5th November 2017, 2:12 PM
Nothing was rigged, that's a misuse of the term. I'm sure that the DNC favored Clinton, but that is a VERY different thing from anything being "rigged". The system was set up impartially and the same rules applied to all candidates. Hillary won because she got more votes, and she got more votes because most Democrats decided she was the better candidate. And yes, I do still think she did better than Bernie would have.
As for this specific issue though. here's Brazille's explanation for what she meant: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/politics/d...index.html
I've mentioned it before, but it'd be fantastic if America would switch from our first-past-the-post system to ranked-choice voting; that would allow minor candidates an actual chance for the first time, for one of multiple benefits. I don't think that you could get rid of the parties or anything, that'd never happen because people naturally come together to form organizations in order to do more than people can on their own, but we could have a system where people could more vote with their actual beliefs, instead only with one of the top two.
But yeah, thanks to the hold the two parties have, it's very difficult to make any progress on it. Maine passed a ranked choice voting ballot initiative last November, but since then it was partially blocked by a state court (who said that it could not apply to many kinds of elections due to various state and/or federal rules); the only way around this would be a state constitutional amendment, and so far there is not much momentum for that. Recently the legislature had to decide what to do: leave it in place for the few kinds of elections not blocked, kill it entirely, or delay implementation. They ended up going with the last option, sadly. There will probably now be a peoples' veto effort (ballot referendum) to force implementation for the races it is legal in, and I hope that effort succeeds!
So yeah, that's the latest on ranked choice here.
As for this specific issue though. here's Brazille's explanation for what she meant: http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/05/politics/d...index.html
Dark Jaguar Wrote:True or not, the two big parties do need some sort of oversight and accountability. They're just too powerful not to be put in check. Will this happen? No, because they're just too powerful and neither side wants to disrupt the status quo.
I've mentioned it before, but it'd be fantastic if America would switch from our first-past-the-post system to ranked-choice voting; that would allow minor candidates an actual chance for the first time, for one of multiple benefits. I don't think that you could get rid of the parties or anything, that'd never happen because people naturally come together to form organizations in order to do more than people can on their own, but we could have a system where people could more vote with their actual beliefs, instead only with one of the top two.
But yeah, thanks to the hold the two parties have, it's very difficult to make any progress on it. Maine passed a ranked choice voting ballot initiative last November, but since then it was partially blocked by a state court (who said that it could not apply to many kinds of elections due to various state and/or federal rules); the only way around this would be a state constitutional amendment, and so far there is not much momentum for that. Recently the legislature had to decide what to do: leave it in place for the few kinds of elections not blocked, kill it entirely, or delay implementation. They ended up going with the last option, sadly. There will probably now be a peoples' veto effort (ballot referendum) to force implementation for the races it is legal in, and I hope that effort succeeds!
So yeah, that's the latest on ranked choice here.