Mastodawn

abby Jun 25, 2025

@tinker I'm still so upset Colorado threw away their chance :( so much funding went into misinfo around it, how it would make elections super complicated and cost more

Paul SomeoneElse Jun 25, 2025

There's that Atlantic article against it, which is pretty not surprisingly shitty of them.

CC: @[email protected]

c.reider

Jun 25, 2025

@vapaad @tinker we’ll get another shot, i suspect.

Ryan Castellucci (they/them)

Jun 25, 2025

@tinker first past the post is undemocratic

Tinker ☀️Jun 25, 2025

@ryanc - Truthfully.

Space Hobo Jun 25, 2025

@tinker Part of this is that NYC needed to learn the hard way how to use their votes in this system. Eric Adams got the mayoralty partly because New Yorkers thought that you put the worst person at your lowest rank. That bizarrely got him an absurd number of fifth-round votes and launched him into the seat.

This time around, everyone was clear on the message of "Vote for me and this other person who aligns with me, and DO NOT RANK CUOMO!"

Tinker ☀️Jun 25, 2025

@spacehobo - Yeah there's always a "learning period" when using a new system. Especially when you're one of the first big cities to do so.

I imagine other cities can learn a lot when it comes to messaging and instructions around Ranked Choice.

Very good points!

@tinker @spacehobo the problems with Ranked Choice don't end at getting confused by the ballot, the strategic traps of "first past the post" [what post?] / choose-only-one / largest-plurality-wins voting methods is that your vote only counts for the candidate you line up behind. Unlike STAR or Approval voting, RCV (IRV/STV) assigns your vote to only one candidate at a time, you cannot support 2 or 3 candidates equally / simultaneously, your 2nd-favorite gets cut first & your ballot "exhausted"

@tinker @spacehobo RCV's proponents ("FairVote") tell a good story about what it will accomplish, but it's not consistent, easily audited, or reliable (like the voting method's they parachute into local efforts to shit on) and some of what it achieves comes from voters and candidates believing what they were sold, the rest of the time you just got lucky, or seemingly more frequently, fabricated consent for a 45% mayor. I'm glad NYC got lucky but RCV didn't do this.

@enobacon @tinker FPTP is a racing metaphor, possibly from horse racing. It means that you didn't measure times for the participants, but gave an award to the first horse to cross the finish line. It's a goofy posh way to say "plurality winner-take-all", and I had to explain to loads of people that the US is almost entirely FPTP even if they don't use that phrase for it.

@spacehobo @tinker if there was a post at like 50% that they had to get past, it would actually make more sense than choose-only-one or RCV (IRV/single winner non proportional single transferrable vote)

@enobacon @tinker Consider that the votes correspond to a maximum time to qualify here, rather than distance.

@enobacon @tinker Like, a literal FPTP race on foot means "we determine the winner by comparing the participants to one another, rather than to a fixed result threshold"

@spacehobo @tinker but the contest is who got the most marbles in a jar, or the most voters to give them their vote. A race covering some distance makes it sound fair to the voters but the voters are not getting measured equally if they like more candidates. FPTP as a name for some thing with no post to get past is just part of the whole consent-fabrication game that is most of the history of voting methods.

@spacehobo @tinker if the horses ran a mile, who cares about the times if one was fastest? The choose-only-one problem is if there's three horses, the race ends when their distances add to one mile / 100% of voters. But some voters didn't get counted if there's more than two horses, if no horse ran even 50%, what was the "post" of FPTP?

@enobacon @tinker I don't think this point you're making is particularly obscure, which is why I'm ignoring it to provide new context and information instead.

@spacehobo @tinker if enough people understood the metaphor, they would get on the same horse together or not change horses mid stream or move the goal post maybe.

@enobacon @tinker That's why I'm explaining the plurality-winner-take-all nature, instead of shouting "POST POST POST NO POST WHERE IS THE POST IT HAS NO POST" and confusing everyone

@spacehobo if people are confused, we could use a simple system like approval primary/top-two runoff, which Missouri has banned (thanks to RCV confusion) except for St Louis having already adopted it. The horror of voting for more than one candidate, sometimes even getting counted as such.

Dark Phoenix 🇺🇦🇨🇦🇬🇱🇵🇦🇵🇸🏳️‍🌈Jun 26, 2025

@spacehobo @tinker nobody says that you HAVE to use all 5 choices. Seriously, if you only like one person, just vote for them.

Kevin Russell Jun 25, 2025

Aye.

Epic Null Jun 25, 2025

@tinker Oh shit I didn't know they were going with Ranked Choice! A serious W for new york.

