Try the political quiz

33 Replies

 @4QT62TVRepublican disagreed…7mos7MO

This country is intended to have a small federal government with very limited powers - that are granted by the states/people to the federal government. Most of the laws and controls that "popular" opinion want to enact should be a state issue. The Electoral College is the genius that builds the federal government based on citizens' votes (reps) and states' votes (senate). The federal government is meant to broker strong and freely governing states- not dominate them by popular demand.

 @9FZQ5V7Democrat  from Alaska agreed…6mos6MO

A rank choice voting system allows people more voice in an election, if you voted for a candidate that gets knocked off of the ballot due to having the least amount of votes, and no one has more than 50% of the vote your secondary vote (The person you ranked second) gets your vote.

 @9G6Y6KR from Arkansas disagreed…6mos6MO

This depends on how many candidates are on the ballot. If there are multiple candidates, there is no guarantee that your second choice will get your vote as your second choice may have less than the others.

 @CapitalistApricots from Florida disagreed…6mos6MO

Indeed, ranked choice voting can amplify voters' voices in a unique way. However, it also brings its own set of challenges. For instance, it could potentially lead to strategic voting, where voters don't necessarily rank candidates based on their true preferences, but rather to manipulate the outcome of the election. Let's look at the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont. The candidate who initially led in first-choice votes ended up losing after the second and third choices were taken into account. This resulted in a backlash from voters who felt the system was unfair. How do you propose we address the potential for strategic voting in a ranked choice system?

 @3NL3N7Q agreed…5mos5MO

Ranked voting gives voters flexibility and confidence in choosing who to support. Voters no longer need to fear a vote not mattering when their first preferred candidate is unpopular as their next choices still count.

 @9FZPSHS  from Wisconsin agreed…6mos6MO

Our country has become increasingly and vehemently polarized over the past three decades to the detriment of all, as the two major political parties cater to the extremes within their constituencies. Moderate third party candidates would be preferable to many, yet they are not chosen for a simple reason: voting for a third party gives an advantage to either the Republican or Democrat candidates. Ranked choice voting would allow a far more significant number of voters the ability to show that they prefer alternatives to the current system while still giving them the reassurance that they can…  Read more

 @9GW8845 from North Carolina agreed…5mos5MO

The Electoral College forces a two party system with two polarized candidates that tears the country apart and leaves moderates and third party voters unrepresentative.

 @9H4FCGC from Washington agreed…4mos4MO

The Electoral College should be replaced by Ranked Choice Voting to break the endless cycle of partisan party politics. All viable candidates should have an equal chance at being elected, not just the party strongholds.

 @9FVL424 from Illinois agreed…6mos6MO

A ranked choice voting system would allow a better representation of political beliefs in the country. Choosing just one candidate incentivized polarization because the only alternative is someone from another party.

 @9GSMKMVSocialist from Louisiana agreed…5mos5MO

The current system is an "all or nothing" based system where voters from both major parties are left with no choice but to vote for the leading candidate, even if they dont like them much. This can be seen with both Biden and Trump who are historically divisive among their own separate voting bases. In a Ranked Choice system, voters would have more flexibility to support lesser known candidates without the fear that their vote would wasted. It would also leave the field of candidates more open, and less prone to hand-picking by the DNC and RNC.

 @9H4PTSZ from North Carolina agreed…4mos4MO

The Electoral College has previously caused too much chaos in American elections - it should be abolished.

 @9FMVGN6 from Ohio disagreed…6mos6MO

Use of the Electoral College balances the popular election results by giving citizens of smaller states a stronger voice.

 @9GRL52J from Tennessee agreed…5mos5MO

If we were to abolish the electoral college and switch to a ranked voting system, the American people would have more say in elections. If we were to keep the electoral college, America would stay a republic and not become a true democracy

 @9GSNHJJ from California agreed…5mos5MO

ranked choice allows for minority parties to have a chance, because right now many people who would vote for minority parties don't because it is impossible for them to win. ranked choice allows a persons vote to at least partially matter no matter what.

 @9GWKGMD from California agreed…5mos5MO

I think a ranked voting system would be better at promoting costructive compromose and avoiding the current trend toward extremism. Our current 2 party system coupled with the trend in social media toward programming input tailored to what each person "LIKES" has driven us toward more and more radical extremes. People no longer see relevant counter arguements, only derogatory items intended to denigtate any viewpoint but their own. It has resulted in a system that not only cannot compromise in order to act effectively, we are approaching war with ourselves rather than accomplishing our goals and needs. A ranked voying system would tend to promote more moderate candidates needed to moderate this trend.

