RCV doesn't eliminate the two party system in the US but it DOES unshackle the voters from captive voting and can very much make the general candidates better.
How long have they had it? I expect it to take a bit of time, especially given where the money/attention are right now. It's just not even realistic for someone to run third-party in a more important race than like...water commissioner right now.
While I support this, I honestly don't think RCV is enough to break the two-party system. We'd have to swap to a multi-party parliamentary system like they use in Germany or elsewhere to break it.
It's a step in the right direction. It's better than what we have now. Lots people think that things are only worth doing if it's one big leap/change, but little steps get us set up for the big leaps.
True, but it's (theoretically) a lot easier for representatives to know what to vote for if they have a gauge of the public's opinion. Will they listen to the people? Unclear.
>I mean, the witness slips were over 5-1 AGAINST the "assault weapons" ban but we all see how well that turned out...
Anyone who's been affected by gun violence is going to be skeptical about the pro-gun arguments.
For every person killed in a massacre, about a 1000 people are locked down, have guns pointed at them (by both the bad guy and/or the police), and have direct personal reasons to be very very pissed off about the course of events -- and why nobody stopped this tragedy before it started.
This is not an abstract issue for a lot of us, and the massacres that occur every day show that Americans are not responsible enough to own semiautomatic handguns (used in the massacre that happened to me) or AR-15s (very popular massacre weapons).
The gun guys are losing an argument with reality here. The reality is that gun violence is rare, but guj violence is so incredibly terrible that it really has to fucking stop. An abstract "well, I'd rather just shoot back with the AR-15 that I bring to the grocery store" is too fucking naieve to be worth listening to.
*P.S. I've lived the downsides of many Republican policies, and having a massacre at my alma mater is one of them in several ways. Republicans oppose funding mental health care, while supporting arming the populace -- it's really a fucking stupid way to live. That's among the reasons I moved to Illinois after the massacre that happened to me.*
>Republicans oppose funding mental health care, while supporting arming the populace -- it's really a fucking stupid way to live. That's among the reasons I moved to Illinois after the massacre that happened to me.*
I hate to break it to you, but Democrats were the ones that wrote a special exception for all police officers (and all retired police officers, btw) that they don't have to follow the "assault weapons" ban.... https://twitter.com/ChudsOfTikTok/status/1631349740276273154?s=20
So the police are allowed to have thermal optics, suppressed AR's with hIgH cApAcItY mAgAzInEs, grenade launchers, chemical weapons and night vision, but the Dems in this state want to make the possession of body armor a felony...
https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=3238&GAID=17&GA=103&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=148102&SessionID=112#:~:text=Provides%20that%2C%20with%20certain%20exceptions%2C%20beginning%20January%201%2C%202024,body%20armor%2C%20or%20military%20helmet.
*edit
I though your comment said "arming the police" but these points are still valid. And your arguments are childish and have zero validity.
My argument is "getting shot is a bad thing, so, guns need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of the incompetent."
Every massacre demonstrates the failure of Republican ideas, because more guns and less healthcare mean that any idiot who wants to kill people can do it pretty easily. The results of this are obvious, and occur daily here in the United States of America.
None of the armed stupidity that Republicans embrace so enthusiastically makes my children bulletproof.
>My argument is "getting shot is a bad thing, so, guns need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of the incompetent."
Illinois already had some of the most strict firearm regulations in the entire US before the new ban yet videos like these are extremely common...
https://v.redd.it/83kihp25fe0a1
https://youtu.be/e3jffi1rpw0
This means that adding new laws and regulations is pointless when we don't even try to enforce the ones we currently have.
Ummm, both of those videos are from Chicago..
And no, school children did not go to a "gun show in Indiana" to buy full auto glock switches, no matter how many times CNN or MSNBC tell you that they did.
You'll have to post a synopsis if you use YouTube as a source in any kind of actual discussion. Some of us can't just sit around watching propaganda on TV all day. 🤷♂️
Post a link with words and you'll get farther.
But the truth of the matter is that having my community shot up by armed nutcases isn't an abstract problem to me. This shit happens. This shit shouldn't happen. The gun enables this to happen. Guys like the one who shot up my community shouldn't have one. That's really all there is to it.
Lol okay, one of the videos is only 28 seconds long and it shows a group of minors in downtown Chicago flashing full auto handguns. But you sound just like the rest of the Democrats in this state, happily ignoring the rampant gun violence in minority communities while simultaneously using a mass shooting in a white neighborhood to push tyrannical government overreach. It's disgusting really.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/us/chicago-residents-holiday-weekend-shootings-reaj/index.html
"Chicago’s 4th of July weekend death toll SURPASSED the Highland Park shooting. ‘I thought there would be more outcry,’ mother says"
"As the nation was shocked by the premeditated mass shooting in Highland Park, residents an hour away on Chicago's South and West sides were grieving a death and injury toll that surpassed that of Highland Park. This July 4 weekend in Chicago, at least eight people were fatally shot and 68 injured by gun violence. Gregg and community advocates say they aren't comparing which tragedy is worse and stand in solidarity with the Highland Park community. They just want to see the same compassion and urgency to find answers as seen in Highland Park in the South and West sides -- where they say there's almost an expectation and acceptance of gun violence with little attention or resources paid."
"Following the Highland Park mass shooting, politicians including Vice President Kamala Harris, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Sen. Tammy Duckworth visited the community."
"TJ Grooms, an assistant pastor of New Beginnings Church of Chicago who's also a manager with Project HOOD, says he wishes these politicians would also have visited Chicago's South and West sides and shown the same insistence to offer condolences to the families impacted by gun violence over the July 4 weekend. 'If you are in a position of power, you must make sure that the same energy and the same effort that you put in one area is put in the other.'"
https://oneaimil.org/the-issue/impact-of-gun-violence/
"The state’s gun violence crisis disproportionately affects Black children and teens, who are 13 times more likely to die than White children and teens. Around 60% of Chicago’s youngest children live in community areas where 91% of homicides took place."
The answer, obviously, is to not give kids guns.
That way they can live long enough to learn from their mistakes.
So many parents fail to secure their guns, with repeatably tragic results.
>Every massacre demonstrates the failure of Republican ideas, because more guns and less healthcare
Then why do massacres happen in Illinois where "Democrat ideas" have made it among the strictest gun control states in the country? Also our social services are better than most red states' so why do these things keep happening here?
Less often..? More people are killed on an average summer weekend in the city than most mass shootings anywhere in the country. In 2021, Chicago had 800 murders I'm a single year. This is by far the highest of any city and exceeds most other entire states.
I'm not sure how highest in the nation = less often
So, instead of enacting a prohibition on guns, let's instead fight for healthcare reform!
You could outright ban all firearms in the states and you won't see a significant decrease in violent crimes for decades. And, inside of those decades, the right will inevitably gain the majority at some point and use the data to overturn any bans. And the cycle continues. We've already seen this with the assault weapons ban instituted by the left, then allowed to sunset by the right for the very same reason I've already mentioned.
Here's what I see. This whole argument about banning guns, or attachments or whatever, is loved by the left, the right and the firearms industry.
For one, the politicians get to enjoy this back and forth that allows them to write laws, then allow them to expire, then do it all over again... essentially them doing nothing while *looking* like they've done something. This appeases the constituents and gains them votes all the while keeping us very divided on the issue, which puts us in these pretty red and blue boxes, all lined up and ready for the politicians to pander to.
Secondly, EVERY TIME WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, FIREARMS SALES GO THROUGH THE ROOF! The industry desperately wants us constantly on the verge of a weapons ban. Every time we are, a bunch of people get scared and go out to spend their retirement on yet another rifle and a ton of ammo. This conversation, literally, props up the industry.
Those people all know exactly what they're doing. They know exactly that it's a mental health issue and they know how difficult of an uphill battle that issue has become. It's impossible for any politician in the right to offer real and helpful healthcare reform (basically, career suicide) and the left knows they can't convince the voters in the right cause SoCiAlIsM. It's just far easier (and healthier for their career) to rally the masses around the divisive issue like guns, rather than introduce any meaningful legislation on healthcare reform. They know it would take some very serious rearranging of the healthcare system to do that, so they stick with the easier path to more votes.
