Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties.", ">\n\nWould be amazing, get rid of the cancer to the USA that is the two party system" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties.", ">\n\nWould be amazing, get rid of the cancer to the USA that is the two party system", ">\n\nIt hasn't done that in countries that used it. It just lets third parties run without being spoilers. 3rd parties can win maybe 10% of seats like in AUS's lower chamber but they could probably win some even with FPTP. 10% in the US is still a pretty good figure." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties.", ">\n\nWould be amazing, get rid of the cancer to the USA that is the two party system", ">\n\nIt hasn't done that in countries that used it. It just lets third parties run without being spoilers. 3rd parties can win maybe 10% of seats like in AUS's lower chamber but they could probably win some even with FPTP. 10% in the US is still a pretty good figure.", ">\n\nSo can someone explain to me how this is legal? I know that sounds strange, but one US State (can not remember which, or find it out quickly on Wikipedia) had a custom voting system along these lines for it's Primaries (If there where 3 candidates you got half vote to place where you wanted, and if 4 or more a 1/3 vote as well). This was struck down as violating the 1st Amendment because it was a restriction on you voting." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties.", ">\n\nWould be amazing, get rid of the cancer to the USA that is the two party system", ">\n\nIt hasn't done that in countries that used it. It just lets third parties run without being spoilers. 3rd parties can win maybe 10% of seats like in AUS's lower chamber but they could probably win some even with FPTP. 10% in the US is still a pretty good figure.", ">\n\nSo can someone explain to me how this is legal? I know that sounds strange, but one US State (can not remember which, or find it out quickly on Wikipedia) had a custom voting system along these lines for it's Primaries (If there where 3 candidates you got half vote to place where you wanted, and if 4 or more a 1/3 vote as well). This was struck down as violating the 1st Amendment because it was a restriction on you voting.", ">\n\nPeletola, winning Alaska because one of the other two other frontrunners could not bow out gracefully is a warning shot over the bow. (Pele on the dyslexic metaphor mixing early morning brain.)" ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties.", ">\n\nWould be amazing, get rid of the cancer to the USA that is the two party system", ">\n\nIt hasn't done that in countries that used it. It just lets third parties run without being spoilers. 3rd parties can win maybe 10% of seats like in AUS's lower chamber but they could probably win some even with FPTP. 10% in the US is still a pretty good figure.", ">\n\nSo can someone explain to me how this is legal? I know that sounds strange, but one US State (can not remember which, or find it out quickly on Wikipedia) had a custom voting system along these lines for it's Primaries (If there where 3 candidates you got half vote to place where you wanted, and if 4 or more a 1/3 vote as well). This was struck down as violating the 1st Amendment because it was a restriction on you voting.", ">\n\nPeletola, winning Alaska because one of the other two other frontrunners could not bow out gracefully is a warning shot over the bow. (Pele on the dyslexic metaphor mixing early morning brain.)", ">\n\nMaine here. For us it’s broken a trend of being ruled by politicians who can’t win a majority of the vote. It also allows people with divergent opinions to signal (learn?) their strength without giving the election to someone they find reprehensible. It’s really just a cheaper, quicker way to hold a run-off election. And it’s not confusing at all for the voter, just for certain pundits apparently." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties.", ">\n\nWould be amazing, get rid of the cancer to the USA that is the two party system", ">\n\nIt hasn't done that in countries that used it. It just lets third parties run without being spoilers. 3rd parties can win maybe 10% of seats like in AUS's lower chamber but they could probably win some even with FPTP. 10% in the US is still a pretty good figure.", ">\n\nSo can someone explain to me how this is legal? I know that sounds strange, but one US State (can not remember which, or find it out quickly on Wikipedia) had a custom voting system along these lines for it's Primaries (If there where 3 candidates you got half vote to place where you wanted, and if 4 or more a 1/3 vote as well). This was struck down as violating the 1st Amendment because it was a restriction on you voting.", ">\n\nPeletola, winning Alaska because one of the other two other frontrunners could not bow out gracefully is a warning shot over the bow. (Pele on the dyslexic metaphor mixing early morning brain.)", ">\n\nMaine here. For us it’s broken a trend of being ruled by politicians who can’t win a majority of the vote. It also allows people with divergent opinions to signal (learn?) their strength without giving the election to someone they find reprehensible. It’s really just a cheaper, quicker way to hold a run-off election. And it’s not confusing at all for the voter, just for certain pundits apparently.", ">\n\nMeanwhile Washington would rather stick to their \"Top 2\" primary crap.\nGod we need RCV here." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties.", ">\n\nWould be amazing, get rid of the cancer to the USA that is the two party system", ">\n\nIt hasn't done that in countries that used it. It just lets third parties run without being spoilers. 3rd parties can win maybe 10% of seats like in AUS's lower chamber but they could probably win some even with FPTP. 10% in the US is still a pretty good figure.", ">\n\nSo can someone explain to me how this is legal? I know that sounds strange, but one US State (can not remember which, or find it out quickly on Wikipedia) had a custom voting system along these lines for it's Primaries (If there where 3 candidates you got half vote to place where you wanted, and if 4 or more a 1/3 vote as well). This was struck down as violating the 1st Amendment because it was a restriction on you voting.", ">\n\nPeletola, winning Alaska because one of the other two other frontrunners could not bow out gracefully is a warning shot over the bow. (Pele on the dyslexic metaphor mixing early morning brain.)", ">\n\nMaine here. For us it’s broken a trend of being ruled by politicians who can’t win a majority of the vote. It also allows people with divergent opinions to signal (learn?) their strength without giving the election to someone they find reprehensible. It’s really just a cheaper, quicker way to hold a run-off election. And it’s not confusing at all for the voter, just for certain pundits apparently.", ">\n\nMeanwhile Washington would rather stick to their \"Top 2\" primary crap.\nGod we need RCV here.", ">\n\nGet it done." ]

[ "Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here", ">\n\nI'm in favor!", ">\n\nIf in favor does not win, what is your second choice?", ">\n\nWe already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California", ">\n\nI think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?”", ">\n\n🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time", ">\n\nImagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting.", ">\n\nIf the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history.", ">\n\nIt really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. \nAnd to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird.", ">\n\nRCV won't destroy the 2 party system. AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties. 10% for the US would be amazing. AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system. \nTheir upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.\nI do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now. It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected. Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.\nI think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing. Perhaps slightly more cross party voting.", ">\n\nThe effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated. One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party. This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often.", ">\n\nGood! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold", ">\n\nI wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.\nIf there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them.", ">\n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. \nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. \nEliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though.", ">\n\n\nRight now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.\n\nAgain, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. \nYes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. \nBut the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: \n\nRCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.\n\nIs just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it.", ">\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? \nThe thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. \n\nIs just plain untrue\n\nOnce again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. \nA third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them.", ">\n\n\nBut isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?\n\nNo, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, \"a wholesale change.\" It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not \"changing the whole system overnight.\" \nAnd besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past \"which alternative voting method is best\"-paralysis to \"why not start with any better one at any level,\" the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than \"where are we going to lunch.\"\nBesides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. \nBut wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!\nThe idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked!", ">\n\nAlaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. \nAt the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. \nIf you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.\nChanging an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.\nAll of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all.", ">\n\nRCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot. Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race. Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because. They had to get reinstated via the courts. That wastes time and limited campaign funds. \nWith RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. \nThey likely won't win more than once in a blue moon. \nThe real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities. Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance. \nFailing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates.", ">\n\nGood. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation.", ">\n\nSeems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center", ">\n\nUnder that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not.", ">\n\nExcept there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at. At least in theory", ">\n\nI could see it initially going more \"center\" and then branching out from there.", ">\n\nExactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population.", ">\n\nWe’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves.", ">\n\nThere'll be hysteria in the US. To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people. The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.\nWe got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s. Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking. So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion.", ">\n\nYay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.\nRanked choice voting will do so much to save this country.", ">\n\nGeorgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine.", ">\n\nNo it doesn't\n\"Ranked choice\" is another way of saying \"instant runoff voting\". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting\nMaybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference", ">\n\nThey actually use RCV ballots for overseas military. It's just not applied instantly.", ">\n\nInteresting, didn't know that", ">\n\nGood! The more the better", ">\n\nThe biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. \nAs someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.\nIt does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it.", ">\n\nI don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me.", ">\n\nThere are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition. Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections. That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge.", ">\n\nOne of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die.", ">\n\nDream big and dream of STV!", ">\n\nImagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people…", ">\n\nNon American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting?", ">\n\nRight now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it. Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system. \nIt also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.\nOverall I’d say it is a good thing for sure.", ">\n\nI don’t understand how this helps third parties. \nWill ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag?", ">\n\nSo lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win. Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count. With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2. Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.\nAs it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate. Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.", ">\n\nThis is big news!", ">\n\nPlease. This might be the USA’s only hope to get out of the vilification rut we are in", ">\n\nAs an Australian whose always enjoyed this system, all I can say is come on in, the democratic water is fine!", ">\n\nWould you prefer your lower house used the same system as your upper house so it was also multi party system?", ">\n\nWe passed it here in Maine thankfully. I've never seen a competent argument against using it. I think it's embarrassing we didn't know which party controlled the Senate for a month after the election. Ranked choice voting would've easily solved that.", ">\n\nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR and proportional representation, and Ranked Choice Voting had a MAJOR flaw. \nImagine three remaining candidates. Trump had 35% of the first choice votes, Clinton had 33%, and Melissa Moderate had 32%. Melissa Moderate voters are split between Trump and Clinton as their second choice, while Melissa Moderate is the overwhelming second choice favorite for Trump and Clinton voters. \nAt this point, Melissa Moderate is eliminated by ranked choice / instant runoff voting… even though she EASILY defeats either Trump OR Clinton by a wide margin in a head to head election. \nIn this case, RCV eliminates her, and (in this hypothetical) her voters split their second choice between Trump and Clinton evenly, meaning Trump narrowly wins 51% to 49% against Clinton. \nThis is fucked up for several reasons. First, as mentioned, Melissa would crush Trump in a landslide if they ran against each other. Second, it means that, by running, Clinton changed the winner without being the winner herself… which is the definition of a spoiler. Third, Clinton voters literally hurt themselves by voting for their favorite candidate, because then voting for Clinton caused them to get Trump instead of Melissa Moderate. \nThis is not some crazy whacky hypothetical… it’s actually a non uncommon occurrence in RCV elections. It literally happened for the Alaska congressional seat special election just a few months ago… where the third place candidate would have defeated either the winning democrat or Sarah Palin (the second place finisher) in a head to head election, but instead finished third. It has happened in several other elections as well. Anytime you have a third place candidate who is ideologically between the first and second candidates in a close race, there is a chance of this happening. \nIt’s still better than the current system, but there are way better alternatives like STAR.", ">\n\nRepublicans will never win elections again under this.", ">\n\nThey would have likely won the GA senate race under this.\nAlso making statements like this makes it less likely that we’ll get RCV at all. It need to be sold as something positive to both parties.", ">\n\nWould be amazing, get rid of the cancer to the USA that is the two party system", ">\n\nIt hasn't done that in countries that used it. It just lets third parties run without being spoilers. 3rd parties can win maybe 10% of seats like in AUS's lower chamber but they could probably win some even with FPTP. 10% in the US is still a pretty good figure.", ">\n\nSo can someone explain to me how this is legal? I know that sounds strange, but one US State (can not remember which, or find it out quickly on Wikipedia) had a custom voting system along these lines for it's Primaries (If there where 3 candidates you got half vote to place where you wanted, and if 4 or more a 1/3 vote as well). This was struck down as violating the 1st Amendment because it was a restriction on you voting.", ">\n\nPeletola, winning Alaska because one of the other two other frontrunners could not bow out gracefully is a warning shot over the bow. (Pele on the dyslexic metaphor mixing early morning brain.)", ">\n\nMaine here. For us it’s broken a trend of being ruled by politicians who can’t win a majority of the vote. It also allows people with divergent opinions to signal (learn?) their strength without giving the election to someone they find reprehensible. It’s really just a cheaper, quicker way to hold a run-off election. And it’s not confusing at all for the voter, just for certain pundits apparently.", ">\n\nMeanwhile Washington would rather stick to their \"Top 2\" primary crap.\nGod we need RCV here.", ">\n\nGet it done.", ">\n\nUnfortunately a lot of people still don’t understand how RCV works, and have been so traumatized by winner take all that they do dumb things like use their first choice for the most likely winner." ]

[]

[ "First keycap set I bought for my first board, sadly took 21 months to arrive.\nIn the meanwhile I own 5 mechs, already sold a couple and have half a dozen keycap sets.\nThanks u/oblotzky 😊👌🏻" ]

[ "First keycap set I bought for my first board, sadly took 21 months to arrive.\nIn the meanwhile I own 5 mechs, already sold a couple and have half a dozen keycap sets.\nThanks u/oblotzky 😊👌🏻", ">\n\nLol this is like 1900s type of shipping" ]

[]

[ "What's is that num pad, and where can I find it?" ]

[ "What's is that num pad, and where can I find it?", ">\n\nStill waiting on KAT Spacedust" ]

[ "What's is that num pad, and where can I find it?", ">\n\nStill waiting on KAT Spacedust", ">\n\noh that's a nice looking set indeed. I'm sure it will be worth the wait!\nI mean it needn't be this long but still, it's a nice set" ]

[]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day..." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home..." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say..." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Tigers." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Tigers.", ">\n\nIf there were smaller tigers, we would keep them as pets, but they'd break all our stuff to prove they're still in charge." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Tigers.", ">\n\nIf there were smaller tigers, we would keep them as pets, but they'd break all our stuff to prove they're still in charge.", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Cats." ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Tigers.", ">\n\nIf there were smaller tigers, we would keep them as pets, but they'd break all our stuff to prove they're still in charge.", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Cats.", ">\n\nOH MY GOD!" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Tigers.", ">\n\nIf there were smaller tigers, we would keep them as pets, but they'd break all our stuff to prove they're still in charge.", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Cats.", ">\n\nOH MY GOD!", ">\n\nMy tabby is a cute little tiger" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Tigers.", ">\n\nIf there were smaller tigers, we would keep them as pets, but they'd break all our stuff to prove they're still in charge.", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Cats.", ">\n\nOH MY GOD!", ">\n\nMy tabby is a cute little tiger", ">\n\nI knew we had infrastructure challenges, but I didn't realize we were facing an infrastructure cat-astrophe!" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Tigers.", ">\n\nIf there were smaller tigers, we would keep them as pets, but they'd break all our stuff to prove they're still in charge.", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Cats.", ">\n\nOH MY GOD!", ">\n\nMy tabby is a cute little tiger", ">\n\nI knew we had infrastructure challenges, but I didn't realize we were facing an infrastructure cat-astrophe!", ">\n\nTake my r/angryupvote" ]

