Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who is allowed to vote in primaries. If Republicans were doing this in red states, Democrats would be up in arms. But for some reason, it's okay here. We should be making it easier to vote, and this ballot initiative would go a long ways towards that goal.

What? Lots of “red states” limit voting in party primary elections to those who are members of that party. It’s not at all unique to DC.
https://ballotpedia.org/Primary_election_types_by_state

Anonymous wrote:DC has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who is allowed to vote in primaries. If Republicans were doing this in red states, Democrats would be up in arms. But for some reason, it's okay here. We should be making it easier to vote, and this ballot initiative would go a long ways towards that goal.

Anonymous wrote:DC has some of the most restrictive rules in the country about who is allowed to vote in primaries. If Republicans were doing this in red states, Democrats would be up in arms. But for some reason, it's okay here. We should be making it easier to vote, and this ballot initiative would go a long ways towards that goal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turnout in primaries is pathetic. This ballot initiative will greatly increase voter participation, which everyone should support.

RCV doesn’t increase turnout. The impact of RCV in Maine was studied at MIT and they produced some very concerning findings that contradict the claims by proponents like you.

RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party. Similarly, I found that it increased the amount of time it took to vote

https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine

It’s also concerning that the people pushing RCV are out of state activists with no vested interest in DC except to use it for their policy experiments. Don’t fall for it.

None of that was “very concerning” it was just qualitative noise from a perception survey. The benefits of RCV far outweigh any “ease of use” concerns which can be addressed by better ballot design etc rather than scrap RCV entirely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:RCV and publicly financed campaigns are the only way to stop wealthy, corporate backed candidates from continuing to hijack out political system. All of this opposition is meant to confuse people and maintain the status quo which is obviously not working. Simple logic shows the benefit of RCV.

You could end the status quo without RCV. California style jungle primary with a runoff would be a huge improvement.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Turnout in primaries is pathetic. This ballot initiative will greatly increase voter participation, which everyone should support.

RCV doesn’t increase turnout. The impact of RCV in Maine was studied at MIT and they produced some very concerning findings that contradict the claims by proponents like you.

RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party. Similarly, I found that it increased the amount of time it took to vote

https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine

It’s also concerning that the people pushing RCV are out of state activists with no vested interest in DC except to use it for their policy experiments. Don’t fall for it.

Anonymous wrote:RCV and publicly financed campaigns are the only way to stop wealthy, corporate backed candidates from continuing to hijack out political system. All of this opposition is meant to confuse people and maintain the status quo which is obviously not working. Simple logic shows the benefit of RCV.

Anonymous wrote:Turnout in primaries is pathetic. This ballot initiative will greatly increase voter participation, which everyone should support.

RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party. Similarly, I found that it increased the amount of time it took to vote

Anonymous wrote:Turnout in primaries is pathetic. This ballot initiative will greatly increase voter participation, which everyone should support.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White progressives like RCV because they believe it will amplify their power. If you want more Frumins and Allens on Council then RCV is for you.

I think you have that backwards. Ranked choice voting tends to elevate candidates who more people can stomach. In other words, fewer Democratic Socialists of American and Trump boot-lickers. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Not really. RCV has proven to confuse voters and decrease turnout, making elections and particularly primary elections even more subject to capture by motivated activists. It’s also easy to envisage how RCV can be manipulated by purposeful strategic voting which white progressives probably fancy themselves better at orchestrating than grannies in Ward 8. Additionally, RCV raises computation questions which can impact election outcomes, which was the big complaint in Arlington. The white Progressives were mad that the voting and computation created what they considered to be “wasted votes” that could not be counted towards their preferred candidate. And that’s the biggest problem with RCV, if how you count can impact the process then it’s not a fair process. If you want to improve current processes to get better outcomes, runoff elections to ensure that a candidate has to have a majority is the only way.