67

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/21917446

Ballot in question:

Mayor:

District 1:

top 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 52 points 6 days ago

Jesus Christ people are fucking stupid... How hard is this to understand??

Rhetorical question of course. The country is very stupid. Just today my coworker said "see Trump is our next president and the taxes already went down!" (he was referring to the interest rate decrease from the federal reserve...)

[-] GuyDudeman@lemmy.world 11 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I have no idea what party these people belong to. It's not listed on the sheet. Their policy positions aren't shown. Their endorsements aren't shown. Nobody knows who the fuck any of these people are.

What you need Ranked Choice Voting for is Congress and the Presidency. Local elections also need to be partisan. Otherwise how the fuck do you know where any of the candidates even generally stand on the issues?

[-] frickineh@lemmy.world 7 points 6 days ago

Local candidates usually have websites, do interviews with local papers, and are suuuper excited to talk to potential voters, so people could look at any of that?

[-] Bookmeat@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

The city or county will probably have a thing called a website where you can read about all of those things for each candidate.

[-] comador@lemmy.world 10 points 6 days ago

It's less understanding/stupidity and more an issue with laziness/desire. I have no doubt that 99% of people who actually did vote selected their first rank choice and say eff it to the rest of the rankings. Too much effort and time to complete.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 12 points 6 days ago

I think I'd still file that under stupid.

I really hope mail ballots become the norm. It was absolutely wonderful to be able to take the time to look people/propositions I didn't know up while I had the ballot there. That won't help with laziness though. Can't help lazy. :/

[-] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

Just a note on mail ballots. Some can often abuse it by coercing their spouses to vote a particular way.

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It's not super hard to understand the concept, but the visual display of this implementation is objectively horrifying. No line or column delineation, just a grid of bubbles. I literally look at Excel sheets for a living and this makes my head hurt trying to keep track of what bubble is going where, I don't blame voters for giving up on it.

[-] Brkdncr@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Yeah that’s odd. How could it be better though and still be paper? Limit you to two votes?

[-] empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

It would be better to just give the voter a set of 6 lines, top to bottom, with rank 1 at top and rank 6 at bottom. That is the easiest to visualize and understand, and that's also how almost all of the campaign information about RCV has shown it... Then have some way to identify each candidate to put on each line that's not just hand writing the name. That I'm not 100% sure how to do. My engineer solution says create a lookup table with letters or numbers next to each candidate, but that could easily get confused with the rank in which to put them.

[-] WoodScientist@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Here's an engineer's solution: raise the threshold for the number of signatures required to get on the ballot, and don't let someone sign a petition for more than one candidate for a given race.

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 days ago

don’t let someone sign a petition for more than one candidate for a given race.

This would be so much overhead work and also defeat the purpose of Ranked Choice Voting. This basically moves the First Past the Post earlier in the process, which will exclude candidates

[-] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 days ago

In Australia, which has Ranked Choice Voting, you number the candidates from 1 to the max candidates. For Senate races, you can vote for the party, letting the party decide the down ballot representatives. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/14/how-does-australia-s-voting-system-work

I believe in this process, the ballots are human counted, but the country has less than the population of California, so it probably doesn't take too long. Scaling it up for the backwards US system would be harder, but not impossible to improve.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

"Mission accomplished" 🛩️🪂🛳️

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 32 points 6 days ago

The story buries the lede: there were 19 candidates on the ballot for mayor and 16-30 for each city council district. Several of the experts cited speculate that the number of candidates overwhelmed voters.

I always go over a sample ballot in advance and research each candidate. I would not have liked to do so for that election; local elections are difficult to research in general with many candidates getting minimal press and some not even bothering to put up websites.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

It's the paradox of choice. With more options, people become more likely to not choose because it's overwhelming.

[-] pg_jglr@sh.itjust.works 22 points 6 days ago

Odd implementation of ranked choice. Probably too many choices without party affiliation listed for voters that didn't come into the booth having already researched the choices. Sad because this will probably get used to say the whole concept is bad.

[-] PseudoKnight@lemm.ee 17 points 6 days ago

No voting booths here in Oregon. We get our ballots mailed to us along with a voter's guide book with a page for each candidate. I've never seen anywhere near that many candidates before, though.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 9 points 6 days ago

It was a lot because this was the first election with our new system of government. It should settle down next time.

[-] JovialSodium@lemmy.sdf.org 21 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

A selection of up to 30 candidates for a ranked choice does sound daunting. Yet despite that 80% of those that voted did complete those sections. That doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

Edit: mentioned city council specifically. Changed to more generic phrasing.

[-] Intergalactic@lemmy.world 13 points 6 days ago

Ranked Choice Voting is the way forward.

But really? Do we really have to implement learning programs for this shit or something?

[-] Liz@midwest.social 4 points 6 days ago

Yes, actually. RCV is complicated enough that it causes poor NYC voters to submit invalid ballots at a higher rate than their rich and counterparts, something that doesn't happen with "choose one." Still, RCV is good, but Approval Voting is better. Under Approval, an invalid ballot is impossible unless you put in illegal markings, which would invalidate a ballot under any method.

[-] tyler@programming.dev 2 points 6 days ago

Approval is good and should be used to move to either STAR or 3-2-1. RCV is barely better than Plurality and this ballot is just one example of how RCV implementations can cause issues.

[-] Carnelian@lemmy.world 2 points 6 days ago

Can you tell more about approval voting? I haven’t heard of it

[-] Ashelyn@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

You're given a list of candidates, and you can select however many of them you approve of being in office. Votes are then tallied, and whoever has the highest approval total is who gets voted in.

[-] Carnelian@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

Oh fascinating! Thank you

[-] astanix@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

It doesn't matter. The people willing to learn about it will do so on their own.

[-] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 1 points 6 days ago

But really? Do we really have to implement learning programs for this shit or something?

Yes. Every time something new is introduced, people have to learn the new thing. Not everyone is as informed as you or I. Most people don't care that much and have never considered alternative voting techniques.

[-] voiceofchris@lemmy.world 8 points 6 days ago

How many out of 5 chose a city councilor during the last election when no ranked choice voting was available? If you can't provide that data then shush up.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world -2 points 6 days ago

Last election doesn't apply because this is the first election with a new system of government for the city.

There are 4 districts, the top 3 vote getters in each district get elected.

[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago

Is this a new measure for Portland? I'm guessing people didn't know about it? The link doesn't really give details.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 6 days ago

The measure was for state-wide ranked choice, it was defeated.

It was implemented at the city level for this election for mayor and city council.

[-] Sundial@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago

Well hopefully it continues and this incident doesn't make the city reverse it. Thanks for the added context.

I think the less confusing alternative is a top two non partisan primary and a 1v1 general election.

Most of my fellow Americans are too stupid use understand how to fill out a ranked choice ballot.

this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2024
67 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3088 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS