Funny how the opponents of this are always Republicans. Fairness never works out in their favor I guess.
How many blue states use Ranked Choice voting?
Thank you for this article.
No problem.
卄乇ㄥㄥ ㄚ乇卂卄 乃尺ㄖㄒ卄乇尺
Edit:
previously in alaska:
https://www.newsweek.com/how-sarah-palin-was-thwarted-alaska-election-ranked-choice-voting-1738792
This is the best summary I could come up with:
It’s just one example this year of an intensifying fight over a more expansive way for voters to choose candidates, driven in part by deep dissatisfaction with the status quo and opposition from political parties and partisan groups that fear losing power.
The attempts to introduce a new way of electing leaders and the pushback from those with established power are symptoms of dissatisfaction with the nation’s politics and concern over the future of democracy, said AJ Simmons, research director of the Center for State Policy and Leadership at the University of Illinois Springfield, who has written on the issue.
The Nevada and Idaho proposals are similar, while Oregon would keep its primaries closed and limit ranked voting to federal and top statewide races, including for governor.
In the District of Columbia, the Democratic Party sued unsuccessfully to stop the proposed ranked voting initiative, claiming in part that it violates the city’s charter that requires top officials to be elected on a partisan basis.
Sondra Cosgrove, a history professor at the College of Southern Nevada who supports the ranked voting initiative in her state, has watched Alaska’s system closely.
Some people are more likely to vote for just one person, which can cause ballots to be exhausted “prematurely” and lead to “unpredictable results” such as Peltola winning the House seat, said Izon, who said he doesn’t align with a political party.
The original article contains 1,270 words, the summary contains 231 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Oregon would keep its primaries closed and limit ranked voting to federal and top statewide races, including for governor.
Of course they would! 99% of Oregon’s population is in a progressive majority city controlled by Neoliberals that would be voted out if they allowed free and fair Dem primaries.
How are Oregon’s primaries unfair?
They’re controlled by the DNC, a private for-profit corporation with a vested interest in favoring some candidates over others.
To think that an even playing field is possible under their full control is ridiculously naive.
How is the DNC a for-profit corporation? Who are the shareholders on whose behalf they act?
Without intent to offend, your comment sounds extremely conspiratorial.
That it’s a private corporation I base on their own statement in court, affirmed by a judge
The court recognized that the DNC treated voters unfairly, but ruled that the DNC is a private corporation; therefore, voters cannot protect their rights by turning to the courts
As for it being for-profit, that’s the only logical explanation for why they insist on strategies that are electorally disadvantageous but profitable, such as acting in favor of the 10% wealthiest much more often than their constituency in general and moving to the right every time the Republicans do, losing more prospective voters than they gain.
