Sen. Bernie Sanders told CBS News he's "very disappointed" by the bill to end the government shutdown, calling a planned vote on health insurance subsidies "meaningless."
The primaries are the equiivalent of ranked choice voting. The idea is that each party, so each side of the political spectrum, brings out their “best” candidates and the populace votes on who best represents them. The winners of that move on to the general.
It isn’t quite the same but it also isn’t THAT far off the reality of how the votes turn out when the counting is done. And, theoretically, it encourages party platforms that incorporate the more popular parts of each popular candidate’s platforms. And that… sometimes happens.
You have absolutely no idea how ranked choice or primaries work.
Let’s suppose the Democrat primary has two progressives and one neolib. The progressives get 28% and 32% of the vote…a total of 60% of the vote. The one neolib gets 40%.
Progressive policies are more popular, but neolib won.
This is the curse of FPTP.
Ranked choice would say that those 60% prefer one or the other progressive with the neolib being last. The result is theore popular progressive won, and more importantly, a progressive won.
As opposed to ranked choice where no candidate gets a plurality, both progressives get eliminated, and the second choice “neolib” votes win? Because “the neolib” is also getting a fair amount of moderate and even conservative votes.
At which point “the neolib” flips everyone off and wins? As opposed to needs to convince the two progressives to support them in exchange for platform concessions?
Ranked choice would say that those 60% prefer one or the other progressive with the neolib being last. The result is theore popular progressive won, and more importantly, a progressive won.
Or we can just simplify your post to “under this system, people will vote the way I want them to” and leave it at that?
The primaries are the equiivalent of ranked choice voting. The idea is that each party, so each side of the political spectrum, brings out their “best” candidates and the populace votes on who best represents them. The winners of that move on to the general.
It isn’t quite the same but it also isn’t THAT far off the reality of how the votes turn out when the counting is done. And, theoretically, it encourages party platforms that incorporate the more popular parts of each popular candidate’s platforms. And that… sometimes happens.
You have absolutely no idea how ranked choice or primaries work.
Let’s suppose the Democrat primary has two progressives and one neolib. The progressives get 28% and 32% of the vote…a total of 60% of the vote. The one neolib gets 40%.
Progressive policies are more popular, but neolib won.
This is the curse of FPTP.
Ranked choice would say that those 60% prefer one or the other progressive with the neolib being last. The result is theore popular progressive won, and more importantly, a progressive won.
It sounds like the progressives just need to coalesce around one candidate in the primary then, like the neolibs have done, and then they would win.
It sounds like you’re opposed to having more choice in who represents you.
As opposed to ranked choice where no candidate gets a plurality, both progressives get eliminated, and the second choice “neolib” votes win? Because “the neolib” is also getting a fair amount of moderate and even conservative votes.
At which point “the neolib” flips everyone off and wins? As opposed to needs to convince the two progressives to support them in exchange for platform concessions?
Or we can just simplify your post to “under this system, people will vote the way I want them to” and leave it at that?