DEMOCRATS: Van Jones absolutely NAILS it on CNN

[EvilCat Breath]

It doesn't sound like you understand how it works. What do you oppose about RCV? Nevermind what you think it's assumptions are, why do you think letting people rank the candidates a bad idea?

It isn't a bad idea. I just doubt it will work as presumed. Most people will just vote for the same person.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I don't think you understand how it works. Maybe this will explain.

Ranked Choice Voting

As you can see by the ballot example there is nothing stopping people from voting for the same person in every rank.

 

[gipper]

This blew my mind to the point where I stopped it, rewound it and transcribed it.

Why is the Democratic Party such a wreck right now? Much of it is what I've seen saying since I've been on this board: This ridiculous, counterproductive dependence on PC and Identity Politics. Not ONLY did it feed the frustration and anger that brought us the former guy, it ALSO simply doesn't work as well on minorities any more.

Van Jones, this morning, on CNN:

MAGA are moving right on culture -- you know, CRT is bad, trans is bad, parents' rights -- so they're marketing their right wing move on culture really well. But they're also moving left on economics -- MAGA sounds like Bernie Sanders when they're talking about American tariffs, talking about American jobs, the way they're going after big tech companies. And so by moving left on economics and right on culture, that's appealing to working class voters, including black and brown voters. Democrats don't see this coming. They've over-reacted on the cultural moves, under-reacted on economic appeal, and you're seeing it pay off for MAGA. So this is a very important moment.

If Democrats want working class black and working class Latino voters, we're gonna have to change our strategy and respond to the MAGA threat. Listen, we're in danger of becoming the party of the very high and the very low. If you pull out the working class, you have people who are very well educated and very well off. Those people talk funny -- LatinX? I've never met a LatinX, I've never met a BIPOC (?), this weird stuff that highly-educated people say. Nobody talks that way in the barber shop, the nail salon, the grocery store, the community center. But that's how we talk now. That's WEIRD. And the people who are very low down on the economic ladder need a bunch of stuff. You wind up over promising -- oh, we're gonna give you reparations -- to the people at the bottom of the economic ladder, talking weird to appeal to the people at the top of the economic ladder, and the working class walks away from you. That is the data we're facing.

And there is a penalty you pay if you don't go along with the normal narrative. The normal narrative in America has been, all black and brown people hate racists, all Republicans are racist, so all black and brown people are gonna vote for Democrats. All of that doesn't make sense in the real world. All Republicans are not racist, and Republican appeals are not just racial, some of them are economic, some of them are cultural, and all black and brown folks are not liberals.

Listen, black and brown folks go to church A LOT. You want black churchgoers and Latin Catholics to vote for Democrats, you to do things that show that maybe you get those issues. Which are primarily economic issues, family issues, bread & butter issues. And if you're gonna talk about the cultural issues, you have to talk about them in a way that's gonna resonate with a working mom or a working dad, and not just folks who went to college.

Will Democrats take note? I doubt it.

Not to worry. The Rs will screw it up like they always do.

The two criminal parties aren’t that different on the big issues. They are different on cultural issues though, but this might be by design. Designed to divide Americans and it works.

 

[dblack]

It isn't a bad idea. I just doubt it will work as presumed. Most people will just vote for the same person.

You'll need to read up on it yourself for details, but in RCV, voters don't just vote for one candidate. They rank them, in order of preference. The data from recent implementations show that most people do, in fact, get it and rank the candidates - even on their first time with the system. Many don't of course (it's not required) and their vote is counted exactly as it is now.

The very best feature of RCV, in my view, is that it takes the "lesser-of-two-evils" nonsense out of the equation. You can vote for the candidate you think is the best, yet still rank the candidate that you're scared of at the very bottom, ensuring they never get your vote. You can literally vote for "any candidate but XXX". You can't do that with the current system.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

You'll need to read up on it yourself for details, but in RCV, voters don't just vote for one candidate. They rank them, in order of preference. The data from recent implementations show that most people do, in fact, get it and rank the candidates - even on their first time with the system. Many don't of course (it's not required) and their vote is counted exactly as it is now.

The very best feature of RCV, in my view, is that it takes the "lesser-of-two-evils" nonsense out of the equation. You can vote for the candidate you think is the best, yet still rank that candidate you're scared of at the very bottom, ensuring they never get your vote. You can literally vote for "any candidate but XXX". You can't do that with the current system.

I completely understand how it works. Vote for the one you want, then the lesser of the evils that remain, then the lesser of those evils that remain, until you are voting for Hillary Clinton.

As you point out, it is not required to rank preferences. A voter may certainly vote for the same candidate in all ranking categories. That's the way I would vote. So ranked voting would mean nothing to me.

 

[dblack]

I completely understand how it works. Vote for the one you want, then the lesser of the evils that remain, then the lesser of those evils that remain, until you are voting for Hillary Clinton.

Nope. Not how it works. Do some reading.

