5th September 2025, 2:10 PM
I understand that sometimes I have to vote for the lesser of two evils, but I've seen accusations of "purity testing" get thrown out by competing democratic candidates during primaries too often to find it genuine a lot of the time. What they really mean is they refuse to change their position in order to win an election. Two things can be true at once, and in this case, it's both true that establishment democrats who refuse to change their stances due to big money interests are horrible, and that people who refuse to vote at all are effectively giving the election away to whoever wins. I can be mad at both groups in this case, but I'm more angry at the establishment dems refusing to change, because they know exactly what it would take to convince those ideological purists to vote, and they REFUSE TO DO IT. Ultimately, my anger is better spent on the candidates actually running than the voters, or I'd be raging against Trump voters all day, and that's not going to get anything done either.
This is beside the point I know, but I've moved from wanting ranked choice voting to wanting scored voting. Don't get me wrong, ranked choice voting would be a dramatic improvement from our current first past the post system, but it still suffers from the voting paradox, which scored voting sidesteps entirely. It's generally considered the best possible version because the only rational way to vote under scored voting is to simply give an honest vote. Anyway, where ranked choice asks you to well... rank everyone, scored voting just asks for a score. Dump points into any candidate you like, and you can give all your points to one and none to the others, or even score two equally. This additional information you are providing, who you consider equal and who you consider so below you wouldn't even give them a single point, breaks the voting paradox completely. Not many people know about it compared to ranked choice (and compared to our default, barely anyone knows alternatives exist at all), but it's what I'd push for if I had a say.
This is beside the point I know, but I've moved from wanting ranked choice voting to wanting scored voting. Don't get me wrong, ranked choice voting would be a dramatic improvement from our current first past the post system, but it still suffers from the voting paradox, which scored voting sidesteps entirely. It's generally considered the best possible version because the only rational way to vote under scored voting is to simply give an honest vote. Anyway, where ranked choice asks you to well... rank everyone, scored voting just asks for a score. Dump points into any candidate you like, and you can give all your points to one and none to the others, or even score two equally. This additional information you are providing, who you consider equal and who you consider so below you wouldn't even give them a single point, breaks the voting paradox completely. Not many people know about it compared to ranked choice (and compared to our default, barely anyone knows alternatives exist at all), but it's what I'd push for if I had a say.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)