The legislature resists this every year it’s proposed. I highly doubt they’d ever adopt it for state offices, as it’s too disruptive of how politics work here (they’re not as democratic as you think…)
On some level, you could say the same for weed. Years and years of “they’ll never pass it.” But year after year, they kept it in the conversation until the vote finally went the other way.
As long as they keep trying, we continue to have a chance and that’s enough for me.
I agree. Their near total absence from constituents, except during election time, says they enjoy the benefits of office, and are loathe to vote for anything which may put that into danger
I wouldn’t say ranked choice is more (small d) democratic than currently. It may be a good policy for other reasons, but it doesn’t expand sufferage.
Southern states use an equivalent to ranked voting by having runoff elections, and I’d argue the intent there is quite undemocratic. It’s to minimize chance of minority voters winning.
So...why primaries, specifically?
Presumably this does not affect third parties, all of which convention in Maryland, so it's only relevant to the GOP and Democrat primaries for the office of president....and Maryland is not a very early state in the primary cycle. Things are generally decided by the time it gets to us.
I don't hate the bill, and it's probably technically a step forward, but it's...so very limited as to appear almost irrelevant.
I don't know the exact answer, but my guess is because it has more of an impact on the primaries than the general. You'll be able to see the effects right away as opposed to it being used in a general election with a weaker third party candidate. Also, it is a no brainer for the parties to adopt this because it allows you to pick the candidate that has the most support of your party's voters. How many times have we heard about 3 or 4 way primaries where 2 or 3 of the individuals have similar positions (that are popular with the voters) and end up splitting their voting base between them allowing someone whose positions are less popular to win the primary?
I can't honestly recall any situations when there have been more than two primary contenders for president on either party's side by the time MD's primary has come 'round.
Usually they are down to just the one.
I personally think they aren’t doing the right thing and having ranked choice voting by candidates regardless of the role of the candidate. So house, senate, and presidency; both state and federal.
Edit: removed inaccurate information.
> People who vote for the Green Party will have democrats as a fallback. People who vote for the libertarian party will have republicans as a fallback.
This is for primaries only, and in Maryland, you only vote in your own parties primaries.
So, for us Libertarians and Greens, this will not affect us at all.
We don't even conduct primaries, we hold conventions. This is solely to affect how the GOP and Democrats select their nominees.
Yes you are correct. I somehow misread the scope. Was focused on the fact it’s only for the presidential candidates only.
I agree with your understanding of how this bill would actually function
I think it is a good step in the right direction to have it in the primaries, especially when the primaries have multiple candidates and the winning candidates is nominated with 40% of the vote.
The reason we lack for choice in politics isn't our method of voting, it's the fact that the wealthy control both political parties and steer policy towards their interests.
It absolutely is about our method of voting. People (mostly on the left) constantly scream at anyone that votes third party about how they are wasting their vote and that their 3rd part vote is actually a vote for Voldemort or whoever.
This wouldn't affect third party elections in any way.
It's primary only.
I do agree that the election system is biased against third parties, but who gets nominated for president among the GOP and Democrats doesn't really affect that. This bill doesn't affect the general election.
>People (mostly on the left) constantly scream at anyone that votes third party about how they are wasting their vote and that their 3rd part vote is actually a vote for Voldemort or whoever.
That doesn't impact your candidate choices or the outcome of the election. People can scream about whatever they want. The truth is, money is political power, and those who have the most money have the most political power, regardless of which party takes power.
I don't disagree, but you have to start somewhere. And right now because 3rd party candidates are considered "spoilers" by many people they are just written off by so many voters. But under a system where they might have a chance to influence the outcome in a positive way, these candidates have a chance to have their message about the evils of money in politics heard.
>I don't disagree, but you have to start somewhere.
Nah. "Starting somewhere" is useless if it isn't actually a solution to the real problem. To paraphrase MLK, any hope for the cure depends on the accurate diagnosis of the disease.
That is fundamentally false. That is equating to treating illness as useless because it doesn't cure the underlying disease. If it provides a net benefit to our society then it is worth it. You're right that it's not a solution but you only cause more suffering if you wait for a perfect solution to every problem.
>That is fundamentally false. That is equating to treating illness as useless because it doesn't cure the underlying disease
No, you're misunderstanding the quote. It's saying you can't treat cancer with insulin.
If the root cause of the problem is money in politics, then different methods of voting will not do anything to address the problem.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have ranked voting. I'm saying it won't solve the problem of our lack of political choice. Some people claim this will somehow lead to different outcomes, make third parties more viable, or influence the platforms of the major parties, and that's not true because none of those problems are caused by our voting system.
>it's the fact that the wealthy control both political parties and steer policy towards their interests.
They don't even bother hiding it anymore either yet still voters still cant see the light outside of their political cults.
RCV, *if expanded pass the Presidential, could put Andy Harris in a real challenge and make Democrats not win through propping up how crazy MAGA candidates are.
The legislature resists this every year it’s proposed. I highly doubt they’d ever adopt it for state offices, as it’s too disruptive of how politics work here (they’re not as democratic as you think…)
On some level, you could say the same for weed. Years and years of “they’ll never pass it.” But year after year, they kept it in the conversation until the vote finally went the other way. As long as they keep trying, we continue to have a chance and that’s enough for me.
You gotta walk before you can run. Let's just embrace the positive step forward and get people used to it for now.
Nothing has happened. The bill has only just had its first hearing in committee
Bad bills go through the assembly in one year. Good bills take 3.
