-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
One less crazy lib in the NH House
- Thread starter AFAR/PFAR
- Start date
KBCraig
NES Member
"According to multiple sources, Hyland had intended to switch parties last week, too. After being subjected to some of the same bullyings from fellow House Democrats experienced by Read and Labranche, Hyland chose to leave the house entirely."
nhjournal.com
*ahem*... I'm a co-sponsor of HB1264, which will establish RCV in state primaries and municipal elections.
I realize that not all RCV implementation is equal, and both Maine and California could screw up a wet dream. Maine's political schizophrenia makes Louisiana politics boring by comparison.
NH voters are already familiar with the basics. Every time they vote for a multi-member position, they're instructed, "Vote for not more than N", and they manage. They even understand bullet voting, and that a vote for more than your top one or two can work against your chosen candidate. All that RCV adds is ranking your choices; there's no obligation to vote for anyone except the one you want.
Jeff Knox explained it well.
www.ammoland.com
Another NH House Dem Bails, Blames "Ethics" Issues in Caucus - NH Journal
New Hampshire - Another NH House Dem Bails, Blames "Ethics" Issues in Caucus - NH Journal - Politics
nhjournal.com
*ahem*... I'm a co-sponsor of HB1264, which will establish RCV in state primaries and municipal elections.
I realize that not all RCV implementation is equal, and both Maine and California could screw up a wet dream. Maine's political schizophrenia makes Louisiana politics boring by comparison.
NH voters are already familiar with the basics. Every time they vote for a multi-member position, they're instructed, "Vote for not more than N", and they manage. They even understand bullet voting, and that a vote for more than your top one or two can work against your chosen candidate. All that RCV adds is ranking your choices; there's no obligation to vote for anyone except the one you want.
Jeff Knox explained it well.
NRA Board Bullet Voting , What is it? Why Do It On Your NRA Member Ballot
NRA Board Bullet Voting works to get my personally favorite NRA Board candidate a seat on the National Rifle Association board.
www.ammoland.com
You have demonstrated, beyond a reasonable doubt, that you have no clue how RCV has actually been implemented. What you describe in your post sounds reasonable. I assure you that RCV in practice bears zero resemblance to your examples.
From reading some of your other posts I gather that you do possess the ability to reason. IMO, you have not thought RCV through.
NHKevin
NES Member
That isn't how ranked choice voting works. There was a thread on here a while back about it with a video that explained it well. It's terrible all around.
Think about this a little. One of the biggest hurdles for any office in NH is the time commitment. There are a lot of people like me who want to run for office but can't because of the time commitment, I can't take the time off work. This is why you see a lot of retirees and business owners, they can make the time. Now change the age to 25. This mean students, lots of time, no real world experience yet, and a large number who are only in NH for school, but they are residents. I don't know about you but having any NH gov body dominated by college students scares me. The senate would only be the start.
DarthRevan
NES Member
Because we want things simple and usually don’t try gaming the system for our benefit since we think skyman will judge us poorly for it.
I agree about retired or business owners being the only ones able to manage the time commitment, even for selectmen in a town. As for age 25, almost no students (undergrad) are that old and any student still in college (grad school maybe) is likely too busy taking classes and doing homework. If they own a business at 25, likely they are very busy building that business up and making a living comes before volunteer service.
Boghog1
NES Member
wow, not at all how it works. let's look at the McDonald's burger King thing. instead of being by yourself you have two kids with you kid 1 wants McDonald's 1st, BK 2nd and 3rd eat chicken nuggies at home. Kid 2 wants Wendy's 1st, Taco Bell 2nd and BK 3rd. You want a 32oz Round Robin steak 1st, Mom and Pop restaurant 2nd and burgers and dogs on the grill at home 3rd. with ranked choice you are getting a whopper and letting children decide what to eat.
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
Everyone is used to the multiple options for positions. The ranking is where it gets silly as I don't want to go into details about whether Bob is better than Fred who is definitely better than Kyle. I just want to vote for Bob and Fred and get on with life.
As far as being no obligation, both the current bills with the details of NH's proposed RCV scheme disagree a bit.
There are some people I refuse to vote for. Under the proposed bills, me refusing to vote for someone still uses my ballot to apply a ranking. Contrast that with the current system where me refusing to vote for someone simply does not use my ballot for anything regarding that candidate.
namedpipes
NES Member
So in other words the people are too stupid to understand how to vote?
You proved the opposite of what you sought to prove.