[ "Imagine the work order. \nYour boss comes to you and says, \"Hey, you're in charge of the cats calendar.\"\n\"What calendar?\"\n\"The one with cats attacking infrastructure?\"\n\"What?\"", ">\n\nyou miss ONE day...", ">\n\nHail Vectron!", ">\n\nBy Vectron!", ">\n\nFor those yet to experience the holy might of Vectron's kindly claw", ">\n\nThank you. I had no idea.", ">\n\nYou are most welcome by Vectron", ">\n\nFor the love of all that is Vectron, your speech warms my Vectronic heart.", ">\n\nMay Vectron’s beard shed its benevolence upon us. 🙏🏻🙏🏻", ">\n\nAnd may all of his correspondence to us be sent Vectronically. So it is written, so shall it be done.", ">\n\nI live in Oregon and started to recognize a bunch of the dams, so I was like, “huh, that’s kinda cool.” Then I saw the text at the bottom of the first page. Portland District. Now a cat calendar makes perfect sense.", ">\n\nSame thing happened to me. I think I'm going to head to kinko's and have them print it out for me.", ">\n\nTell them you need to print some important official military documents before you show them what it is", ">\n\nDon’t forget to tell them you need it right meow!", ">\n\nWho will protect our infrastructure from this menace?", ">\n\nAn array of laser pointers.", ">\n\ncut to giant laser pointer satellite", ">\n\nomigod the jewish space lasers were real", ">\n\n*meowish space lasers", ">\n\nHey that's racist", ">\n\nI think it would be cheaper to buy a calendar than use the ink/toner required to print it.", ">\n\nThat's why you print it at work.", ">\n\nhaha true, oh wait I work from home...", ">\n\nIf you print from home for work you can write printer supplies off on your taxes :)", ">\n\nUh yes boss I needed a calendar, so… oh what? Use the company one? Ummm but the US army has a really nice one and I thought I’d be patriotic - what? Oh, yeah I know we’re in Canada, I just…", ">\n\nPortland is pretty much wannabe Vancouver, BC. I say it goes!", ">\n\nExactly what a Canadian would say...", ">\n\nGoodies, goodie goodie, yum yum.", ">\n\nI just scrolled until I found The Goodies reference but was wondering if I was going to find one at all.", ">\n\nIt's way down the list, isn't it? \n/knees hurt.", ">\n\nOw, my back! Get off my lawn!", ">\n\nOne engineer did it in his free time, and released it for use through the corps. \nThis was NOT government funded.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded, I support this.", ">\n\nEven if it was government funded it would've been like maybe one day of pay at most? Not a ton for the amount of publicity they'll get that might make them even more money.", ">\n\nAssuming they already have the infrastructure pictures I would be surprised if it took more than 4 work hours. Also for chronically underfunded agencies that kind of PR is exactly how you get voters to convince the politicians to increase funds. I look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar", ">\n\n\nI look forward to NASA figuring out how to photoshop giant cats playing with the planets like balls of yarn for their calendar \n\nWell let me introduce you to the most bizarre social media messaging from an official U.S. government agency: The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission's Instagram feed. \nAnd before I catch any \"there's no way this is real\" replies, here's the Washington Post covering it: \n\nHow a federal bureaucrat uses astronaut babies and dogs riding pigeons to try to save your life", ">\n\nThis is rad!", ">\n\nCISA losing their shit rn", ">\n\nI would like one.", ">\n\nIt's a free PDF.", ">\n\nNo he would like one of the cats", ">\n\nyOu wOuLdN'T DoWnloAd a cAT", ">\n\nI can’t believe they included Sherlock getting knocked off a cliff. At least he didn’t jump this time.", ">\n\nI'm shocked that you're the only person I've seen comment on this so far! it's hilarious", ">\n\n\"Every year, dozens of cats attack important infrastructure for our country causing dozens of dollars of damage. Won't you help?\"", ">\n\nI heard this with Sarah McLoughlin's voice", ">\n\nArmy Cats", ">\n\nNow do it with pictures of our crumbling infrastructure.", ">\n\nThis seems like one of those things that is somehow going to age poorly given our Universe's current sense of irony. I don't know how exactly, but there's going to be some mass tragedy involving cats and a suspension bridge or something this year.", ">\n\nThe first image kind of reads like \"this infrastructure is super important so don't damage it\". The calendar almost seems like a shopping list for domestic terrorists or something lol.", ">\n\nI mean, pretty obvious that dams, substations, bridges and the like are good targets for chaos. Google maps gives you all this plus Police stations and everything, with photos and the address. Useless to worry about it", ">\n\nSeriously, anyone who unironicly think terrorists were waiting for a cat calendar to list a bunch of locations to bomb is paranoid about the wrong things.", ">\n\nCats would hunt and eat us if they were bigger than us", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Tigers.", ">\n\nIf there were smaller tigers, we would keep them as pets, but they'd break all our stuff to prove they're still in charge.", ">\n\nThey already do, they are called Cats.", ">\n\nOH MY GOD!", ">\n\nMy tabby is a cute little tiger", ">\n\nI knew we had infrastructure challenges, but I didn't realize we were facing an infrastructure cat-astrophe!", ">\n\nTake my r/angryupvote", ">\n\nI love how shitty the photoshop is. Really ties it all together" ]