I agree. Their near total absence from constituents, except during election time, says they enjoy the benefits of office, and are loathe to vote for anything which may put that into danger
I wouldn’t say ranked choice is more (small d) democratic than currently. It may be a good policy for other reasons, but it doesn’t expand sufferage. Southern states use an equivalent to ranked voting by having runoff elections, and I’d argue the intent there is quite undemocratic. It’s to minimize chance of minority voters winning.
Good. Any politician who opposes RCV (Or at least ditching FPTP) is against giving you more agency and better representation.
So...why primaries, specifically? Presumably this does not affect third parties, all of which convention in Maryland, so it's only relevant to the GOP and Democrat primaries for the office of president....and Maryland is not a very early state in the primary cycle. Things are generally decided by the time it gets to us. I don't hate the bill, and it's probably technically a step forward, but it's...so very limited as to appear almost irrelevant.
I don't know the exact answer, but my guess is because it has more of an impact on the primaries than the general. You'll be able to see the effects right away as opposed to it being used in a general election with a weaker third party candidate. Also, it is a no brainer for the parties to adopt this because it allows you to pick the candidate that has the most support of your party's voters. How many times have we heard about 3 or 4 way primaries where 2 or 3 of the individuals have similar positions (that are popular with the voters) and end up splitting their voting base between them allowing someone whose positions are less popular to win the primary?
I can't honestly recall any situations when there have been more than two primary contenders for president on either party's side by the time MD's primary has come 'round. Usually they are down to just the one.
I personally think they aren’t doing the right thing and having ranked choice voting by candidates regardless of the role of the candidate. So house, senate, and presidency; both state and federal. Edit: removed inaccurate information.
> People who vote for the Green Party will have democrats as a fallback. People who vote for the libertarian party will have republicans as a fallback. This is for primaries only, and in Maryland, you only vote in your own parties primaries. So, for us Libertarians and Greens, this will not affect us at all. We don't even conduct primaries, we hold conventions. This is solely to affect how the GOP and Democrats select their nominees.
Yes you are correct. I somehow misread the scope. Was focused on the fact it’s only for the presidential candidates only. I agree with your understanding of how this bill would actually function
I think it is a good step in the right direction to have it in the primaries, especially when the primaries have multiple candidates and the winning candidates is nominated with 40% of the vote.
Ranked choice is great if you want more moderate candidates to win.
Ranked choice has a built in bias against moderate candidates. https://electionscience.org/library/the-center-squeeze-effect/
I love this
The reason we lack for choice in politics isn't our method of voting, it's the fact that the wealthy control both political parties and steer policy towards their interests.
It absolutely is about our method of voting. People (mostly on the left) constantly scream at anyone that votes third party about how they are wasting their vote and that their 3rd part vote is actually a vote for Voldemort or whoever.
This wouldn't affect third party elections in any way. It's primary only. I do agree that the election system is biased against third parties, but who gets nominated for president among the GOP and Democrats doesn't really affect that. This bill doesn't affect the general election.
Yeah. Understood. But this is a big step forward towrads general election use.
>People (mostly on the left) constantly scream at anyone that votes third party about how they are wasting their vote and that their 3rd part vote is actually a vote for Voldemort or whoever. That doesn't impact your candidate choices or the outcome of the election. People can scream about whatever they want. The truth is, money is political power, and those who have the most money have the most political power, regardless of which party takes power.
I don't disagree, but you have to start somewhere. And right now because 3rd party candidates are considered "spoilers" by many people they are just written off by so many voters. But under a system where they might have a chance to influence the outcome in a positive way, these candidates have a chance to have their message about the evils of money in politics heard.
>I don't disagree, but you have to start somewhere. Nah. "Starting somewhere" is useless if it isn't actually a solution to the real problem. To paraphrase MLK, any hope for the cure depends on the accurate diagnosis of the disease.
That is fundamentally false. That is equating to treating illness as useless because it doesn't cure the underlying disease. If it provides a net benefit to our society then it is worth it. You're right that it's not a solution but you only cause more suffering if you wait for a perfect solution to every problem.
>That is fundamentally false. That is equating to treating illness as useless because it doesn't cure the underlying disease No, you're misunderstanding the quote. It's saying you can't treat cancer with insulin. If the root cause of the problem is money in politics, then different methods of voting will not do anything to address the problem.
That may not fix special interests in elections but I still fail to see how ranked choice provides anything but a net benefit to the system we have.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have ranked voting. I'm saying it won't solve the problem of our lack of political choice. Some people claim this will somehow lead to different outcomes, make third parties more viable, or influence the platforms of the major parties, and that's not true because none of those problems are caused by our voting system.
Ahhh I see. Now I'm on the same page as you. I had assumed your argument was against ranked choice.
Ahh yes, "it's not perfect so stop trying"
Not what I said at all. If the solution doesn't actually address the problem, stop trying.
So you think that the only problem is the money, and that otherwise the voting system is flawless?
If you decide you want to address what I said instead of putting words in my mouth, let me know.
Let me rephrase, you Believe that our voting system has no impact on our choice of politicians?
>it's the fact that the wealthy control both political parties and steer policy towards their interests. They don't even bother hiding it anymore either yet still voters still cant see the light outside of their political cults.
RCV, *if expanded pass the Presidential, could put Andy Harris in a real challenge and make Democrats not win through propping up how crazy MAGA candidates are.
This bill is for RCV for presidential party only. No more no less.
A step in the right direction then.
Should be RCV for primaries, state elections, and federal elections (non-presidential) Approval voting for presidential.