[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abc / agatha2 / animu / asmr / leftpol / rmart / tacos / vichan ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

A collective of people engaged in pretty much what the name suggests
Winner of the 72rd Attention-Hungry Games
/otter/ - The Church of Otter

February 2019 - 8chan Transparency Report
Comment *
Password (Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 16 MB.
Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Tags: leftism (CLICK HERE FOR MORE LEFTIST 8CHAN BOARDS), politics, activism, news

File: 0934285a79706c2⋯.png (6.25 KB, 434x172, 217:86, IRV founding fathers ballo….png)


Is there any reason we shouldn't push for this in the United States? Socialist parties will become competitive and the media won't be able to keep their radio silence about alternatives to the two cucks.


No, AV is unironically something every American socialist should be pushing for.



Sanders brought the issue up in 2016, but he seems to be very busy at the moment, or under some sort of pressure from the Democrats to not mention it. With how the midterms are turning out, I think most people would be open to the idea; it's just a matter of publicity.



*special elections



WHat is the benefit of runoff voting if we can't be absolutely certain that our votes are even being counted correctly? Computerized voting machines are inherently an unknown element. For all we know the past election was the result of vote flipping. How should we know?



I think there are ways to make the computer systems more reliable, but I'm still not sure if that's better than physical ballots. I think blockchain technology is ultimately the best way that it could be handled.




The way Maine has implemented it, they have paper ballots in addition to electronic statistics

They do count the paper ballots in Australia:


Computerized voting is not required for this.



At this early stage though, the most important thing is getting this put into the public sphere and discussed. Some establishment representatives are already trying to put up roadblocks:


The fundamental concept is already better than our current system for small parties, and again, we can point to the examples of Australia and Maine, among others, to show how this runs in the real world


Voting is fundamentally reactionary.



If the US didn't have a FPTP and a proportional voting system it be great. But yes I see the problems with such a system but if we truly want to have democracy in the republic we need to have multiparties and a proportional system to back it up. Otherwise the Porkies will keep putting up road blocks and other voting fraud bs to keep out people from voting.


File: 6683a9387f5aa68⋯.png (103.29 KB, 287x343, 41:49, moon eating pizza.png)


Of course you should push for it if you can. I doubt a party of genuine socialists would get elected, but it's still better than the absolute shitfest our current system is.


File: 7a9fb68cda967af⋯.jpg (486.18 KB, 900x600, 3:2, He is watching.jpg)


File: 7c7ddbbe784795d⋯.png (556.54 KB, 693x697, 693:697, smoke3.png)


> American

> Socialist

Literally who?



Yes, shill it to libertarian capitalist types as well please, and really literally anyone disenfranchised with the two party system.


Reminder this is being used in Maine, so watch their results.


File: 47d9ac3c65c6daf⋯.png (12.06 KB, 418x256, 209:128, die rich people.png)


das me


Hello newfriends. We've had that topic several times. If you care about third parties getting seats, it makes more sense to push for proportional elections instead of any single-winner reform. If you just want a better single-winner method than first-past-the-post, either approval voting or range voting would do the trick. They are easier to explain and count than instant-runoff, and more likely to break the duopoly.

In mathematical models where voters have ranked preferences about all the candidates, instant runoff does a bit better with regards to challenging the duopoly than having a separate top-two runoff election. But I question the realism of the premise I put in italics above. In the real world, people don't investigate every candidate; so in a top-two runoff (of the kind not simulated with ballot data, but with people going to vote a second time) an outsider getting into the final round triggers interest and enthusiasm of people who normally only vote to prevent the bigger evil of the main parties or who are apathetic non-voters as long as they don't expect the duopoly to break, so it is very plausible that instant-runoff voting will actually strengthen the party duopoly.



Issue with proportionality is that it often cucks leftwing parties, look at like Norway or Sweden where they get more than most places but will never enter government.



Better to change than to keep the current system going, they have it locked down right now


It should be encouraged but so should elimination of gerrymandering. Getting rid of gerrymandering should be easier to pass because it both hurts and harms the two major parties so it's very likely easy to get bipartisan support. With gerrymandering gone run off voting would work better. Runoff voting is actually already done in a few states so it seems it's much easier to implement state level than federal. The electoral college is also an issue but is extremely gard to abolish so maybe it should be aimed to change it. Also it might be helpful to push for proportional representation in congress.



>Is there any reason we shouldn't push for this

Yeah, voting doesn't do anything.


Vote on laws.



>Better to change

Change to what?


The real solution to gerrymandering is proportional representation. So, forget about bipartisan support.


File: 0a6d0c573991b1e⋯.jpg (177.65 KB, 850x567, 850:567, this post sponsored by car….jpg)

Because it would only be used to spoil third parties. California's new top-two system does exactly this: only the primary election matters while the general election is the final runoff between the top two. The net result of this is only a Democrat and Republican (or in some case two of the same party) on the final ballot. Third party candidates are thus locked out from all state offices, which are the basis of any political organization.

The more you fuck with voting the more the results are skewed to favor the bourgeoisie. Rich people have no problem with complicated voting setups since they have the time to study it and vote accordingly, poor people don't they just wake up one day to find that they aren't allowed to vote for who they want. This is also why poll taxes and poll exams had to be completely banned through the Civil Rights Act.


>Thinking America was ever an actual democracy



Gerrymandering is caused by how districts are drawn out not by lack of representation. The solution is make an AI program do it instead of people. Give it specific rules to follow. Proportional representation can't be done for something like voting for a president or governor or mayor. But proportional representation can be done along with the method of district drawing.



>For all we know the past election was the result of vote flipping. How should we know?

Well, the most liberal states voted for Hillary, so that's unlikely.



FUCKING blockchain is a buzzword now.


New buzzword, here we go.



>Gerrymandering is caused by how districts are drawn out not by lack of representation.

Visualize a square filled in some way with various colors, can be just red and blue or more, your choice. Cut the square into pieces. How does cutting up change the amount of total area of the pieces together that is blue or red or whatever color? Of course, the answer is that the size of the area that was colored in some way in the original square doesn't change by cutting up. If a region is cut into districts that do local proportional elections to create a parliament for the whole region then this approximates what I just told you about the square; the bigger the number of seats, the closer the approximation, so the smaller the potential for gerrymandering gets.

>The solution is make an AI program do it instead of people. Give it specific rules to follow.

But it's people who come up with rules for the program. Just because it looks mathy doesn't mean that it is neutral. In the US and many other countries, there exist differences in party preferences between rural and urban areas. A simple and elegant mathematical rule (e. g. minimizing the length of the district boundaries) can effectively gerrymander in favor of one of these groups, and so be biased to over-represent one of the parties.


Why not shill for Top-Flop voting instead? The voter rates each candidate, with three options to choose from: thumb up, thump down, abstain. We look for each candidate whether the thumb-up side or thumb-down side has more votes. The number of votes for the winning side (not the margin) is the score for the candidate.


File: 4c99dd8ce01848e⋯.jpg (24.63 KB, 720x480, 3:2, 4c99dd8ce01848e288468e65f5….jpg)

>Imagines a future where the Dems looks like Jim Profit and Republicans Nathan Larson

>Clowns to the left of me…jokers to the right HERE I AM stuck in the middle with Akkad

>Get my ear cut off by ICE agents

[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Nerve Center][Cancer][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ / / / / / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / abc / agatha2 / animu / asmr / leftpol / rmart / tacos / vichan ]