As you point out, it is not required to rank preferences. A voter may certainly vote for the same candidate in all ranking categories. That's the way I would vote. So ranked voting would mean nothing to me.

Your call. Why would you object to others having the option?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Nope. Not how it works. Do some reading.


Your call. Why would you object to others having the option?

I gave you a link with an example ballot showing you exactly how it works.

Other than being alarmed at democrat voters, I don't care how anyone votes. RCV makes as much nonsense as mandatory voting.

 

[dblack]

I gave you a link with an example ballot showing you exactly how it works.

If you rank Clinton last, there's no way she will get your vote. You can literally vote for every other candidate over her. Normal voting just lets pick one candidate, so if you really want Clinton to lose you have to guess which other candidate is mostly likely to defeat her (lesser-of-two-evils). With ranked choice, you don't have to take that risk. You can be sure that whomever is mostly likely to beat her will get your vote.

Other than being alarmed at democrat voters, I don't care how anyone votes. RCV makes as much nonsense as mandatory voting.

Why? All you've said so far is that you wouldn't rank. So what?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

If you rank Clinton last, there's no way she will get your vote. You can literally vote for every other candidate over her. Normal voting just lets pick one candidate, so if you really want Clinton to lose you have to guess which other candidate is mostly likely to defeat her (lesser-of-two-evils). With ranked choice, you don't have to take that risk. You can be sure that whomever is mostly likely to beat her will get your vote.

Why? All you've said so far is that you wouldn't rank. So what?

I doubt many will.

 

[dblack]

I doubt many will.

Your doubt hasn't proven valid in real life implementations. Most people do rank. Most people like being able to solidly vote against a candidate they find unacceptable in all cases.

And let's get real, that last bit is the source of most of the opposition. Candidates who inspire fear and hatred are at a disadvantage when people can rank them last. Those candidates, and their supporters, will tend to oppose RCV.

 

[Mac1958]

Ranked Choice Voting is just one of the many fixes that can be made. We can have short, strict term limits. We can have publicly-funded elections. We can have bipartisan electoral district drawing. There are other ideas.

If we do those things, we immediately change the behaviors of these people. Or, we can make the perfect the enemy of the good, throw it all out if we don't like something, and keep bending over for them.

As the Titanic sinks.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Your doubt hasn't proven valid in real life implementations. Most people do rank. Most people like being able to solidly vote against a candidate they find unacceptable in all cases.

And let's get real, that last bit is the source of most of the opposition. Candidates who inspire fear and hatred are at a disadvantage when people can rank them last. Those candidates, and their supporters, will tend to oppose RCV.

I don't oppose RCV. I just find it nonsense. Something to make you feel good while having no appreciable effect.

 

[dblack]

I don't oppose RCV. I just find it nonsense. Something to make you feel good while having no appreciable effect.

LOL - well, your only evidence for why it would have no effect is that you wouldn't take advantage of it.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

LOL - well, your only evidence for why it would have no effect is that you wouldn't take advantage of it.

I doubt I'm alone in rejecting the silliness.

 

[dblack]

I doubt I'm alone in rejecting the silliness.

You're certainly not. As I said, divisive candidates have little to gain with RCV. They've made careers of playing the lesser-of-two-evils game and they don't want it to go away.

 

[22lcidw]

Ranked Choice Voting is just one of the many fixes that can be made. We can have short, strict term limits. We can have publicly-funded elections. We can have bipartisan electoral district drawing. There are other ideas.

If we do those things, we immediately change the behaviors of these people. Or, we can make the perfect the enemy of the good, throw it all out if we don't like something, and keep bending over for them.

As the Titanic sinks.

The problem is that Progs have been the iceberg. Endless Social justice over foundation is death after an amount of time.

 

[Mac1958]

The problem is that Progs have been the iceberg. Endless Social justice over foundation is death after an amount of time.

It's always the other tribe's fault. You are pristine. Sure, sure.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Van Jones is right but I'll get to that later.

First, how white liberals think of minorites:

it ALSO simply doesn't work as well on minorities any more.

This is how white liberals think of minorities: political tricks can "work" on them--until they don't. Well guess what, Mac. The brown people can see the machinations and they don't like it. I don't blame them. They are finding out that many Republicans don't see them as votes to be manipulated, but as children of God--as fellow Americans and citizens. And they really, gosh imagine it--they really like that. As we all should.

All of this ^^^ is a crock of shit.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

We're moving towards what they want: A pseudo-Christian White Nationalist Theocracy.

The question is, can the Dems do anything about it, will they listen to Jones, or will it just be more of the same from them?

No, I don't think so. The Dems are completely shitting the bed going into these midterms.

Any Independents in the know already know we are completely fucked. There's no one worth a shit to give our votes to. Again.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

This blew my mind to the point where I stopped it, rewound it and transcribed it.

I was a bit nonplussed when you said you could stop you mind, but to actually rewind and transcribe your mind as well?

That takes some real talent.