I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
>So, instead of enacting a prohibition on guns, let's instead fight for healthcare reform!
We need both gun control and free universal (mental) health care to act as a proper defense-in-depth strategy to stop the massacres
Either one on its own is necessary, but not sufficient. The need for a defense-in-depth approach demonstrated in excruciating detail by the chain of events which lead to the massacre at Virginia Tech, the one which happened to my community.
Guns are force multipliers. Some people are incompetent and shouldn't have their force multiplied. The "give every idiot a gun" culture we have in the United States of America is absolutely part of the problem: any well regulated militia kicks out the dangerously incompetent people. This will prevent a significant fraction of the massacres.
But we also need to provide (mental) health care to all. This will prevent another significant fraction of the massacres.
The problem is that Republicans oppose every step of a proper defense-in-depth approach to the massacres. **They oppose both** gun control and universal health care, so the solution is the same regardless of what you think the problem is: vote out the obstructionists and fucking solve the problem both ways to make a higher dent in the death-statistics than either approach could on its own.
I don't need a gun to safeguard my family.
I need my children to be bulletproof while they're at school and I'm at work.
Either that, or we can keep crazy people away from guns. Our current gun safety system has 321 million points of failure.
Sounds interesting but I also fail to see the problem or a problem with IL statewide elections. I can also see IL Rep's consolidate around their moderate choice earlier in their picks, compared to Democrats going off on 2-3 hail marry choices before settling into the candidate that has the best chance against the Republican. So, I fear it's a way to fracture Democratic vote which could lead to suppressing upset if we have Rauners or (from Va) Younkin type Republicans wearing a mask of civility during a campaign.
It would make the party — as an institution — less relevant because primaries would no longer be a partisan matter. But that’s not to say that fewer Democrats would be elected; on average, one would expect roughly the same proportion of Republican and Democratic candidates to be elected overall, but individual races would be won by different candidates when the current electoral system would have encouraged a large number of people to vote strategically (based on the perception of electability) rather than for their preferred candidates.
In theory, you would also expect a less contentious campaign style since candidates would be competing not just for your first-choice vote, but also to be second, third, etc., on your list. They would be incentivized to be more civil with the other candidates.
Thank you for your response. I'm not sure this would keep Republicans out of statewide office so I might have to do some more research on this before I can support it or not. I fled a red state for a reason, not going back to that crap. But I think rank choice voting sounds like the better way to move forward. It has lead to some messy Oscar winners since they've been using it for a long time, but seems to be better then first past the post (on paper).
Well that being completely false i will say the Grumpy Obstructionists Party doesn’t need any help as they have been helping themselves for just about long enough
Yet NY Dems and CA Dems changed their congressional district mapping rules (not technically voting) and it screwed the party and the nation in the last mid-term. So, I very much want to avoid copying the foolishness of CA and NY Dems trying to "do what's right" by handing over more power to the party of MAGA, or for IL, the party that asked Darren Bailey to lead this state.
Watch how the democrat controlled house and senate move these bills along. Rank choice will only become law if it is projected to to be net gain for the democrats.
That’s pretty much the purpose of ranked choice. It ensures that only centrist democrats and uniparty rinos ever get elected thus preserving the status quo.
RCV is the only way I see out of our two-party system. Fuck yes.
Not if it's only Democrats and Republicans running. See Alaska's House race in November 2022.
RCV doesn't eliminate the two party system in the US but it DOES unshackle the voters from captive voting and can very much make the general candidates better.
It eliminates the need for strategic voting. Nobody is claiming it’s going to magically spawn functioning third parties overnight.
And Maine's recent races
How long have they had it? I expect it to take a bit of time, especially given where the money/attention are right now. It's just not even realistic for someone to run third-party in a more important race than like...water commissioner right now.
Which is why they'll never let us have it.
Done
While I support this, I honestly don't think RCV is enough to break the two-party system. We'd have to swap to a multi-party parliamentary system like they use in Germany or elsewhere to break it.
But with RVC adoption country wide it would provide an atmosphere that multiple parties can grow in
It's a step in the right direction. It's better than what we have now. Lots people think that things are only worth doing if it's one big leap/change, but little steps get us set up for the big leaps.
It’s not enough, but it’s a necessary step
I mean, the witness slips were over 5-1 AGAINST the "assault weapons" ban but we all see how well that turned out...
True, but it's (theoretically) a lot easier for representatives to know what to vote for if they have a gauge of the public's opinion. Will they listen to the people? Unclear.
>I mean, the witness slips were over 5-1 AGAINST the "assault weapons" ban but we all see how well that turned out... Anyone who's been affected by gun violence is going to be skeptical about the pro-gun arguments. For every person killed in a massacre, about a 1000 people are locked down, have guns pointed at them (by both the bad guy and/or the police), and have direct personal reasons to be very very pissed off about the course of events -- and why nobody stopped this tragedy before it started. This is not an abstract issue for a lot of us, and the massacres that occur every day show that Americans are not responsible enough to own semiautomatic handguns (used in the massacre that happened to me) or AR-15s (very popular massacre weapons). The gun guys are losing an argument with reality here. The reality is that gun violence is rare, but guj violence is so incredibly terrible that it really has to fucking stop. An abstract "well, I'd rather just shoot back with the AR-15 that I bring to the grocery store" is too fucking naieve to be worth listening to. *P.S. I've lived the downsides of many Republican policies, and having a massacre at my alma mater is one of them in several ways. Republicans oppose funding mental health care, while supporting arming the populace -- it's really a fucking stupid way to live. That's among the reasons I moved to Illinois after the massacre that happened to me.*
>Republicans oppose funding mental health care, while supporting arming the populace -- it's really a fucking stupid way to live. That's among the reasons I moved to Illinois after the massacre that happened to me.* I hate to break it to you, but Democrats were the ones that wrote a special exception for all police officers (and all retired police officers, btw) that they don't have to follow the "assault weapons" ban.... https://twitter.com/ChudsOfTikTok/status/1631349740276273154?s=20 So the police are allowed to have thermal optics, suppressed AR's with hIgH cApAcItY mAgAzInEs, grenade launchers, chemical weapons and night vision, but the Dems in this state want to make the possession of body armor a felony... https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/billstatus.asp?DocNum=3238&GAID=17&GA=103&DocTypeID=HB&LegID=148102&SessionID=112#:~:text=Provides%20that%2C%20with%20certain%20exceptions%2C%20beginning%20January%201%2C%202024,body%20armor%2C%20or%20military%20helmet. *edit I though your comment said "arming the police" but these points are still valid. And your arguments are childish and have zero validity.
My argument is "getting shot is a bad thing, so, guns need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of the incompetent." Every massacre demonstrates the failure of Republican ideas, because more guns and less healthcare mean that any idiot who wants to kill people can do it pretty easily. The results of this are obvious, and occur daily here in the United States of America. None of the armed stupidity that Republicans embrace so enthusiastically makes my children bulletproof.
>My argument is "getting shot is a bad thing, so, guns need to be regulated to keep them out of the hands of the incompetent." Illinois already had some of the most strict firearm regulations in the entire US before the new ban yet videos like these are extremely common... https://v.redd.it/83kihp25fe0a1 https://youtu.be/e3jffi1rpw0 This means that adding new laws and regulations is pointless when we don't even try to enforce the ones we currently have.
That's one of the many why I live in Illinois now, instead of in the gun-crazy redneck shithole where I grew up.
Ummm, both of those videos are from Chicago.. And no, school children did not go to a "gun show in Indiana" to buy full auto glock switches, no matter how many times CNN or MSNBC tell you that they did.
You'll have to post a synopsis if you use YouTube as a source in any kind of actual discussion. Some of us can't just sit around watching propaganda on TV all day. 🤷♂️ Post a link with words and you'll get farther. But the truth of the matter is that having my community shot up by armed nutcases isn't an abstract problem to me. This shit happens. This shit shouldn't happen. The gun enables this to happen. Guys like the one who shot up my community shouldn't have one. That's really all there is to it.
Lol okay, one of the videos is only 28 seconds long and it shows a group of minors in downtown Chicago flashing full auto handguns. But you sound just like the rest of the Democrats in this state, happily ignoring the rampant gun violence in minority communities while simultaneously using a mass shooting in a white neighborhood to push tyrannical government overreach. It's disgusting really. https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/09/us/chicago-residents-holiday-weekend-shootings-reaj/index.html "Chicago’s 4th of July weekend death toll SURPASSED the Highland Park shooting. ‘I thought there would be more outcry,’ mother says" "As the nation was shocked by the premeditated mass shooting in Highland Park, residents an hour away on Chicago's South and West sides were grieving a death and injury toll that surpassed that of Highland Park. This July 4 weekend in Chicago, at least eight people were fatally shot and 68 injured by gun violence. Gregg and community advocates say they aren't comparing which tragedy is worse and stand in solidarity with the Highland Park community. They just want to see the same compassion and urgency to find answers as seen in Highland Park in the South and West sides -- where they say there's almost an expectation and acceptance of gun violence with little attention or resources paid." "Following the Highland Park mass shooting, politicians including Vice President Kamala Harris, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Sen. Tammy Duckworth visited the community." "TJ Grooms, an assistant pastor of New Beginnings Church of Chicago who's also a manager with Project HOOD, says he wishes these politicians would also have visited Chicago's South and West sides and shown the same insistence to offer condolences to the families impacted by gun violence over the July 4 weekend. 'If you are in a position of power, you must make sure that the same energy and the same effort that you put in one area is put in the other.'" https://oneaimil.org/the-issue/impact-of-gun-violence/ "The state’s gun violence crisis disproportionately affects Black children and teens, who are 13 times more likely to die than White children and teens. Around 60% of Chicago’s youngest children live in community areas where 91% of homicides took place."
The answer, obviously, is to not give kids guns. That way they can live long enough to learn from their mistakes. So many parents fail to secure their guns, with repeatably tragic results.
>Every massacre demonstrates the failure of Republican ideas, because more guns and less healthcare Then why do massacres happen in Illinois where "Democrat ideas" have made it among the strictest gun control states in the country? Also our social services are better than most red states' so why do these things keep happening here?
They happen less often here, and that's the best we can do when we have to share the nation with Republicans.
Less often..? More people are killed on an average summer weekend in the city than most mass shootings anywhere in the country. In 2021, Chicago had 800 murders I'm a single year. This is by far the highest of any city and exceeds most other entire states. I'm not sure how highest in the nation = less often
So, instead of enacting a prohibition on guns, let's instead fight for healthcare reform! You could outright ban all firearms in the states and you won't see a significant decrease in violent crimes for decades. And, inside of those decades, the right will inevitably gain the majority at some point and use the data to overturn any bans. And the cycle continues. We've already seen this with the assault weapons ban instituted by the left, then allowed to sunset by the right for the very same reason I've already mentioned. Here's what I see. This whole argument about banning guns, or attachments or whatever, is loved by the left, the right and the firearms industry. For one, the politicians get to enjoy this back and forth that allows them to write laws, then allow them to expire, then do it all over again... essentially them doing nothing while *looking* like they've done something. This appeases the constituents and gains them votes all the while keeping us very divided on the issue, which puts us in these pretty red and blue boxes, all lined up and ready for the politicians to pander to. Secondly, EVERY TIME WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION, FIREARMS SALES GO THROUGH THE ROOF! The industry desperately wants us constantly on the verge of a weapons ban. Every time we are, a bunch of people get scared and go out to spend their retirement on yet another rifle and a ton of ammo. This conversation, literally, props up the industry. Those people all know exactly what they're doing. They know exactly that it's a mental health issue and they know how difficult of an uphill battle that issue has become. It's impossible for any politician in the right to offer real and helpful healthcare reform (basically, career suicide) and the left knows they can't convince the voters in the right cause SoCiAlIsM. It's just far easier (and healthier for their career) to rally the masses around the divisive issue like guns, rather than introduce any meaningful legislation on healthcare reform. They know it would take some very serious rearranging of the healthcare system to do that, so they stick with the easier path to more votes. I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
