find it significantly harder to understand and believe that most voters would believe the same, thus increasing the chance of it getting repealed. The best ‘new’ voting system is the system that lasts and never needs to be replaced. 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.

Even Approval voting is better, and is simpler than all of these. I will point out that literally every RCV campaign states that Approval voting has problems that are actually much more prevalent in RCV, for example FairVote.org states that

Approval voting can be challenging for voters with strong preferences. A vote for a second choice counts exactly as much as a vote for a first choice, creating incentives to “bullet vote,” or choose only one candidate, even when voters have second- or third-choice preferences. Because voters can’t back compromise candidates without weakening their first choice, the use of strategic voting increases — especially in contested elections.

which is just outright incorrect. Voting for multiple candidates can never weaken any of your choices and it’s honestly insane a bunch of the claims that FairVote makes.

Honestly a bunch of the groups that are pushing for RCV just straight up lie about a lot of it. Aside from being removed from use in many locations in the US in just the past few years, they completely ignore how bad strategic voting is getting in the US, meaning we need to choose even stronger methods against strategic voting. Elon Musk is literally paying people to vote right now. They also ignore how confusing a ballot can be to many americans. I think this is a terrible reason, but it is a reason. The more chances you give someone to mess something up, the less they are going to like it and the more they’re going to be able to blame it for things they don’t like happening.

Here’s a simulator to show you how RCV can spoil the vote (like it did in Egypt and Burlington, VT) : https://howtofixtheelection.com/ballot/newer/

In any case, for me I do not want a repeat of Aspen, or Burlington, or any of the numerous other bans that are occurring or have occurred of RCV causing people to not want to even try new voting systems. https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/07/16/more-states-banned-ranked-choice-voting-in-2024-than-any-other-year/

https://electionscience.github.io/vse-sim/ https://www.equal.vote/accuracy https://www.starvoting.org/star https://dmarron.com/2010/09/19/the-feud-over-the-2009-burlington-mayoral-election/ https://better-count-us.medium.com/no-instant-runoff-wouldnt-solve-spoiled-elections-7f6136f1d0ee https://fairvote.org/resources/electoral-systems/ranked_choice_voting_vs_approval_voting/ https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)#States_and_localities_that_stopped_using_RCV https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/07/16/more-states-banned-ranked-choice-voting-in-2024-than-any-other-year/

edit: one last source: testimony from court where common RCV claims were disproven and alternatives were provided like STAR. https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2021R1/Downloads/PublicTestimonyDocument/17728

Because you get one chance at a new system. People aren’t going to vote for another system after the first one fails. And no wonder democrats aren’t voting for RCV if dicks like you are the ones spreading the word.

If there was any doubt that they were using this to get people to register to vote, this added detail should make it pretty clear. They were telling people who weren’t registered to register in order to get paid / enter a lottery.

Which is super illegal, so they just admitted it in court. They don’t care though because if it works they just get the carrot to pardon them.

Pretty sure there was a study that actually showed big trucks correlated with big penises. Crazy.

I definitely can’t show this to my wife

The top of the monitor shouldn’t be at eye level. Two thirds up the monitor should be at eye level.

I’m a Dem but do not want RCV. I want 3-2-1 or STAR but would settle for Approval. RCV/IRV is the worse possible option as a replacement for plurality besides an option called Borda that sometimes results in the opposite candidate getting selected due to strategic voting. Why in the world would I vote for something that is almost guaranteed to confuse people and then result in us rolling back RCV because people don’t like it? 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.

Ranked choice is a terrible option and still allows strategic voters. It’s literally the third worst option, the only things being worse are borda and plurality (First past the post). I do not understand why people want RCV at all, when there are so much better options that aren’t being voted out in numerous states, counties, and cities in America already.

Just as many issues as not reading the article.

The article says this isn’t to affect existing code.

This looks like that palantir drone.

They mean put some space between you.

If you read the article it’s about a previous election and the decisions regarding that. Republicans are making the argument that the court’s announcement is going to cause ballot counters to count incorrectly (per what is already decided and has nothing to do with the previous election).

Recent studies have shown that the pans offgas without even being used or at low temperatures, but yes just buying them at all is the main problem.

It’s always been bad for you. The process to create Teflon pans results in PFAS being released into streams and the atmosphere. Literally just creating the product has poisoned the earth, you don’t need to use it at all. But yes, I stopped buying Teflon stuff too. It’s the only way to reduce demand and manufacturing.

Recent studies have shown that teflon pans off gas without even being heated, and at low temperatures.

3M is the inventor and supplier I thought. DuPont just bought it and sold it. And then covered it up for literal decades.

That means it’s not easy to delete. So your initial premise is wrong.

Huh?