Why can both parties be more centrist?  Good things happen in the middle.  Best part of the burger is in the middle. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/14/centrists-house-democrats-drug-pricing-511798

Why can both parties be more centrist?  Good things happen in the middle.  Best part of the burger is in the middle. 

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/09/14/centrists-house-democrats-drug-pricing-511798

Rank choice voting would help.

But for all our government's leftiness, we actually aren't that bad, not compared to some of the crazy crap that other places have come up with.

Rank choice voting would help.

But for all our government's leftiness, we actually aren't that bad, not compared to some of the crazy crap that other places have come up with.

Ranked choice is an interesting voting concept.  Looks to try help solve the broken 2 party system we currently have.

Rank choice voting would help.

But for all our government's leftiness, we actually aren't that bad, not compared to some of the crazy crap that other places have come up with.

Rank choice makes things more complicated on purpose so that they can hide more cheating.

You want both parties to be more centrist? Then make campaign promises a legal contract with forced resignation if you break them. Radical agendas don't get votes. The mask comes off once seated.

I don't think a "center is possible, now nor was it ever possible.
Best the can be done is an un-easy peace.
Which is how America was originally designed.  Changes in laws,
demographics, wars, and technology have change the USA.
I don't want to compromise with Democrats as they require capitulation.
They don't want to compromise with me as the BELIEVE that they
know what is best for me and my thoughts are irrelevant.
So the best we can do is to agree not to shoot each other.
We used to be more civil, barely, but that is gone now.
 

Can't use RANKED-CHOICE voting for President, Vice President, Representatives or Senators unless the Constitution is changed.

There would have to be some compelling reason why a different system is needed.

Ranked-Choice might be useful for choosing your favorite band, food or car, but it's not suitable for electing our leadership.

This is not a dog race where you bet win, place or show.  This is a race to put someone in office you actually want.  If your #1 fails to win, would you really be happy your #2 crossed the finish line?

People today are polarized, and in spite of arguments to the contrary, ranked-choice will not reduce the polarization.  If you don't like Candidate "D", you'll put Candidates "A", "B", and "C" as your top 3 choice to try and keep "D" out.  The difference is there's now a chance to defeat "D" if your #2 gets more votes than "A" or "D". 

If preventing someone from winning is how you define winning, then maybe this system is what you're looking for -- more of a chance you'll get your wish. Just remember -- the other party can use the same system against your guy, too.

In Presidential races, the winner must get a majority of votes.  If no candidates makes that threshold, the race is decided by Congress.

Most state and local races are by plurality -- the one with the most votes wins regardless of whether anyone received a majority of votes.

The reason there is a difference is a plurality is based on the total number of people voting.  That number changes election to election.  The general election is based on electoral votes, the total of which is decided by the number and population of states.  That keeps the elections from being decided every 4 years by a few states having the majority of residents.

There's little that can be done to fix the polarization of our political system.  Pushing a new method of voting is just another way of trying to destroy the electoral college system.  There is already an effort to get states to swing their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote.

Senator Joe Manchin. WV. (D)
Rep. Paul Ryan WI (R)

They’re out there.

If you’re a Republican centrist you get labeled a RINO.
Just my opinion.

I forgot to add:  We saw last year (and this year) how adamant the Dems are to change election rules.  Anything that can loosen security and give them an advantage.

Ranked-Order IMHO is another way to ensure they don't lose. 

Let's say another Hillary vs. Trump election happens, where the Dem nominee is just too awful to vote for.  You're stuck voting for Trump, a guaranteed loser from a 3rd party, or abstaining.  Yeah, you can vote AGAINST the GOP candidate, but that's not often enough votes if the GOP voters are motivated.

Ranked-Order gives the Dems a fighting chance.  If their #2 candidate is able to get more votes than their #1 and the opposing party's candidates, the Dems still win.

It's a way that the party can continue to put their most politically powerful member up as the nominee, and not be tied to that potentially unelectable horror of a human being as their single candidate.

Anyway, as long as the electoral college remains as it is, there is not much chance of Ranked-Choice happening for presidential races.

Senator Joe Manchin. WV. (D)
Rep. Paul Ryan WI (R)

They’re out there.

If you’re a Republican centrist you get labeled a RINO.
Just my opinion.

We need more, those two are some of my favorite senators.  If someone was like that in Hawaii I would gladly cast my vote for them.

Can't use RANKED-CHOICE voting for President, Vice President, Representatives or Senators unless the Constitution is changed.

There would have to be some compelling reason why a different system is needed.

