Datasets:

---

innovation-hacking2

/

shitposting_dataset1

like 0

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again" ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality" ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo" ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her" ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol" ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD.", ">\n\nGee … I wonder how many abortions she has had …" ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD.", ">\n\nGee … I wonder how many abortions she has had …", ">\n\nHerschel already established, its totally fine if a goper wants an abortion." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD.", ">\n\nGee … I wonder how many abortions she has had …", ">\n\nHerschel already established, its totally fine if a goper wants an abortion.", ">\n\n\"We believe in small government. Now let's talk about controlling that womb of yours\"" ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD.", ">\n\nGee … I wonder how many abortions she has had …", ">\n\nHerschel already established, its totally fine if a goper wants an abortion.", ">\n\n\"We believe in small government. Now let's talk about controlling that womb of yours\"", ">\n\nFemale misogynists. It’s deranged." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD.", ">\n\nGee … I wonder how many abortions she has had …", ">\n\nHerschel already established, its totally fine if a goper wants an abortion.", ">\n\n\"We believe in small government. Now let's talk about controlling that womb of yours\"", ">\n\nFemale misogynists. It’s deranged.", ">\n\nI would nudge South Dakota to start paying their way. When they start paying the bills maybe they should get a say. Welfare states lol." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD.", ">\n\nGee … I wonder how many abortions she has had …", ">\n\nHerschel already established, its totally fine if a goper wants an abortion.", ">\n\n\"We believe in small government. Now let's talk about controlling that womb of yours\"", ">\n\nFemale misogynists. It’s deranged.", ">\n\nI would nudge South Dakota to start paying their way. When they start paying the bills maybe they should get a say. Welfare states lol.", ">\n\nShe is just another crazy demagogue going after her own kind." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD.", ">\n\nGee … I wonder how many abortions she has had …", ">\n\nHerschel already established, its totally fine if a goper wants an abortion.", ">\n\n\"We believe in small government. Now let's talk about controlling that womb of yours\"", ">\n\nFemale misogynists. It’s deranged.", ">\n\nI would nudge South Dakota to start paying their way. When they start paying the bills maybe they should get a say. Welfare states lol.", ">\n\nShe is just another crazy demagogue going after her own kind.", ">\n\nAnd notice, like all her other policies, her position has nothing to do with what the constituents want, only personal agenda. Freedom?? Free to agree or get the hell out." ]

[ "And then they wonder why they lose elections. This was settled law. It’s hard enough for a woman to make that choice and then you terrorize them legally?\nMaddening", ">\n\nThe core policy planks of the Republican Party are: (1) protecting the rich from taxation; and (2) using state violence to enforce Christian morality.", ">\n\nMorality left the building about 60 years ago. It’s a different world today . They just don’t get it .\nAnd the rich need to be taxed on these insane corporate profits because it’s completely out of control.", ">\n\nUsed to love a trip to South Dakota nearly every autumn for 30 years.\nSpent a lot of money there. Never again", ">\n\nIt'll be interesting to see which governors will try to 'nudge' Noem back towards reality", ">\n\nGOP: A government that thinks it can control what stove you use is a government with too much power.\nAnd also of course GOP: We need to do more to restrict Abortion. \n........ And restrict legal voting. And restrict civil rights. And restrict LGBT rights. And restrict workers rights. And restrict books. And restrict education...