US President Joe Biden has said he is not confident there will be a peaceful transition of power if Donald Trump loses the presidential election in November.
"[Trump] means what he says, we don’t take him seriously. He means it, all this stuff about ‘if we lose it will be a bloodbath’.”
Mr Trump’s comment that it would “be a bloodbath for the country” if he loses the election, made as he was talking about the auto industry in March, triggered a wave of criticism.
The Trump campaign, however, said the comment was specifically about the auto industry and had been deliberately taken out of context. It sent a fundraising email which said Trump’s political opponents and others had been “viciously” misquoting him.
Ditch the electoral college, certify the election with a popular vote, adopt ranked choice.
But then the 1% would become the 10% and I’m sorry but that just won’t do, it’s a very nuanced system that boils down to Rich good Poor bad. /s
Ranked choice is just another way for people to game the system. I wish people understood this.
If we can only afford one candidate, they can afford 30. Ranked choice is like the very last possible thing that should be implemented in a supposed democracy. You don’t believe me, the Conservative party of Canada has ranked primaries. You have 4 crazy people and 1 moderate. Who gets more votes? The crazy people. You’re literally sealing your fate if you implement ranked voting in a mass-lobbying environment like the USA.
Nope, it works great here in Australia.
FPTP is the worst system, and couple that with a system like the electoral collage and you have a system designed to make as few voices heard as possible.
Is lobbying legal in Australia? Considering the sway the oil and gas lobby has in AU, i don’t know if your point stands. I just can’t see it helping a shitstorm like USA, when I can see it impacting Canada negatively
Ranked choice is just another way for people to game the system. I wish people understood this.
Vote for the candidate you want, and then put the moderate as your second choice, shuffle them all together and oh look the moderate got the nom, but has to campaign in such a way as to please the democratic plurality of a multi party system.
How many “crazy people” have been put forth as the Canadian Conservative Party candidate? As the general elections went in 2021, one of the most contentious in recent history, it looked like there was a plurality there. The outcome, and current scandals not withstanding within the Canadian governemnt, there aren’t assassination attempts creating articles from reputable sources giving serious credence to civil war.
Seems like a two party system might create some tribalism there, let’s look back at the Canadian Parliament, with a lot of different parties in the parliament compromising and doing politics. Looks like a lot of pluralism there.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes
Now let’s take a look at what the US Congress has been up to recently
https://www.ourcommons.ca/Members/en/votes
Weird, outside of a universal vote to go on vacation, I don’t really see a plurality there. Mostly along a two party line.
I wonder how we got there? I bet someone smarter than I has thought of this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
Oh they did.
Moving back to the threat of political violence, which is a much larger conversation than ranked choice voting. Could a two party system contribute to that? Could other countries with a binary politcal system face the same issues?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/rising-tide-political-violence
Huh could the very nature of a two party system, encourage political tribalism and disincentivize political collobaration?
https://voices.uchicago.edu/dangerousthoughts/2016/05/14/political-tribalism-and-identity-politics/
What does the future of the US want?
Huh, thank goodness we don’t have to deal with those pesky crazies in the Canadian Conservative Party ranked primaries.
Ranked choice is just another way for people to game the system. I wish people understood this.
I don’t see why you skip my entire point of it just increasing the number of shitty candidates. You say the “moderate” gets chosen, but what’s the mean when 4/5s of the pool is poison?
The fact you just straight to Trump-assassination whataboutism is fucked, and this whole mathematical law regarding duopoly again flies past my point. Providing more candidates that are shit only ratchets the equation towards shit. That’s not to say having more than two parties is bad… I’m saying the political foundation in America is so bad that implementing ranked choice before destroying the influence of capital only increases the chance of capital winning.
I think it would be a worthwhile exercise to draft up some amendments to fix the SCOTUS and lopsided representation problems.
It won’t pass. 0% chance. But , it would serve as a blueprint of what could be if voters gave them a super majority. And a foundation for a time in the distant future if both parties could actually govern in good faith again.
And it would signal to voters that the Dems are looking to improve our government, not just cling to the status quo like many voters (here, at least) seem to think.
That’s absolutely true. However with the SCOTUS rulings as of late regarding the Executive branch, it could be fun to try.
If we ever get a trifecta again we need to kill the filibuster and then pass a law to expand Congress so the EC is effectively locked to the national result. As a bonus it seriously hurts lobbyists and gives us better representation.