"letting children decide what to eat." The fact that they are children is irrelevant the moment their votes were considered as valid. If the fact that children are involved in the decision process is a problem, exclude them in the first place.
In your scenario, 2/3rds of the voters won, with a candidate on their list. RCV worked, with a winner with a majority vote. There will always be a minority. Losing sucks. It doesn't mean the process went wrong in this scenario.
Versus, if only your vote matters, then 2/3rds of the parties that were present had votes that did not matter. You've taken out democracy and replaced it with dictatorship, lol.
Boghog1
NES Member
They won't let me exclude communist and idiots from voting unfortunately.
Your children are communists and idiots?
I'm not disagreeing that when you vote, there are going to be other voters with different views than your own, some extreme. But if they have the legal option to vote, and do so, they're part of the process.
Like I said, if you didn't want the kids to vote simply because they are kids...don't give them ability. Run it as a dictatorship. Count them as invalid, simply because of their age, even though their need to eat is equal to your own.
Let's throw another hurdle in: What if your wife was present, too, and also wanted BK? Would that mean you have two valid votes that oppose each other, and two votes that would create a majority, but you simply choose to ignore them because of age difference?
Last edited:
Boghog1
NES Member
in this case the children represent people that vote based on emotion i.e. democrats
Doesn't matter whether they use emotion or logic. If you grant someone the ability to vote, they can use whatever determination they want to place that vote.
If they wanted to flip a coin, that's their prerogative. Unless you want folks to get screened at the voting process "Hello, sir/madam/vegetable. We need to verify that you voted using only logic and research." Which would rule out vast numbers of voters in every party.
Using your food example, I don't always pick a restaurant based on logic and reason. Sometimes I just want a Big Mac. Pure emotion. Is your 32 oz steak not the same? Something healthier would be far more reasonable. But you voted for what you want.
Last edited:
GaryO
NES Member
Wasn't she the one of the democrats that supported kids 12 and older could get the vaccine and abortions without parental consent?definitely looks not guilty
I'm getting older and my standards would definitely be lower but HER?
Boghog1
NES Member
Dude, I wasn't the one that started using dumb food analogy to poorly explain ranked choice voting. I'm done with the idiocy
namedpipes
NES Member
You know what you sound like when you try to justify your point (whatever the hell it really is)?
Hating just because someone else likes it is no less of a blind following than supporting something just because you are told to. They are both examples of NOT thinking for yourself. Like it or hate it, think for yourself, do your own research, reach your own conclusion.
Personally I haven't decided yet. Sure it can be used to manipulate the elections, but either side could do that so it's not a Dem Rep issue. it would also allow someone to vote for a Libertarian, thus allowing the number to show they have support, but still allow a defensive vote to keep a truly dangerous candidate out of office. So positives and negatives both ways. I suspect it will go nowhere so it ultimately doesn't matter.
NHKevin
NES Member
Holy cow-f*** that.
The example they used showed a clear majority, so why go into the funny math.
Furthermore, if that is a pro ranked choice voting video, they used an argument of the anti ranked choice voting at 1:11. Many anti RCV folks tout the one person one vote, which the pro talking points try to refute-this vid clearly says "however, with RCV, it's not one person one vote".
Still against RCV for multiple reasons.
GOP governor breaks from Trump, says 1/6 rioters shouldn't get pardons
As Democrats also piled on, a former ethics lawyer in George W. Bush's White House said the stunning statement disqualified Trump from running for public office again.
Help clarify something about this video.
How many general elections are there where there are more than 2 people running and they eliminate the lowest and then run a run-off election. This seems to be the premise of the video. But wouldn't it be more likely that there would be say 3 (or it could be more), a Dem, a Rep, and a Lib (that's Libertarian). In which case, with the current system, the one with the most votes wins.
But with RCV, the winner needs a clear majority. So the lowest is dropped (probably the Lib) and his/her supporters second vote is counted. If the Dem and Rep are close, this would likely result in a Rep win since Libs are more likely to have the Rep as a second, than have a Dem as a second.
So my point is that it doesn't inherently help either side, I don't think it inherently hurts either side either. Both sides are capable of manipulating the situation to their own advantage, which is nothing new. Claims that the Dems could flood the ballot are certainly true, but so could the Reps. So it doesn't inherently benefit either.
What I do think is that it won't go anywhere anyway. And both sides are going to just throw shit out there to confuse everyone, and it will all be for nothing. Except wasted time.
Similar threads
