Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

BreadTruckToast t1_j6edk7v wrote

Reply to comment by HeadPen5724 in Debating ranked-choice voting in Vermont by orange_wires

People having to go to the polls multiple times for one election kills the democratic process. Most people already find it obnoxious finding the time once. Ranked choice is one and done. It’s much more cost effective.

24

HeadPen5724 t1_j6eemln wrote

Cost isn’t a factor in elections, if it was we would mass mail out ballots.

The democratic process is voting as a civic duty. If you can’t get an absentee ballot or make it to the polls it’s clearly not an important issue yo you🤷🏼‍♂️ and voters who aren’t informed or don’t care is what’s killing the democratic process.

−9

5teerPike t1_j6errrs wrote

All my ballots in Vermont have been mail in, which was mailed to me first....

10

HeadPen5724 t1_j6eufr6 wrote

Excellent, there’s no issue getting and casting a ballot if you want own then

−3

5teerPike t1_j6euo00 wrote

It would be nice to just get the one instead of wasting the fuel to deliver multiple ones in the event of a run off.

3

HeadPen5724 t1_j6evzhx wrote

Post office drives by regardless of if they’re carry a ballot.

−2

5teerPike t1_j6ez30y wrote

So is there a reason you don't want this other than that there's a less efficient means that works just right for you, specifically?

5

HeadPen5724 t1_j6ezigr wrote

There’s a way that’s worked for 200 years v one that’s already been tried and failed, that really serves no purpose. It’s like people think everyone in Burlington there for it the last time we’re just idiots.

−1

5teerPike t1_j6eztsw wrote

Has it worked for 200 years? Are you sure?

This is what takes away from Vermont, changing nothing is not preserving anything that makes this state what it is.

5

HeadPen5724 t1_j6f0331 wrote

It has. And IRV hasn’t, it’s been tried.

−1

[deleted] t1_j6pdhih wrote

[deleted]

1

HeadPen5724 t1_j6phqyu wrote

Has our society collapsed? Do people not trust the election system? Do we have widespread fraud? Is anyone confused on how to vote?

I mean I guess to determine if it has worked depends on your goal. Mine are clear, fair, simple and straightforward elections where people’s vote counts. In that regard it has worked. You may have a different goal that it doesn’t meet 🤷🏼‍♂️ but that’s what I’m basing it off. How does IRV fit better with you expectations of what constitutes success in an election?

0

HeadPen5724 t1_j6piao5 wrote

Also nothing changing is the status quo in VT. FFS we still depend on people wanting to look at cows wandering around a field as our main source of revenue. The legislatures favorite past time is kicking the can? We use a funding mechanism for education that was devised in the early 1800’s. Hunters still wear red and black plaid wool clothes… Not changing shit IS Vermont.

0

Human802 t1_j6erysy wrote

Kinda seems like saying, don’t improve anything because… it is what it is.

7

HeadPen5724 t1_j6eumb0 wrote

It’s kind of like say if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it. And it was tried before and then immediately soundly rejected 🤷🏼‍♂️. History is predictive

0

Human802 t1_j6evqaz wrote

Well I am glad you are fine with the political situation in Vermont and America.

I think lots of reform is needed, this is a great step in the right direction.

5

HeadPen5724 t1_j6ew66x wrote

A lot of reform as in educating voters on their civic duty and the danger of party/identity politics… id agree with that. Having an instant runoff v traditional runoff… I think that’s making things worse.

0

InformationHorder t1_j6fzryw wrote

You have yet to describe how it actually makes anything worse. So far you're just grumping about how it's different as though it's bad without specifying.

5

HeadPen5724 t1_j6g1yms wrote

Well I did allude to the fact that the last time we tried it, we ended up with the criminal incumbent mayor that had less than 30% of the first round vote, and no one really wanted as Mayor, yet somehow that’s who we got. Within months IRV was gone (with near unanimous support) and we were back to the tried and true traditional runoff which works as elections should. The match up of candidates is clear and upfront. Voting shouldn’t take a statistics degree to figure out every possible match up and how their vote may play out. It also violates the one vote one person principle in some instances where someone doesn’t rank the entire field.

There are lots of issues with it, and it’s not necessary. The system we have works.

1

BreadTruckToast t1_j6ex5ty wrote

Cost is a factor in elections my dude it’s just not discussed very often. Your willful ignorance throughout this thread is mind blowing.

6

HeadPen5724 t1_j6ey6hy wrote

Odd, it doesn’t seem to be a factor when we mail out ballots to everyone in the state and then some? No one has complained about cost?
I think IRV is a horrible idea. I did it once in Burlington already and it was a complete failure and soundly thrown to the curb afterwards. I’ve yet to hear a good reason why we should toss out a system that’s worked for two hundred years to go with one that’s been tried already and failed. If you’ve got one please share.

Edited for wording

0

jsled t1_j6esrmc wrote

> If you can’t get an absentee ballot or make it to the polls it’s clearly not an important issue yo you🤷🏼‍♂️ and voters who aren’t informed or don’t care is what’s killing the democratic process.

How dare you malign people who can't make it to the polls in the limited time available as "uninformed" or "lacking care" and who are "killing the democratic process".

It's you who are "killing the democratic process".

Asshole.

3

HeadPen5724 t1_j6evntl wrote

I think you may have read my post too quickly, Try reading it again and see if you can find the word “or” in there. I’ll forgive the ad hominen attack and chalk it up to reading too quickly.

0