> It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate.
If there's only two candidates.
If there's only two candidates.
You either got a vote from a person or not, leave it at that.
Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened.
But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor.
-- edit @mikeyouse --
No I'm not mad, as I said I prefer to live in a place that has a simpler voting system where it's easy for everyone verify the vote and be confident in the system.
I'm maybe more disappointed in people allowing it and being that naive.
Do you feel the same way about the tax code or should just voting be complicated?
How do you feel about the EC system? Were you advocating getting rid of it recently?
There's a certain group of people wanting to flip the game table up here recently.
-- edit @ceejayoz --
So the flipside of your statement would be you "grumping" about the simpler system.
Has RCV solved the split vote issue? Hint: no it hasn't. Nor was that ever really a problem, just an excuse to implement RCV.
-- edit @esoterica --
That's an extremely partisan take and not at all what I've heard from Alaskan friends. Pelosi is well respected in the party and in the state, no matter what liberals think, they usually mix her up with Tina Fey anyways.
But if a heavy blue state elected a red governor (especially with a popular blue opponent) out of nowhere immediately after switching to a new voting system people here would be suspicious right?
But because it happens that blue candidates are winning in areas they weren't before, everyone here is fine looking the other way and even defending it.
It was a ballot initiative that passed by will of the people. Who are you to argue about their decision?
It's their choice, but it's a stupid choice. Personally it seems they were naive or even lied to about the outcome.
I can argue their decision because of the 1A. Same as you can argue against their previous system...
..
> But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor.
So you're mad that a candidate that had less popular support won the election in Alaska but the system where there's been one Republican popular vote winner and 3 Republican presidents in the past 30 years is sacrosanct?
Which can lead a candidate with a dedicated but small fanbase getting 30% of the vote but winning because the other side has a couple candidates running. The precise sort of problem you're currently grumping about.
Palin lost because she’s a national laughing stock and a terrible candidate. Not because of RCV. Instead of acknowledging that you are resorting to inventing nonsensical conspiracy theories that can be disproven by performing the “simple addition” you keep talking about.