With a electoral system like Ranked Choice voting, people would feel safe to vote for whomsoever they wish, as their vote would still be counted even if their preference didn’t win.
Just search for videos on FPTP voting if you want an explanation on how and why the spoiler effect exists.
Electoral reform is possible in each individual state (for now), we dont need federal reform! Maine and Alaska have already passed electoral reform.
Republicans are moving to make alternative electoral systems illegal in their states. Republicans LOVE first past the post voting. Just sbsolutely adore it. Why would you want to use the same voting system republicans want?
More political parties means a higher percentage of the population is represented by their choices in the voting booth. More people involved in the electoral process, more people engaged.
Its a win win win all around for not just the people, but also for the democratic party. More people voting means more democratic votes. The numbers dont lie. So what’s the hold up blue states?
Some day we will be able to vote for who best represents our interests. We won’t need to grovel on our knees, begging for representationin government. We won’t need to wait for the Republican party to stop existing.
We can do it right now. We don’t have to get over a damn thing. If anyone needs to get over themselves, it would be the democrats who assume they are the only way forward.
Consider starting a campaign to change how we vote in your own state! Force our representatives to compete with fresh outside ideas. We deserve the best representation, not excuses.
If she’s jaded about the whole thing, can’t say I blame her. If the dems had pushed to get rid of the stupid electoral college after Gore’s “loss” she might have been president.
To be fair, I don’t think she would have made a good president even if the electoral college didn’t exist. She would have been better than Trump but that’s not saying much, because a shit sandwich is better than Trump.
Why wouldn’t she have been good? She was one of the few people in Congress that actually cared about understanding and enacting policy (ie actually getting stuff done). Her platform was the only one with actual details on how to accomplish the stated goals on a legal level.
Not that any of that matters now, since her comment here is pretty shit.
But I don’t like the re-writing of history on how she was a million times better candidate than Trump and had a ton of made up conspiracy nonsense being claimed about her at the time.
The thing with Hillary Clinton is that, even conspiracy theories aside (because I’m not a conspiracy theorist), her morals are ambiguous. She is not “clean”, with some questionable things she’s done over the years, including some potential corruption.
Now, I’m not saying she’s the most corrupt in the bunch, but she’s not the saint that sometimes the Democrats make her out to be. I’m also not holding her to a higher standard, because that’s bullshit, but what I’m saying is if we are taking the moral high ground here, we should pick a better mascot.
Ultimately it comes down to whether would she have been a better president than Trump? Without a doubt. But would she have been a good president? I’m not convinced.
Feel free to point out what corruption and morals you’re referring to that aren’t based on conspiracy theories or made up right wing mud-slinging then.
I remember a lot of the usual made up claims about her being anti-LGBT despite her long history of actually supporting the LGBT community (and voting or not voting for gay marriage in NYS is not a gotcha about her history or her reasons then).
It reminds me a lot of the made up nonsense about Biden’s history with the African American community that right wingers and leftists were trying to mudsling over, yet said groups still being perplexed why he continued to have such massive support in said community. Because despite twisting of statements from decades ago, it was his actions that mattered. And that there’s context to those actions (such as how the black community itself was the primary pushing force behind the 1994 crime bill).
What did she get wrong? The Iraq War vote was a huge one in my opinion, but of course this entire question depends on your individual values.
Really? You’re bringing up that long since debunked canard? I can only assume you don’t know anything about the context because you were a child when said vote happened.
Hint: That vote in question wasn’t actually about allowing a war. And it didn’t help that Bush actively lied about what intel we had from Iraq and Afghanistan. He really should have faced charges for that alongside Cheney.
The intel that many of us knew was fake at the time, before the vote? That intel? … Yeah.
You can assume whatever you like, my friend. Good luck with that.
That would have taken a Constitutional amendment and I don’t think that would have been possible any time within the last 24 years.
The Democrats never had anywhere near the majority needed and I doubt enough states would be willing to ratify it if they did.
I think the electoral college is stupid and archaic, but I also think we’re stuck with it for the foreseeable future.
There’s a workaround that several states have signed on for. Your state allocates all of the electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. But they only do it once enough states sign on to make a majority.
It sounds great, but I would be very surprised if any red states went along with it.
I think best case is that you get enough purple states to sign on. But either way, it’s a lot more feasible than an amendment.
You ever know until you try. They couldn’t even be bothered to get behind the idea. It’s bitten them in the ass repeatedly.
I think they did know, which is why they didn’t try. You need 2/3 of both houses of congress and a ratification by 3/4 of the states. There has been no time between 2000 and 2024 when that would have had the remotest chance of happening. All they would have done would be to waste taxpayer dollars on something performative.
Like I said, I don’t like the electoral college and I wish we didn’t have it, but we’re stuck with it.
You don’t actually need Congress at all. You need 2/3rds of the states to initiate the process via the convention route, and 3/4 to ratify (so functionally, probably 3/4 of states, assuming that a state willing to ratify is also willing to initiate).
But functionally, there is no way that 3/4 of the states are going to make a change to shift power away from smaller states to larger states, which moving away from the electoral college would do (well, okay, it doesn’t have to do that, but if you want it to be moving towards a population-only weighting, which I think is the main reason that a lot of people on the left side of the aisle would like that to change, it does).
Okay, fair enough, but that’s not going to happen either.
While you’re content throwing up your hands claiming nothing can be done, republicans already have a plan to change the electoral college to their advantage.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/03/nebraska-electoral-system
It’s been estimated that as little as 2% of the population could kill an amendment if their state legislators voted likewise against it.
We don’t need amendments anymore, we need to uproot the whole fucking thing and start fresh, new state borders, new constitution, new rule of law.
They’ve rigged the game for long enough to justify flipping the table and pulling out the ol’ bully pulpit to smack the states into their fucking place.
Eisenhower set the precedent to flip the national guard around at their state governments if they act up, and Reagan set the precedent of cutting them off and letting them starve for funds until they get with the fucking program.
These subhumans want civil war anyways, let’s give them the war they’ll never forget again, and then let’s actually see that damn southern occupation through to the proper finish this fucking time!