She also (previously) watered down the right to repair bill. She is... not the best.
https://www.engadget.com/new-york-right-to-repair-law-kathy-...
https://www.engadget.com/new-york-right-to-repair-law-kathy-...
So, if you can get 50% to 75% of the eligible population to not vote, then it becomes much easier to maintain power without actually having to take any responsibility for your actions.
It should be that if less than 50% of the eligible population turns out, the election is null, and needs to be re-run. We have a right to say "none of the above" and have it stick. The parties need to bear the costs of creating these terrible ballots and candidates that actually appeal to no one.
* Abstention from voting or refusing to vote are a form of political expression. Mandating that everyone must vote is an attack on freedom of speech and expression and will not fly.
* Ranked Choice and all the other alternatives often floated run afoul of the most basic criteria: They are complicated. The people either will not or cannot understand and consequently will not tolerate complicated voting schemes. Anything more complicated than "<XYZ> gets my vote." is impractically useless. FPTP remains popular because it is fucking simple enough that anyone can understand it, that it's also generally beneficial to the political parties is merely a side effect.
Apparently <crude drawing of penis> is a perennially competitive write in candidate.
It still seems better than the US system (especially vs. here in California, where we have a one party system, and primaries are often uncontestable).
Huh? California has had jungle primaries for years. The top two candidates with the most votes in the primaries run in the general election, even if they're both from the same party. That makes the primaries a lot more competitive than usual like when Kevin de León (D) ran against Dianne Feinstein (D) for the US Senate seat in 2018.
The only chance Republicans even have of running against a Democrat is when the Democrat is so popular that no one bothers running. This past gubernatorial election, the next closest Democrat won 50x less votes than Newsom so Brian Dahle (R) got to go to the general election with only 17% of the total turnout (Newsom had 56% in the primaries and won the general with 59%).
Ever since we managed to extricate the GOP from state government, one party rule has been going pretty well. Not perfect, but a lot better than the "bipartisan" shit show Davis and Arnold left us.
Australia has had "ranked choice voting" ("preferential" is what we call it here) for over a century now - starting with the 1919 Australian federal election. If Australians can "understand" and "tolerate" it, why not Americans too?
> Anything more complicated than "<XYZ> gets my vote." is impractically useless.
In America, campaign signs say "Vote For Whoever". In Australia, they say "Vote 1 For Whoever" instead. No real difference. Some people just fill out the rest of the boxes randomly, some people follow a "how to vote" card issued by their preferred candidate, some people think hard about who gets their 2nd/3rd/4th etc. Some Australian states now have "optional preferential", where your vote is still valid even if you don't make a 2nd/3rd/etc choice.
Except, this isn't actually the strategy employed by Dems in several battleground states. Growth in voter turnout has correlated with strong outcomes for democrats pretty reliably over the last 10 years, at all levels, especially in the rust belt.
Then, looking at off year and congressional elections, the data is much less hopeful. It's almost _always_ the case that you see less than 50% eligible, and even less than 50% _registered_ turnout.
Actually, NYC is the largest jurisdiction in the country with ranked choice voting.
The problem is that governor is a statewide race, and there are no statewide ballot initiatives in NY. Any ballot initiatives on the state ballot are for issues that the legislature has already approved, as opposed to initiatives that can be brought independently of the legislature.