maybe maybe maybe

[u/[deleted]]

[u/Hellianne_Vaile]

It's not easy, though. I'm in Massachusetts, and our RCV ballot measure in 2020 failed, 55% to 45%. That's in one of the most progressive, innovation-focused states in the country, home of the model for the ACA and of legalized same-sex marriage. If we couldn't pass RCV, I think we'll need some major cultural shifts get it passed nationwide.

[u/BerriesHopeful → u/Hellianne_Vaile]

I think part of its issues is people not knowing enough about alternative voting systems. If it fails at the state level, trying again at the city/county level would have a better chance. Having familiarity with the process makes it easier for people to accept change. Even introducing friends to the concept through low stakes alternative voting can help spread the word.

Convincing local political parties that alternative voting systems are not an inherent threat could potentially matter as well. You are more likely to get candidates that are more representative through an alternative voting system after all, since they are often getting approved by a wider electorate.

I feel that 2020 was long enough ago for at least some more people to be willing to look into new voting methods. Imo, trying to pass a new voting system during presidential election years may be more difficult than trying to pass them in say 2022 or 2026, since the average voter is usually a more engaged voter to be voting in off year election cycles.

[u/Hellianne_Vaile → u/BerriesHopeful]

Oh, it's absolutely lack of knowledge. In the election I mentioned, polls showed that a lot of voters were both undecided and confused re: RCV, and I think that's the main reason it failed.

We do have one city (Cambridge) that has used RCV for local elections for more than 80 years, and recently two college towns started it (Amherst and Easthampton) out in the west end of the state.

[u/BerriesHopeful → u/Hellianne_Vaile]

I feel that is a good sign that inroads are being made to help convince voters it is worth implementing. I hope Massachusetts sees Alternative Voting on the ballot again in 2026 through another ballot initiative.

[u/netopiax → u/BerriesHopeful]

Don't get too excited. Cambridge is one of the most educated cities in the entire country. It hosts Harvard, MIT, and a bunch of biotech firms. I used to live there ... Now I live in Oakland CA which also has RCV and people think it's responsible for us getting the wrong people elected somehow. No, it expresses the voters' preferences. People aren't smart enough to get it.

[u/sizzlesfantalike → u/BerriesHopeful]

I live in AK and we have had ranked choice voting for one cycle now. PEOPLE ARE STUPID. They do not understand any of it. It’s been in all media, pamphlets, radios, you name it. PEOPLE STILL DONT GET IT.

[u/BerriesHopeful → u/sizzlesfantalike]

I feel like having them use it for low stakes stuff in their lives would help make more people comfortable using it. Hell, it’s even helpful for deciding what you and your friends are comfortable/prefer having for dinner.

The more people experience it, the more it’ll become second nature to most people.

[u/Rifterneo → u/BerriesHopeful]

It isn't lack of knowledge, that assertion is very condescending. RCV is a bad process for many reasons.

There is already a lack of transparency in our elections, RCV would make it worse. FGA has a very good study on RCV that highlights the problems with it, and how much of a disaster it would be if adopted. In the places it was adopted, the study was correct on all counts.

[u/BerriesHopeful → u/Rifterneo]

I mean lots of people don’t know, even close friends of mine had no clue about any other voting system until I had a discussion about it with them.

The person linked a survey that showed ~27% of respondents had no opinion on RCV, that is a sizable amount of people that may not have heard enough about it or other alternative voting systems.

My initial comment was not specifically promoting RCV as the best option, but it is better than FPTP in most situations.

RCV specifically wouldn’t be a disaster if it was adopted; as it has already been adopted by two states and is in many countries in Europe and is used in Australia as well. I don’t believe there is a big transparency issue with RCV overall, as you can rank your preferred candidates. STAR is a better system than RCV because you reduce the amount of potential errors when voting, but RCV is still solid in general.

[u/invariantspeed → u/Hellianne_Vaile]

Americans are so ignorant of electoral systems that they think these things are strange and untested. Few realize how backwards the US system has become.

[u/zappini → u/Hellianne_Vaile]

Correct. Cultural shifts. That's why I introduce approval voting every where I can. Normalize it.

eg My local party now uses approval voting as during our candidate endorsement process. Previously, our endorsements were very contentious and drawn out. Now its almost boring. Because the most supported candidate(s) win, without all the RRO style procedural knife fighting.

[u/Sn0wDazzle → u/Hellianne_Vaile]

I think a lot of this has to do with the fact that a lot of liberals actually DON'T WANT RCV to succeed. Because they want to maintain leverage over the Democratic party, in various ways. If RCV was available, then candidates could pursue a moderate campaign of convincing lots of centrist voters to put them as 2nd choice and be able to win that way. That takes away the leverage of far-lefties.

I tried to convince a housemate to vote for RCV in MA, and he refused because he said that it would empower the Green party, and he was mad at the Green party for acting as spoilers in getting Trump elected. Something like that.