\nEdit typo", ">\n\nall those poor kids addicted to inhaling natural gas vapors - filling trash bags at the fire place and huffing away.", ">\n\nf her", ">\n\nNo thanks lol", ">\n\nWhen she's finally booted from her gravy train job, she'll be a money-scamming televangelist or a trafficker of pregnant girls.", ">\n\nSD will never vote her out. She can literally do no wrong in her voters eyes. There was a tiny bit of hope at midterms, but she ended up winning by an even higher margin than she did when she was originally elected.", ">\n\nShe straight up did a ballot measure on marijuana in 2020 and the people voted to legalize it. She single handedly canceled that ballot measure and then they voted it down in 2022. Something is going on with the water in SD.", ">\n\nGee … I wonder how many abortions she has had …", ">\n\nHerschel already established, its totally fine if a goper wants an abortion.", ">\n\n\"We believe in small government. Now let's talk about controlling that womb of yours\"", ">\n\nFemale misogynists. It’s deranged.", ">\n\nI would nudge South Dakota to start paying their way. When they start paying the bills maybe they should get a say. Welfare states lol.", ">\n\nShe is just another crazy demagogue going after her own kind.", ">\n\nAnd notice, like all her other policies, her position has nothing to do with what the constituents want, only personal agenda. Freedom?? Free to agree or get the hell out.", ">\n\nAll this shit including anti-lgbtq is just going to brain-drain their dumb states...which, might be the point...they love the uneducated." ]

[]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans." ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nI mean in reality it’s normally pretty exciting. Now if someone was dead for an extended time then it would be horrifying" ]

[ "This is a friendly reminder to read our rules.\nRemember, /r/Showerthoughts is for showerthoughts, not \"thoughts had in the shower!\"\n(For an explanation of what a \"showerthought\" is, please read this page.)\nRule-breaking posts may result in bans.", ">\n\nI mean in reality it’s normally pretty exciting. Now if someone was dead for an extended time then it would be horrifying", ">\n\n\npretty exciting. Now if someone\n\nHidden penis detected!\nI've scanned through 41255 comments (approximately 226953 average penis lengths worth of text) in order to find this secret penis message.\nBeep, boop, I'm a bot" ]

[]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]" ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters" ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?" ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads.", ">\n\nDefinitely better for the GOP. But the biggest winner, if RVC swept the nation, would be the fossil fuel industry. They can easily fund several candidates. And would indeed do so to get their drills into the trillions of dollars of oil that's still in the ground." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads.", ">\n\nDefinitely better for the GOP. But the biggest winner, if RVC swept the nation, would be the fossil fuel industry. They can easily fund several candidates. And would indeed do so to get their drills into the trillions of dollars of oil that's still in the ground.", ">\n\nNot as easily as they can fund one. Thanks for playing." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads.", ">\n\nDefinitely better for the GOP. But the biggest winner, if RVC swept the nation, would be the fossil fuel industry. They can easily fund several candidates. And would indeed do so to get their drills into the trillions of dollars of oil that's still in the ground.", ">\n\nNot as easily as they can fund one. Thanks for playing.", ">\n\nIt doesn't make any difference to them. It's all left pocket money. Chump change. We're talking about an industry that pumped billions to fund pseudoscience that (basically) says climate change is a hoax. They also pumped billions into renewables. Just to sabotage it.\nWith one it's only a 50-50 chance." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads.", ">\n\nDefinitely better for the GOP. But the biggest winner, if RVC swept the nation, would be the fossil fuel industry. They can easily fund several candidates. And would indeed do so to get their drills into the trillions of dollars of oil that's still in the ground.", ">\n\nNot as easily as they can fund one. Thanks for playing.", ">\n\nIt doesn't make any difference to them. It's all left pocket money. Chump change. We're talking about an industry that pumped billions to fund pseudoscience that (basically) says climate change is a hoax. They also pumped billions into renewables. Just to sabotage it.\nWith one it's only a 50-50 chance.", ">\n\nThis may be the salvation of the GOP, and the Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism. If done properly, both parties could field everybody's 2d choice with 80% approval instead of #1 with 51%." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads.", ">\n\nDefinitely better for the GOP. But the biggest winner, if RVC swept the nation, would be the fossil fuel industry. They can easily fund several candidates. And would indeed do so to get their drills into the trillions of dollars of oil that's still in the ground.", ">\n\nNot as easily as they can fund one. Thanks for playing.", ">\n\nIt doesn't make any difference to them. It's all left pocket money. Chump change. We're talking about an industry that pumped billions to fund pseudoscience that (basically) says climate change is a hoax. They also pumped billions into renewables. Just to sabotage it.