 @9GJZVMC from Ohio agreed…5mos5MO

This system can be rigged with gerrymandering. Ranked voting has its issues, but it would be more inline with the populist vote.

 @9FPMB99 from Colorado disagreed…6mos6MO

Simply put, voting is the process of revealing what the majority of the population believe in and deciding who or what best represents those beliefs. For most of America to vote for a candidate and for that to still not be enough to decide an election, is an affront to the democratic process.

 @987RYBW from Missouri agreed…1yr1Y

I would also like multi-member districts as well, aka proportional ranked-choice voting.

 @99WW5KL from Mississippi commented…1yr1Y

I could be off here but is that something similar to the parliamentarian style of Israel? Voters vote on the basis of party and party members choose who to run. I like the idea better than the electoral college certainly but prefer the idea of a ranked voting system. Essentially, a system where you choose your top candidates in varying degrees and assign them a certain number of points. For instance one may choose 1. Bernie Sanders 2. Andrew Yang 3. Elizabeth Warren. The top contender may receive three points while the second gets two and the third receives one point. Whoever has the most points by the end of the election wins. I think this would encourage moderation in politics.

 @9KYLN43Democrat from Minnesota agreed…1wk1W

Washington D.C. is broken and cannot agree on spending bills until the deadline has nearly passed. We need to stop governing from crisis to crisis, build coalitions, and stop negative campaigns against each other. Leaders should speak to what they're for, not against.

 @9JSYVLN from Maryland agreed…2mos2MO

Switching to a ranked-choice voting system for elections would mean that voting for a third party would be a viable option. Polls indicate that many Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and/or don't feel well-represented by the major parties, and a ranked-choice voting system would allow the people to vote for candidates they actually like rather than just the lesser of two evils.

 @9J3PW23 from Minnesota agreed…3mos3MO

It’s important we can vote for who we want to be in a role rather than vote against the other party.

 @9HPZHLZLibertarian from Kansas agreed…3mos3MO

This will provide the best overall group of candidates, rather than parties just nominating a candidate based on their probability to beat the assumed opposing candidate.

 @9FM68ZL from Massachusetts disagreed…6mos6MO

How can we ensure that mob rule will not be influenced by things like propaganda from news sources or from politicians trying to sway the masses? How can we be confident in maintaining the integrity of our voting base with these risks? Especially in a day and age where access to mis information is at its easiest point now more than ever before.

 @9FLF5LCSocialist from New Jersey agreed…6mos6MO

A ranked choice voting system would enable a truer sense of democracy, allowing voters to actually vote for their desired candidate than a lesser of two evils.

 @9FL6WCL from Georgia disagreed…6mos6MO

Ranked voting systems is one thing with a limited number of candidates - it is quite another if there are many candidates, because voters would be required to rank every race, they would want to know and study the positions of every candidate. Imagine a race of 12-15 candidates. Could voters adequately determine the policy positions of all of them to properly rank their choice?

 @9GZWV7X from Georgia agreed…4mos4MO

Ranked choice voting gives voters more of a day and encourages candidates to not only appeal to one side and instead try to appeal to everyone

 @9GXDT8W from Kentucky agreed…5mos5MO

Indeed, ranked choice voting can amplify voters' voices in a unique way. However, it also brings its own set of challenges. For instance, it could potentially lead to strategic voting, where voters don't necessarily rank candidates based on their true preferences, but rather to manipulate the outcome of the election. Let's look at the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont. The candidate who initially led in first-choice votes ended up losing after the second and third choices were taken into account. This resulted in a backlash from voters who felt the system was unfair. How do you propose we address the potential for strategic voting in a ranked choice system?

 @9GGKLTPForward from Missouri agreed…5mos5MO

The electoral college makes casting a ballot vote irrelevant in many states. The reason we vote is to side with what the majority of the population decides on. Not whose state has more electoral votes.

 @9GQWFCF from California agreed…5mos5MO

Only one vote leads to a two party system where people vote for the candidate they dislike the least instead of a candidate they actually support.

 @9FFMJJK from Nevada disagreed…6mos6MO

Ranked voting? I think I don't quite know what that means specifically, but I think that electoral college is fine, and if we rank states in who has the most power if that's what it means, than do you really want California to become so cool?

 @9HRQZ92 from Virginia commented…3mos3MO

Ranked voting is a system of voting used in other democracies.

While our “winner takes all” ballots cause you to pick one party or the other. This often leads to spoiled elections because if there is an emerging party with a similar base to another, then the person who everyone didn’t want will win. Even if they got 39% of the votes.

Ranked voting is where on your ballot you pick your favorite candidates in order. Slowly, your votes trickle into your second option if your first loses.

Engagement

The historical activity of users engaging with this answer.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...