Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

MoreCommonCents OP t1_isk997k wrote

Reply to comment by Anaxamenes in Freedom of choice... for who we may vote for... or against by MoreCommonCents

Yeah, ranked choice voting is a great option, also currently unavailable to us. I like it even better, but the right to vote no is enough to make a big change.

1

giant2179 t1_iskhpqt wrote

Why bother advocating for a lesser option if you agree that ranked choice would be better? Voting no just seems to further the divide and increase negativity in campaigning.

Ranked choice voting is a ballot initiative in Seattle this year, so it is definitely gaining support.

8

MoreCommonCents OP t1_iskn4cp wrote

I have little faith in the voting masses. I know too many who vote for someone they do not like because of their hate for someone else. Ranked choice is great for the well informed. But for the uninformed, easily manipulated masses it is simply a bit more complicated and I suspect they would vote against that option. So I guess the main reason for suggesting a "vote no" option is that I think it would be a positive change that more people might support, therefore making it more likely to accomplish. Ultimately the first issue is simply giving us more than two choices per position.

−5

Rocketgirl8097 t1_isou7y2 wrote

We get more than two choices in the primary and then we narrow it down. Recall that there were about dozen people running for senator from mostly make believe parties.

1

Anaxamenes t1_islum0f wrote

We are currently voting on rank choice voting where I am. It’s had some success in other states too so it makes sense to continue with the choice that makes for a more positive voting experience instead of a negative one.

2