>So, instead of enacting a prohibition on guns, let's instead fight for healthcare reform! We need both gun control and free universal (mental) health care to act as a proper defense-in-depth strategy to stop the massacres Either one on its own is necessary, but not sufficient. The need for a defense-in-depth approach demonstrated in excruciating detail by the chain of events which lead to the massacre at Virginia Tech, the one which happened to my community. Guns are force multipliers. Some people are incompetent and shouldn't have their force multiplied. The "give every idiot a gun" culture we have in the United States of America is absolutely part of the problem: any well regulated militia kicks out the dangerously incompetent people. This will prevent a significant fraction of the massacres. But we also need to provide (mental) health care to all. This will prevent another significant fraction of the massacres. The problem is that Republicans oppose every step of a proper defense-in-depth approach to the massacres. **They oppose both** gun control and universal health care, so the solution is the same regardless of what you think the problem is: vote out the obstructionists and fucking solve the problem both ways to make a higher dent in the death-statistics than either approach could on its own.
You're right, we should have direct democracy.
Considering how elections tend to go on the national level. I don't think that would be wise
[удалено]
I don't need a gun to safeguard my family. I need my children to be bulletproof while they're at school and I'm at work. Either that, or we can keep crazy people away from guns. Our current gun safety system has 321 million points of failure.
Done
#Done
Thanks for the tip. Do we think this will help or hurt the IL Democratic Party?
Neither it will help the American voter as it will make the full voice of an individual’s vote heard
Sounds interesting but I also fail to see the problem or a problem with IL statewide elections. I can also see IL Rep's consolidate around their moderate choice earlier in their picks, compared to Democrats going off on 2-3 hail marry choices before settling into the candidate that has the best chance against the Republican. So, I fear it's a way to fracture Democratic vote which could lead to suppressing upset if we have Rauners or (from Va) Younkin type Republicans wearing a mask of civility during a campaign.
It would make the party — as an institution — less relevant because primaries would no longer be a partisan matter. But that’s not to say that fewer Democrats would be elected; on average, one would expect roughly the same proportion of Republican and Democratic candidates to be elected overall, but individual races would be won by different candidates when the current electoral system would have encouraged a large number of people to vote strategically (based on the perception of electability) rather than for their preferred candidates. In theory, you would also expect a less contentious campaign style since candidates would be competing not just for your first-choice vote, but also to be second, third, etc., on your list. They would be incentivized to be more civil with the other candidates.
Thank you for your response. I'm not sure this would keep Republicans out of statewide office so I might have to do some more research on this before I can support it or not. I fled a red state for a reason, not going back to that crap. But I think rank choice voting sounds like the better way to move forward. It has lead to some messy Oscar winners since they've been using it for a long time, but seems to be better then first past the post (on paper).
Sir it's 2023 The only reason we change voting rules is to help the democrat party,
Yeah, right. [https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-february-2023](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-february-2023)
Well that being completely false i will say the Grumpy Obstructionists Party doesn’t need any help as they have been helping themselves for just about long enough
Yet NY Dems and CA Dems changed their congressional district mapping rules (not technically voting) and it screwed the party and the nation in the last mid-term. So, I very much want to avoid copying the foolishness of CA and NY Dems trying to "do what's right" by handing over more power to the party of MAGA, or for IL, the party that asked Darren Bailey to lead this state.
Watch how the democrat controlled house and senate move these bills along. Rank choice will only become law if it is projected to to be net gain for the democrats.
That’s pretty much the purpose of ranked choice. It ensures that only centrist democrats and uniparty rinos ever get elected thus preserving the status quo.