• basmati@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    17 hours ago

    In order to pass rcv nationally you need to convince either party that it’s in their best interest, and it’s simply not. By definition it takes away power from both main parties in the US without giving either one an advantage.

    • echo@lemmings.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Like all meaningful change, you have to convince enough people to get involved and to do so more often and consistently than every four years at the Presidential general election. It’s this belief that the change is going to come from the parties that is the core problem. Everyone complains about having to vote for the lesser of two evils, but then they do it and go back to sleep for another four years. At best, they just gripe about the government never acknowledging that they are responsible.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Ah, one big prayer will get us RCV now? That’s a new one. If the parties don’t want it, you’re not getting it.

      • basmati@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        15 hours ago

        That’s nice, we’re doing that. The people going to sleep for four years don’t want change, they don’t want things to improve, they want to complain so it seems like they’re worse off than they really are. You’re not going to convince them until their lives are ruined.

    • daltotron@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      17 hours ago

      It’s also not like local or even state level RCV would realistically be sufficient for these whole sets of overarching problems that the US struggles with. You’re not locally voting for RCV and then gaining the ability to vote for a party that will actually give you healthcare, will connect your city with others via rail to help rework infrastructure, will solve your housing problems and your homelessness, and they probably won’t be solving unemployment. You can maybe vaguely hope that the existence of such a party would put pressure on the federal government to ask “why can’t you do this”, but that would only happen at the state level with one of the states that actually matter, like california or new york or texas, and good luck getting any of those places to go in for RCV considering how strangleheld they are.

      The most you could hope RCV to improve is maybe to make it so you can get someone that’s willing to make your ISP give you free shit, or establish a free ISP, and also maybe to give your town a bunch of roundabouts, and maybe approve some missing middle housing which will probably skyrocket housing prices in the surrounding areas since it won’t really be doing anything to solve the problem at a national level. Which isn’t nothing, right, but that’s kinda boof.

      • basmati@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        How? They pick who runs, and if you suggest or even hint that voting third party is the only solution to that problem then you get in circular arguments with conservatives from either party that claim you’re voting for whoever the opposite of their genocidal fascist happens to be.