Our legislature passed RCV here in CA and our Dem governor vetoed it. Can't be electing progressives over more big money neoliberal Dems, gotta keep that voting power bloc intact
The UK did this about a decade ago by a 2-to-1 margin, on the same grounds. Commentators in Australia (which have had ranked choice voting for generations) quipped that this was final proof that Australians are smarter than Brits.
Was it too confusing or did someone spend a lot of money playing ads that kept saying it was too confusing I wonder. I'd actually love to hear what the local ads and media around that ballot measure were like if anyone is local to Oregon.
Maybe it's because I grew up in Illinois, but Missouri has been giving me whiplash over the last several years. I'd expect the kinda politics coming out of there from Florida, not a Midwestern state.
So did the rest of Oregon and it wasn't even close. Too many people fell for the "it's too confusing" propaganda, which is just another way to call the voters dumb, but maybe they're not wrong.
When corporations benefit: Americans can read like 900 pages of fine print a minute and are all legal scholars.
When it doesn't benefit corps: Americans are cows, its offensive you're trying to make these morons fill out multiple choice papers, they might accidentally poke out an eye on the pens.
Reality: people have limits but RCV ballots are not too complicated. We see it all the time with roundabouts. When new roundabout is put in a few drivers take some time to adjust but eventually they figure it out.
The change is harder to deal with than the actual thing.
arg. had this discussion about how Canada voted it down a few years back also because "too confusing."
like, maybe there were too many options but I knew we needed to pick any of them instead of keeping the same bullshit system that has always required lesser of evil voting.
This article is literally why. Political outsider with popular policies won, do you know how much money a voting system that does this will cost the people writing those laws?
Probably because it was incomplete for reasons unknown. I'm not sure why, but we get really bad ballot measures. 118 was super terrible, and 117 was seemingly unfinished.
Interestingly, we had extremely low turnout in the local elections. Apparently RCV, or the sheer number of candidates (over 100 for 12 positions), or a combination of both contributed to very low turnout. There were more people voting for POTUS than any of the local candidates, which is a little disappointing. I'll dig into the numbers this weekend.
The new form of city government meant there was a significant number of candidates to parse through. And ranking several instead of picking just one favorite also added time. It took me several days to do my due diligence on all the measures and candidates when before I could usually get it all done in one.
Not complaining, though I could imagine people who don't take voting seriously easily getting impatient/overwhelmed.