\nWith one it's only a 50-50 chance.", ">\n\nThis may be the salvation of the GOP, and the Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism. If done properly, both parties could field everybody's 2d choice with 80% approval instead of #1 with 51%.", ">\n\n\nthe Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism.\n\nCan you define \"extreme wokism\"? Does it exist outside of ben shapiro's 'let's say's?" ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads.", ">\n\nDefinitely better for the GOP. But the biggest winner, if RVC swept the nation, would be the fossil fuel industry. They can easily fund several candidates. And would indeed do so to get their drills into the trillions of dollars of oil that's still in the ground.", ">\n\nNot as easily as they can fund one. Thanks for playing.", ">\n\nIt doesn't make any difference to them. It's all left pocket money. Chump change. We're talking about an industry that pumped billions to fund pseudoscience that (basically) says climate change is a hoax. They also pumped billions into renewables. Just to sabotage it.\nWith one it's only a 50-50 chance.", ">\n\nThis may be the salvation of the GOP, and the Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism. If done properly, both parties could field everybody's 2d choice with 80% approval instead of #1 with 51%.", ">\n\n\nthe Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism.\n\nCan you define \"extreme wokism\"? Does it exist outside of ben shapiro's 'let's say's?", ">\n\nBen Shapiro? The guy who owned himself on the air when he accidentally revealed that he has not only never sexually satisfied his wife, but that she's been lying about it the whole time and he bought it? That Ben?\nAlso that sounds like a monster truck rally ad. \"Extreeeme, Wokeism! Sunday Sunday Sunday\"." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads.", ">\n\nDefinitely better for the GOP. But the biggest winner, if RVC swept the nation, would be the fossil fuel industry. They can easily fund several candidates. And would indeed do so to get their drills into the trillions of dollars of oil that's still in the ground.", ">\n\nNot as easily as they can fund one. Thanks for playing.", ">\n\nIt doesn't make any difference to them. It's all left pocket money. Chump change. We're talking about an industry that pumped billions to fund pseudoscience that (basically) says climate change is a hoax. They also pumped billions into renewables. Just to sabotage it.\nWith one it's only a 50-50 chance.", ">\n\nThis may be the salvation of the GOP, and the Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism. If done properly, both parties could field everybody's 2d choice with 80% approval instead of #1 with 51%.", ">\n\n\nthe Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism.\n\nCan you define \"extreme wokism\"? Does it exist outside of ben shapiro's 'let's say's?", ">\n\nBen Shapiro? The guy who owned himself on the air when he accidentally revealed that he has not only never sexually satisfied his wife, but that she's been lying about it the whole time and he bought it? That Ben?\nAlso that sounds like a monster truck rally ad. \"Extreeeme, Wokeism! Sunday Sunday Sunday\".", ">\n\nThey should talk to the republicans in Maine, there's RCV there and the republicans constantly try to get rid of it." ]

[ "Once again, GOP strategy hinges on the growing question of what the GOP actually wants to be - the moderate wing versus the radical wing. RCV is good for the moderate faction and limits the radicals, but whether that's good strategy for the party overall is a different question. \nHonestly, in my view, it's too early to call. Trump has won one election and lost another, whether his brand of nationalism is sustainable long-term is still up in the air. Maybe the right-leaning portion of the electorate is done with Bush-like moderation and will commit to a hardline stance through successors like DeSantis, maybe Trumpism will prove to be a flash in the pan. We just don't know, and we won't for a few more election cycles where the new rightist philosophy can have its' mettle better tested.\n2024 is going to decide the GOP's fate for the next decade at least - not really in actually challenging Biden, but in choosing their challenger. These will be the most important GOP primaries since Reagan.", ">\n\nI think the fight for the Majority Speaker already answered that question: the lunatics have taken over the asylum.", ">\n\nIt's worth noting that of 222 Republican representatives, only 20 were the lunatics (or at least so lunatic that they opposed McCarthy) - if you could draw a 1:1 between House makeup and electoral makeup (you can't), that would mean over 90% of Republicans aren't lunatics. \nOf course, even \"consensus Republican\" Kevin McCarthy is not a moderate - he is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights, abortion access, climate legislation, and even kind of sort of supported January 6 (after he got in trouble for not supporting it.) He's just not all-in on the Trump Train.", ">\n\nA majority of the House Republican caucus voted to reject the 2020 election results. Almost all of them were re-elected. The 20 or so folks fighting against McCarthy are not the only lunatics in the party. They're just one flavor of lunatic.", ">\n\n\nThey're just one flavor of lunatic.\n\nThe honest ones who say what they mean. All republicans were going to send us into a debt ceiling crisis. These are the ones who bothered to come up with a plan before hand. Even if that plan is patently evil.", ">\n\nGoing on with Arizona, several things could've happened if RCV were around there in the midterms. For senator, they could've had Jim Lamon instead of Blake Masters, Karrin Taylor-Robson for governor and not Kari Lake, Beau Lane instead of Mark Finchem for secretary of state, and Andrew Gould for attorney general and not Abraham Hamadeh.", ">\n\nVery interesting question. I’d be interested in hearing what moderate conservatives like Tom Nichols, David Frum, and Bill Kristol think about RCV. Or Kinzinger. [EDIT: errant comma]", ">\n\nGood God, you just rattled off the who is who of \"True Conservative\" grifters", ">\n\nIf you say so. I am a lifelong liberal and climate activist, and I have found surprising comfort in reading conservative perspectives that recognize the perversion of Trumpism. I disagree with them on most practical matters of policy, but certainly find them interesting and enjoyable reading, and thoughtful about policies like ranked choice voting. I’d be interested in their perspectives, whether I end up agreeing or disagreeing with them. Dismissing them out of hand with pejoratives is not ultimately very satisfying to me.", ">\n\nOP should maybe define what they mean by 'good strategy'. RCV, compared to FPTP, is always going to lead to a more accurate expression of the will of the electorate, better mandates for the winner, and less anger on the part of the losers. So, I'd say yes, for anyone whose goals are nominally meant to be compatible with democracy, it would be good to enact RCV.", ">\n\nOP does lay it out: it's a good strategy to win in the general. \nIf the FPTP candidate won the VA primary, they would be more likely to lose in the general. FPTP post in GOP primaries with a divided field will often go to the \"Trumpier\" candidate, or the more \"conservative\" one. RCV can act as a moderating influence yielding a candidate closer to the GOP center than its fringe, which will also be closer to the electorate's center. \nI'm not sure how much this would actually apply in reality, but that's the argument.", ">\n\nFunny enough, Massachusetts killed RCV voting both legislatively and by a ballot question. Why? Because it would make it easier for consensus Republican candidates in a state where they would otherwise get murdered. Look at the wild success of Governor Baker if you doubt it.\nBoth partied unfortunately have a strong motivation to keep polarization.", ">\n\nPalin got more votes as a result of RCV; she’s too dense to understand that and argues it’s why she lost. She was a lot of people’s second choice. I think a lot more people are willing to pick a member of a party they see as opposite as a second choice.", ">\n\nI don't like Ranked Choice Voting for Primaries as much as I like \"Approval Voting\".\nThe problem with RCV is when I explain it to my friends and family, their eyes literally glaze over and say \"that's too complicated\".\nWhen I explain approval voting when there are 10 candidates, you can pick as many as you like/approve of, they instantly understand and like it.\nI actually think there should be a single open primary for each state, not each party having their own primary, like what happens in California.\nIt would be a moderating effect on the whole electorate.\nAll candidates, Rs, Ds, Greens, Libertarians, all go into the same open primary with approval voting.\nThen the two candidates with the most approval votes go to the general.\nYou can vote for all of the conservatives, or all the liberals, or just one, but the effect will be you are more likely to have two more moderate candidates more in line with the center of the populous head to head, and likely the more moderate of the two will win the final head to head general.\nTL:DR - Approval voting in open primaries + final two in the general = moderate elected officials.", ">\n\nCouldn't opening the primary allow voters to essentially vote for preference opposition candidates? Pick their favorite candidate and then also the worst opponent? The DNC promoted bad Republicans this election.", ">\n\nVoting for candidates you don't like leads to the risk that BOTH of the candidates in the final run off are candidates you don't like.\nA single open primary doesn't mean there will always be one of each party.\nIn California general elections are quite often two Democrats, and usually the more moderate one wins because that's who all the Republicans vote for due to no Republican being on the ballot.\nIn an open primary with approval voting, if you vote to approve a more extreme candidate on the other side, that doesn't mean you just get a more extreme Republican and a less extreme Democrat, you could easily end up with the extreme Republican you tried to game the system for and another more moderate Republican, and zero Democrats.\nThe perverse incentive to vote for someone you don't like is pretty weak.", ">\n\nI take issue with the depiction of Youngkin as a moderate or \"consensus\" Republican candidate. He perfectly represents the GOP's fixation on culture war issues masking a oligarch-friendly economic policy. He came to power because he engineered a moral panic about public schools no longer teaching racist depictions of history that his generation had used to undermine the Civil Rights movement and whitewash its implications for American society. That's as Republican as it gets, and in some ways far more sinister and damning than Trumpism. \nWhether or not the party cleans up its act, their electorate hungers for men like him. They want to roll back the 20th Century if they can. They'll seek any means to make it happen, and have no concern for whether the routes to get there are democratic in the tastes of people they consider to be their inferiors. \nI'm sick of this country desperately trying to find good in a clade of people who have done nothing but abuse that grace, and I resent the implication that we should cheer the meager efforts at concealing their immorality as if it were sincere effort at reform. Individual Republicans might be redeemable human beings, but the party they're part of is a cancer on our society and it's clear there's not a cure they'll tolerate short of the extinction of their opposition.", ">\n\nHe came out in favor of an abortion policy that is right in line with most of western Europe, which is far too the left of the default Republican position. I'd say that alone solidly places him in the moderate camp.", ">\n\nGiven that the default Republican position is \"incarcerate women who have miscarriages under suspicion of abortion\" I'm not inclined to give him brownie points for something I still wouldn't support and which still causes unconscionable restriction on human bodily autonomy. Sure as shit isn't like he's working hard to expand access to healthcare for people who need it in Virginia. \nI'm done grading Republicans on a curve. Like I said, they've only ever abused the grace, in my experience.", ">\n\nIf he's too far to the right for you, and too far to the left for the ultra-maga's, I'd say that's a pretty good indicator of someone being a moderate.", ">\n\nNot really. Splitting the baby down the middle didn't work for Solomon and it also doesn't mean anything in American politics, no matter how much conservatives claim it does. Youngkin is a conservative culture warrior through and through, and claiming he isn't is just another conservative attempt to claim the middle ground while yanking the country in a political direction that it manifestly does not want to follow. \nI swear, sometimes it's like conservatives think it's still everyone's first day on the Internet out here. Have you people never heard of the Overton window? It's got a damned wikipedia page, keep up.", ">\n\nThis honestly might reduce the polarization and restore some perceived sanity to the rhetoric of the GOP candidates. As it probably will favour middle of the road candidates that neither side sees as the extreme. It will favor the moderates more than the current Trump extreme faction. And it'll limit the power of individual large donors to be able to effectively fund their candidates towards the top as we've seen with the Tea party wave and now the Trump wave of candidates. \nSo yeah, ranked choice might help them get closer to the middle overall with compromise candidates. But will the response might end up as only extreme candidates to either side, eliminating any actual middle moderates. Resulting in a kind of standoff, which 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice was able to pull enough voters from the other extreme wing. \nI do favor it over the first-past-the-post or winner takes all systems though, but it's not a magic bullet. It has flaws as well.", ">\n\nI'm just here to advocate for approval voting.", ">\n\nI mean, this doesn’t seem all the different from RCV except you can’t rank preferences. So it kinda sounds worse to me.", ">\n\nI personally prefer STAR to RCV, but Coombs' Method shows even more promise at being able to minimize spoilers and make it easier for voters to get at the candidates they most want.", ">\n\nSTAR seems to reward the party/campaign that is more negatively polarized. I’m not a fan of that.", ">\n\nHow so? Both STAR and Approval reduce incentives for negative campaigning and are more likely to promote candidates with broad appeal compared to RCV.", ">\n\nBecause STAR benefits candidates who can convince their supporters that all their opponents deserve zeros.", ">\n\nThere is an incentive for candidates to get their voters to rate/rank lower or not rank other candidates in almost any voting system. This is true of Approval, STAR and RCV. However there are much stronger incentives to seek broad appeal, as candidates cannot risk alienating other candidates' supporters, so in all cases the incentive for negative campaigning is diminished compared to FPTP.\nAs for the concern about voters rating less-preferred candidates 0: If 100% of voters are dishonestly filling in STAR ballots and giving candidates either 0s or 5s, you simply end up with Approval voting, which is still a significantly superior method to RCV. STAR was explicitly designed to reduce the incentive to dishonestly score candidates under Score/Approval voting, however.", ">\n\nIssues with Republicans aside, Ranked choice, or preferential voting is better in virtually any election.\nIn the absence of a clear majority winner, preferential or ranked choice voting results in a successful alternative candidate that more people can stomach.", ">\n\nI live in Virginia and particiated in the \"convention\" that nominated Youngkin in 2021. He was not my first choice. I think he was my third. Amanda Chase was my LAST choice out of seven candidates.\nI think RCV is a bad option for a general election, as it's too easy for one or the other (or both) parties to game the system. But as an alternative to a straight-up party primary it might be worth considering, especially in a packed primary. Honestly, though, I would rather parties go back to choosing their candidates in a traditional convention rather than a primary.", ">\n\nCan you elaborate parties could use RCV to \"game the system\" in a general election?", ">\n\nI'd like to understand this as well.", ">\n\nIn the 2020 election, the GOP literally did not have a platform. They could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\nMy sweet summer child, RCV won’t change that. If you have no ideas to offer, you have no ideas to offer.", ">\n\n\nThey could not articulate a single policy they wanted to advance if elected.\n\nWhile they added it in 2016 as a result of Trump's insistence, they doubled down on stripping support from Ukraine. That doesn't mean it totally removed all support and went all-in on support for Putin (though they got a lot of mileage in that direction), but it should highlight the priorities for a person who was invited to Moscow in 1987 and despite being a notoriously stingy bastard immediately spent $100k of his own money on anti-NATO ads.", ">\n\nDefinitely better for the GOP. But the biggest winner, if RVC swept the nation, would be the fossil fuel industry. They can easily fund several candidates. And would indeed do so to get their drills into the trillions of dollars of oil that's still in the ground.", ">\n\nNot as easily as they can fund one. Thanks for playing.", ">\n\nIt doesn't make any difference to them. It's all left pocket money. Chump change. We're talking about an industry that pumped billions to fund pseudoscience that (basically) says climate change is a hoax. They also pumped billions into renewables. Just to sabotage it.\nWith one it's only a 50-50 chance.", ">\n\nThis may be the salvation of the GOP, and the Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism. If done properly, both parties could field everybody's 2d choice with 80% approval instead of #1 with 51%.", ">\n\n\nthe Dems should use it as well to make sure we don't become victims of extreme wokism.\n\nCan you define \"extreme wokism\"? Does it exist outside of ben shapiro's 'let's say's?", ">\n\nBen Shapiro? The guy who owned himself on the air when he accidentally revealed that he has not only never sexually satisfied his wife, but that she's been lying about it the whole time and he bought it? That Ben?\nAlso that sounds like a monster truck rally ad. \"Extreeeme, Wokeism! Sunday Sunday Sunday\".", ">\n\nThey should talk to the republicans in Maine, there's RCV there and the republicans constantly try to get rid of it.", ">\n\nWatch what you wish for...internal conventions are one thing but Dems want to use Ranked Choice to keep Conservatives out in general primaries and elections." ]

[]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR..." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so", ">\n\nI would laugh my ass off if this dude is actually a Russian plant whose real name is Ivan or some shit." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so", ">\n\nI would laugh my ass off if this dude is actually a Russian plant whose real name is Ivan or some shit.", ">\n\nHonestly, nothing would surprise me... And the entirety of the government acting like they have no clue how to check if he's even eligible to be in Congress" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so", ">\n\nI would laugh my ass off if this dude is actually a Russian plant whose real name is Ivan or some shit.", ">\n\nHonestly, nothing would surprise me... And the entirety of the government acting like they have no clue how to check if he's even eligible to be in Congress", ">\n\n\nMcCarthy said: “My staff had concerns when he had a staff member impersonate my chief of staff and that individual was let go when Mr. Santos found out about it.”\n\nMr. Santos sacked the staff member... who he made up because it was Santos all along." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so", ">\n\nI would laugh my ass off if this dude is actually a Russian plant whose real name is Ivan or some shit.", ">\n\nHonestly, nothing would surprise me... And the entirety of the government acting like they have no clue how to check if he's even eligible to be in Congress", ">\n\n\nMcCarthy said: “My staff had concerns when he had a staff member impersonate my chief of staff and that individual was let go when Mr. Santos found out about it.”\n\nMr. Santos sacked the staff member... who he made up because it was Santos all along.", ">\n\nAh the old John Barron staffer" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so", ">\n\nI would laugh my ass off if this dude is actually a Russian plant whose real name is Ivan or some shit.", ">\n\nHonestly, nothing would surprise me... And the entirety of the government acting like they have no clue how to check if he's even eligible to be in Congress", ">\n\n\nMcCarthy said: “My staff had concerns when he had a staff member impersonate my chief of staff and that individual was let go when Mr. Santos found out about it.”\n\nMr. Santos sacked the staff member... who he made up because it was Santos all along.", ">\n\nAh the old John Barron staffer", ">\n\nI had a pathological liar for a roommate in college for a year. He would be eating my food in front of me and tell me to my face that it was his. Such a weirdo. He was nice enough guy but I just stopped interacting with him altogether. I could not trust or believe a single thing he said." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so", ">\n\nI would laugh my ass off if this dude is actually a Russian plant whose real name is Ivan or some shit.", ">\n\nHonestly, nothing would surprise me... And the entirety of the government acting like they have no clue how to check if he's even eligible to be in Congress", ">\n\n\nMcCarthy said: “My staff had concerns when he had a staff member impersonate my chief of staff and that individual was let go when Mr. Santos found out about it.”\n\nMr. Santos sacked the staff member... who he made up because it was Santos all along.", ">\n\nAh the old John Barron staffer", ">\n\nI had a pathological liar for a roommate in college for a year. He would be eating my food in front of me and tell me to my face that it was his. Such a weirdo. He was nice enough guy but I just stopped interacting with him altogether. I could not trust or believe a single thing he said.", ">\n\nI’ve met a few pathological liars in my life and it’s always just so weird to me, like they just lie about ordinary things that they don’t stand to gain anything from." ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so", ">\n\nI would laugh my ass off if this dude is actually a Russian plant whose real name is Ivan or some shit.", ">\n\nHonestly, nothing would surprise me... And the entirety of the government acting like they have no clue how to check if he's even eligible to be in Congress", ">\n\n\nMcCarthy said: “My staff had concerns when he had a staff member impersonate my chief of staff and that individual was let go when Mr. Santos found out about it.”\n\nMr. Santos sacked the staff member... who he made up because it was Santos all along.", ">\n\nAh the old John Barron staffer", ">\n\nI had a pathological liar for a roommate in college for a year. He would be eating my food in front of me and tell me to my face that it was his. Such a weirdo. He was nice enough guy but I just stopped interacting with him altogether. I could not trust or believe a single thing he said.", ">\n\nI’ve met a few pathological liars in my life and it’s always just so weird to me, like they just lie about ordinary things that they don’t stand to gain anything from.", ">\n\nIt's like they believe they've gained a conspirator by our acknowledging them They really aren't normal-logical or whatever" ]

[ "This motherfucker is the type of asshole that wakes up, eats a bowl of fruit loops...then tells you he had an egg McMuffin.\nIf he ever has brain cancer he doesn't have to worry Because it will starve to death.", ">\n\nType of guy who eats the skin off the chicken and leaves the rest", ">\n\nThen tells you he ate a salad.", ">\n\nI mean half of his colleagues would tell you salads are a hoax", ">\n\n....and cause cancer", ">\n\n…Only if you are tossing the salad", ">\n\nAt least I’m the tossed and not the tossee", ">\n\nGeorge Santos never existed, he's literally just the embodiment of a lie.", ">\n\nI heard hes actually three kids stacked under a trench coat", ">\n\nNonsense. If he were three kids, then Gaetz would be much closer to him.", ">\n\naw jeeze", ">\n\nI'm starting to think it would save time to simply tell people things he hasn't lied about.", ">\n\nPepe Silvia revealed", ">\n\nI start marching my way down to Carol in H.R. and I knock on her door and I say, \"CAAAROL, CAAAROL! I gotta talk to you about Santos!”", ">\n\nI open the door and you know what I find out, Mac? There is no Carol in HR...", ">\n\nNone of these people are real", ">\n\nThis dude chooses the weirdest shit to lie about.", ">\n\nIt's the degree to which he goes with the lies that's impressive. He probably could have gotten away with saying he was on the team. I can't imagine Baruch volleyball being so popular that people follow it, so that would have been at least slightly believable. But no, he had to say he was the star. They won a championship, and he blew out both knees in the process. Even after school specials about lying didn't get this over the top.", ">\n\nYeah, it's really dumb. The rule of thumb if you have to lie is to keep it simple. Invites fewer questions and there's fewer details to get tripped up on later.\nHe's bad at it and he keeps doing it.", ">\n\nPathological liars are not capable of keeping it simple. In fact, the lies build over time and they will even start to believe them. If confronted with irrefutable proof that it didn’t happen, they will become visibly shaken and confused.\nsource: 30+ yrs with a family member that has it.", ">\n\nGot 2 in mine.", ">\n\nIs he even gay?", ">\n\nWe're going to find out his name isn't George Santos, arent we?", ">\n\nWell, there is video of him introducing himself as “Anthony Devolder.”", ">\n\nAnd numerous people calling him anthony devolder so", ">\n\nI would laugh my ass off if this dude is actually a Russian plant whose real name is Ivan or some shit.", ">\n\nHonestly, nothing would surprise me... And the entirety of the government acting like they have no clue how to check if he's even eligible to be in Congress", ">\n\n\nMcCarthy said: “My staff had concerns when he had a staff member impersonate my chief of staff and that individual was let go when Mr. Santos found out about it.”\n\nMr. Santos sacked the staff member... who he made up because it was Santos all along.", ">\n\nAh the old John Barron staffer", ">\n\nI had a pathological liar for a roommate in college for a year. He would be eating my food in front of me and tell me to my face that it was his. Such a weirdo. He was nice enough guy but I just stopped interacting with him altogether. I could not trust or believe a single thing he said.", ">\n\nI’ve met a few pathological liars in my life and it’s always just so weird to me, like they just lie about ordinary things that they don’t stand to gain anything from.", ">\n\nIt's like they believe they've gained a conspirator by our acknowledging them They really aren't normal-logical or whatever", ">\n\nAnybody else find pictures of this guy unsettling?\nLike suuuuper, uncanny valley type unsettling?" ]