Now to pick on my friend in New York for not bragging about it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

teledyn 𓂀 Jun 25, 2025

@Epic_Null @tinker

There is a caveat in Arrow's Theorem, for both abuse and failure, but I'd still rather your system (outlawed in Ontario) than our fptp.

Arrow's impossibility theorem - Wikipedia

Epic Null Jun 25, 2025

@teledyn @tinker I must inform you, I am not in New York. I still am in FPTP.

I also would prefer the flawed option that unlocks our politics for third parties than our current system.

@Epic_Null @teledyn @tinker

Chris Real Jun 26, 2025

You 'preference' creates a false crisis. It relies on people who are nostalgic for the 'old ways'.

The old ways created the victory of the fascists, and the yearning for a better way.

The Flawed Option is not somehow the Best Option just because you Like it.

This isn't facebook. Your choices create changes.

Epic Null Jun 26, 2025

@_chris_real @teledyn @tinker er, I think there was some miscommunication.

The flawed option that unlocks our politics for third parties (Ranked choice, with flaws as shown by Arrow's Theorem), is my preference.

First Past The Post (The old way of doing things, with the flaw implied by my post of locking our politics to two parties) is what I am currently stuck with because, and I cannot stress this enough: I do not have control over the way my city, state, or country runs elections.

There is no choice currently available to me that would encourage change.

If Ranked Choice gets on the ballot, i will vote for it. Until then, the best I can do is voice my preference for it, and share the news when I find out it's in use somewhere.

@Epic_Null @_chris_real @tinker

teledyn 𓂀 Jun 26, 2025

Here's more ammo for you 😊

https://radiolab.org/podcast/tweak-vote

Tweak the Vote

On the eve of the midterm elections, we look at one tweak to voting that could help bring democracy back from the brink.

Radiolab Podcasts | WNYC Studios

dragonfrog Jun 26, 2025

@Epic_Null @tinker they used ranked choice for the primary. The NY Democratic party can do this because primaries are an internal party process - a party could choose their nominee by a watermelon seed spitting contest if they wanted.

The election itself is a state process, governed by the rules of the state, and it remains FPTP.

Musta dawned on me thusly Jun 26, 2025

@dragonfrog @Epic_Null @tinker … since an over abundance of radicals vote at the primaries, the two party system fields radical candidates in the general election.

#RCV in the general election is what will moderate US politics, and maybe rid us of the two party system

Pixel Occult Jun 25, 2025

@tinker I got to vote this way for the last Portland mayoral election and it was an entirely better system. I hope to see more of it elsewhere.

Tofu (he/him)Jun 26, 2025

@PixelOccult @tinker You know it's good because established parties hate it

dragonfrog Jun 26, 2025

@tofu @PixelOccult @tinker ...and also use it for their internal processes like primaries.

Tofu (he/him)Jun 26, 2025

@dragonfrog @PixelOccult @tinker NYC does, it was a voter approved initiative, not a strictly party decision. Since then many states have passed legislative bans, and in states where it was proposed as an initiative all have failed after millions were poured into defeating it. I understand the confusion, but there is obvious real fear by the established parties on both sides if you look into it. NYC was a bit ahead of the effort looking to kill it.

@PixelOccult @tinker Portland expanded council to a proportional representation system, and just expanding council to 12 / 4 districts is going to be far more democratic than 5 at-large mini-mayors, but IRV and STV are not the best counting methods we could have chosen. I think we're at least a couple councilors short of accurately representing the majority and narrowly dodged a bullet on the mayor this time. Ranking multiple candidates is great but what matters is whether it counts equally.

John Jun 25, 2025

@tinker In Australia we call this preferential voting. It's a fundamental part of our democratic structure at the federal and state levels. In the end the winning candidate has majority support in the broader community sense.

ginoputrino Jun 25, 2025

@isopogonman @tinker Agree, it's fantastic and I believe that preferential voting combined with compulsory voting has been instrumental in preventing the sort of extreme candidates you see in the US be successful in Australia.

Passwordsarehard4 Jun 25, 2025

@tinker US heartland checking in, please for the sake of whatever imaginary friend you worship bring it nationwide.

Veedems Jun 25, 2025

@tinker I love the experience. There was a real sense of investment, personally, from researching and ranking. It helped me learn what mattered most to me, too.