Ranked-Choice might be useful for choosing your favorite band, food or car, but it's not suitable for electing our leadership.

This is not a dog race where you bet win, place or show.  This is a race to put someone in office you actually want.  If your #1 fails to win, would you really be happy your #2 crossed the finish line?

People today are polarized, and in spite of arguments to the contrary, ranked-choice will not reduce the polarization.  If you don't like Candidate "D", you'll put Candidates "A", "B", and "C" as your top 3 choice to try and keep "D" out.  The difference is there's now a chance to defeat "D" if your #2 gets more votes than "A" or "D". 

If preventing someone from winning is how you define winning, then maybe this system is what you're looking for -- more of a chance you'll get your wish. Just remember -- the other party can use the same system against your guy, too.

In Presidential races, the winner must get a majority of votes.  If no candidates makes that threshold, the race is decided by Congress.

Most state and local races are by plurality -- the one with the most votes wins regardless of whether anyone received a majority of votes.

The reason there is a difference is a plurality is based on the total number of people voting.  That number changes election to election.  The general election is based on electoral votes, the total of which is decided by the number and population of states.  That keeps the elections from being decided every 4 years by a few states having the majority of residents.

There's little that can be done to fix the polarization of our political system.  Pushing a new method of voting is just another way of trying to destroy the electoral college system.  There is already an effort to get states to swing their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote.

What is Maine?

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-senate-elections-voting-maine-united-states-355f2859cf5dabf25bb0bb953f9c66bd

We need more, those two are some of my favorite senators.  If someone was like that in Hawaii I would gladly cast my vote for them.

Actually,  I'd vote for you as Senator,  you seem to piss many people off and don't get any\thing done.
The perfect politician.
 

Maine is a state, and the only one to initiate ranked-order presidential voting.  Their votes decide who gets their 2 electoral votes.

They are one of two states that apportions electoral votes by congressional district.

Maine is a state, and the only one to initiate ranked-order presidential voting.  Their votes decide who gets their 2 electoral votes.

They are one of two states that apportions electoral votes by congressional district.

So you were wrong 

So if they can do it all 50 states should be able to.  It works for them.  They have one of the good senators too,  Centrist.  Not some dystopian democrat hellhole.

Rep. Paul Ryan WI (R)

Never fulfilled any of  his campaign promises, especially his biggest one, to balance the budget. Instead when he was Speaker with a Republican controlled House they started the record spending mess you see now.

He was always super full of sh*t and c-blocked his own party seeking subpoenas to go after all the Russia hoax folks. He is one of the main reasons our government is broken right now.

Republican controlled Congress at the time. If I’m not mistaken.
He was trying to limit spending at the time. That’s my understanding. He didn’t like the deficit and was trying to cut it.
His cock blocking was trying not to let the Republican controlled Congress go nuts.
Both sides can go anywhere they want for their spin.
What the heck. There’s always Reaganomics.

Full of shit?  Which politician is not (except Sam Kong. And McDermott.)

He is one of the main reasons our government is broken right now.

How you figure ?

Are u saying mcdermitt isnt full of shit? Or sarcasm?

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

I’m saying McDermitt is NOT full of shit.
From what I can tell anyway.
Is McDermitt full of shit ? Should it have been sarcasm ?
Now I’m curious.

So you were wrong 

...

That's why nobody on here likes you.  Everything has to be right or wrong with you.  There's no such thing as sharing information and discussing the pros and cons.

You're exactly what's wrong with this divisive nation.

I’m saying McDermitt is NOT full of shit.
From what I can tell anyway.
Is McDermitt full of shit ? Should it have been sarcasm ?
Now I’m curious.

This year there was a self defense bill that got a hearing. It would make the victim immune from civil liability and allow greater use of force. Mc was on the committee.

Mc is anti 2a.

HPD was against this bill and he made hpd look stupid. Which is good.

He showed interest in the bill because on 2 occasions, he was almost a victim of a crime. 1 was while at the park with his kids and some crazy guy was yelling at them. Another was in chinatown with his wife. Some guy followed them into the police station they went into for safety. Possible robbery.

So he felt like if he had to use force, then would he be sued or end up in jail. MDA was also on the zoom hearing, who did not support the bill. He stated something along the lines, "i support MDA, but i want this bill due to my 2 recent experiences". You could also see the look of conflict on his face and he was thinking carefully b4 speaking.

So basically an anti 2a rep was a victim twice, which made him only now care. And he had to make sure to state he supports MDA.

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk