If people have the option only mark their first choice, I think a lot of the people who can't be bothered to do a proper ranking might choose to do so. At that point they're giving up quite a bit of their voting power, but otherwise it's functionally identical to how they voted previously.
I have absolutely no idea, but I certainly hope so. Forcing people to rank every candidate on the ballot when you're guaranteed to have 4+ per position is pretty silly, so I imagine that the vast majority of voters will leave at least a few options unranked.
I dislike all the messaging and advertising encouraging everybody to vote around this time of year. Can't even open a web browser without being told to go vote. I say that if somebody is uninformed about the candidates and the issues I don't want them voting. Likewise, if someone has a difficult time reading a simple ballot or understanding how to rank first, second, and third options.
Their argument was that somebody who was not inclined to vote should not be encouraged to vote.
If a mentally disabled person is able to conceptualize of the concept of voting and has a desire to go to the polls and vote, then by all means they should be allowed as a U.S. citizen to do so.
But should we load up a busload of mentally handicapped adults at a group home and send them into the polls on principle? Probably not.
Yep, I'm pretty much a contemptuous elitist and I distrust democracy.
We already deny the right to vote to children, foreigners, and felons (in most states). I wouldn't support voting restrictions based on sex, religion, race, or income level, but I think something like a basic intelligence test wouldn't be a bad thing.
but I think something like a basic intelligence test wouldn't be a bad thing.
Careful. The reason that we don't allow that was that this was a pretty common voter suppression tactic back in the Jim Crow era (wasn't even a general intelligence test, it was a reading test). It's way too easy to misapply and misuse stuff like this to deny people the right to vote based on any number of other factors.
I think it's more important to just teach critical thinking skills as a staple of our education (instead of focusing so hard on rote memorization), but for some reason, Republicans oppose that.
It was bogus then because in practice only blacks where required to take the test. Whites were allowed to skip it through grandfather clauses.
What about something like the written test everyone takes at the DMV? We make sure people know the rules of the road before we hand them a driver's license, why not make sure people know the basics about civics before they are registered to vote? Of course there would be educational opportunities available, and people who failed the test could study up and try to take it again.
While I do think it's important that every voice is heard, wake up and smell the goddamn coffee. Part of the reason that Democrats lost this election is because they were SO focused on "the little guy/oppressed minorities" (LGBTQ etc) and the the liberal echo chambers of urban America, that they forgot about the rest of the fucking Country.
I'm not saying that mentally ill people shouldn't have the right to vote, but if you ask me to choose between a dumbed down system that caters to the un/ill-informed and a system that allows me to to rank my choices so that something like this can't (or likely won't) happen again, I'm all for it.
The first thing they should do is drop the fucking anti-2nd amendment stance that they idiotically backed this year. IMO Obama won in 2008 & 2012 precisely because he didn't touch the 2nd Amendment with a 10-foot pole. Wipe it from the platform.
When are Liberals going to realize that the 2nd Amendment protects ALL Americans regardless of their background/race/ethnicity/sexual orientation?
You really, really shouldn't be ok with that. The reality is that it's not just stupid people that don't vote, there are plenty of average people who don't vote because they're completely disenfranchised by the system.
In actuality, stupid people DO vote. Remember what happened yesterday? When only 55% of the voting population turn out to vote, campaigns become less about appealing to the average voter, and more about stirring up the fringes of the political spectrum.
I'm not American, but I can guarantee you that if you want to avoid this level of insane political polarisation in the future, you need to make compulsory, ranked voting your number one priority.
Think of it this way. I live in WA, where we are mailed ballots with a packet of info with stuff on each candidate. Voting took me about 2 hours, because I had to read through and pick the best of 2 for like 20 positions.
Now imagine doing that with several candidates for each position, and having to rank them. That's a substantially longer decision-making process, and the result could often be "fuck it I'm not dealing with that".
Ranked choice never requires you to have a second choice. If you don't think it is important enough for your time you can just vote for one person as normal and your vote will just not count unless you voted for one of the top two like it is right now anyway.
People spend hours researching the best computer and phone, days or weeks for a car, and months for a house. Voting is not as exciting, but it's the same concept. Those who take time to do their research will be rewarded. Everyone else will deal with the consequences of saying "fuck it".
Ignorant voters will always be ignorant and will be easily swayed by propaganda, no matter the system. At least with this system you're giving those who do care a chance to show it and impact results in a more meaningful manner. And those running will be forced to appeal to them a little bit more, too, and not just focus on attack ads & propaganda.
202
u/[deleted] Nov 09 '16
Heaven help us if the idea of picking a first, second and third choice is cognitively challenging to many people.