Richard W. Woodley ELBOWS UP 🇨🇦🌹🚴‍♂️📷 🗺️Jun 25, 2025

https://the5thc.blogspot.com/2024/11/why-i-dislike-ranked-ballot-voting-why.html

Why I Dislike Ranked Ballot Voting & Why I Support It

Why I Dislike Ranked Ballot Voting & Why I Support It

After four years studying Political Science at Laurentian University and over thirty years working for the House of Commons I tended to appr...

sleepy62🍁🛠️ 🖥️ 🔬 🌞Jun 25, 2025

@tinker
I would love to be able to vote for who I want without fear of giving an opening to to some far right creep.

crispy branzino ☭ (sold out forever)Jun 26, 2025

@tinker I suspect we won't. Institutional hard-liners in the Democratic party now see how easy it is to vote for a reformist or liberal candidate that can absolutely impact their income and they will band together to quietly eliminate rank choice.

Billionaires need you excited to vote in order to maintain the illusion of western democracy. They dont need you making changes to neofeudalism.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2022/06/22/democratic-groups-panned-over-dangerous-midterm-ploy-boost-gop-extremists

Adam Jun 26, 2025

@Nimbius666 @tinker

I do think the idea of ranked choice voting actually terrifies corporate Dems and they're AIPAC friends. Being the Lesser of Two Evils is they're whole schtik. I mean they even spend millions amplifying extreme far right voices just so they appear Less Evil by comparison, imagine taking away FPTP

Democratic Groups Panned Over 'Dangerous' Midterm Ploy to Boost GOP Extremists | Common Dreams

"It's untenable for Democrats to ally themselves with their own executioners."

Common Dreams

@adamsaidsomething @Nimbius666 - Fully agree with you.

Thad Jun 26, 2025

@tinker I'm a big supporter of RCV but I'm not sure it was outcome determinative in this case. Mamdani had a plurality on the first ballot, with a substantial lead; I think he'd have probably won under FPTP too.

jaxter184 Jun 26, 2025

@Thad @tinker thats what i was initially thinking as well, but upon seeing retrospective analyses, I think the bigger contributor in this case was that Mamdani and Lander didnt see each other as competitors, and were basically able to co-campaign against Cuomo, which is something that almost certainly wouldnt have happened if the primary was FPTP.

Thad Jun 26, 2025

@jaxter184 Could be. It's an interesting thought, thanks for the explanation. @tinker

@Thad - I completely and fully disagree (with heavy respect).

You are absolutely correct that Mamdani had the numbers for a majority right off the bat.

BUUUUUT!!!!! I dont believe he would have gotten those numbers if people had to consider "Lesser of evils" and "don't throw away your vote."

RCV has a PSYCHOLOGICAL effect. It lets you vote your first pick freely without fear that you're splitting the vote and letting your worst option win.

It's because of this, that folks threw in all of their votes for their ideal candidate knowing that even if it was a long shot, its still worth it. And they had their backup votes set up.

With FPTP, you often DONT vote for your ideal. You vote for the person that is close enough AND who you think will win.

Virginia Holloway Jun 26, 2025

@tinker @Thad exactly

@VirginiaHolloway @tinker @Thad getting to vote for more than one does have a big impact on whether candidates feel safe to run vs being called a spoiler, but RCV tends to deliver the plurality winner by disregarding 2nd and later choices (even while eliminating those before counting), so it's fine if everybody lines up behind the candidate the majority wants, but could just as easily split several ways and not runoff in the order that picks a candidate with actual majority support.

Thad Jun 26, 2025

@tinker It's certainly possible. And RCV is a worthy goal regardless of any single example.

ned haughton Jun 26, 2025

@tinker as an Australian, welcome to the future! You're only about a century late, but we're glad you're here now 😁

Mitch Rose Jun 26, 2025

The race is not won yet. Ranked choice calculations and the real winner will be announced Tuesday.

Also it should be noted that the NYC board of elections sent out a flyer to registered voters a week or two in advance with a full page devoted to how ranked voting works and how to vote - that surely helped.

@mrose - You're right!

ArcadiaRhod Jun 26, 2025

@tinker preferential voting in Australia!

Gary Houston Jun 26, 2025

@arcadiarhod @tinker it's better than nothing, but the system in Australia still favours the largest parties, thanks to the district system. E.g., the Greens got 12.20% of the primary vote in the recent elections, but only 2.7% of the seats.

Ben Bradley Jun 26, 2025

@tinker I (in Atlanta) haven't heard about RCV in NYC this year, but I recall in the last decade or so the (first?) NYC RCV election that somehow got messed up and it took some time (weeks?) to count the votes. I thought it was a shame that RCV got so mangled and got such bad press.

@benbradley - Yeah. Every nee system (especially for first adopters) will have transitional challenges, learning curves, and errors.

Just how the world works.

Virginia Holloway Jun 26, 2025