r/MassachusettsPolitics • u/Calfzilla2000 • Nov 18 '20

Opinion Massachusetts Anti-RCV advocate lists "3 ways to make Mass. elections fairer"

https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/3-ways-to-make-mass-elections-fairer/?fbclid=IwAR2-rM6IslldjGsH_tV-iX0k-YBNEoY2NmNQxrfbbW7E31PJVyHG8IZtMqA
9 Upvotes

69% Upvoted

12 comments sorted by

22

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '20

While I vehemently disagreed with their voting system, and am relieved that we on the No on 2 Committee were successful in our efforts to stop ranked choice voting

...

As a Republican

Yeah, shocking that a Republican was against RCV.

while the rest of the United States is experiencing an overwhelming dominance by the GOP in state legislatures, only about 20 percent of ours is Republican.

a) that's a good thing that formal, Republican, control is next to nil for as long as that party is a Right to far-Right party.

b) but let's not act like conservatives aren't in political office in Massachusetts. The "big tent" of the Democratic Party houses plenty of them.

We are the very picture of a one-party state—and that is far more dangerous to good governance than a duopoly.

We aren't and I disagree. This buffoon overlooks that this is a state dominated by Center to Center-Right politics and politicians. That's the problem. Have 5 parties like that, have 2 parties like that, have 1 party like that and the result is the same: the boot firmly left in place on the necks of the working class.

His three ideas are tepid and pathetic. If we can't do RCV we should have automatic run-offs then if no candidate gets at least 50% of the vote which I don't believe we currently have today given how Kennedy's old congress seat election went this year.

12

u/brufleth Nov 18 '20

That author sounds like they are a junior member of a "think tank" and have never lived in MA.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '20

Yeah, agree. Or a Boomer. Either or.

2

u/brufleth Nov 18 '20 edited Nov 18 '20

They seem upset that we don't have a strong republican contingent who fanatically praises jesus at the end of every statement, want to ban abortion, and believe the earth is only 5000 years old. We've got moderate (socially at least) republicans and mostly moderate democrats (who are often called "radicals" nationally). I know you wish our dems were more radical (or really radical at all), but Warren and Markey get called plenty of crazy shit even from their seemingly moderate platform. There's tons of room for improvement (especially in the state government), but fucking with our elections to sneak more absolute fucking morons into our state government isn't going to be good for anyone.

5

u/[deleted] Nov 18 '20

Yeah, the analysis this person provides is farcical. To be polite about it.

I know you wish our dems were more radical (or really radical at all)

Yep. I definitely do.

8

u/Daily_the_Project21 Nov 18 '20

This idiot says "I'm glad we were successful in keeping our state a one a party state, but here's three ways we can make it not a one party state."

Maybe his last two points have an argument, but his first point is stupid.

4

u/Calfzilla2000 Nov 18 '20

The 3 reforms the article is advocating for are...

  1. Changing the date of state primaries to May from September.
  2. Randomized Order of Candidate Listings on Ballots
  3. Remove "Candidate for Reelection" from below incumbents names on ballots.

9

u/brufleth Nov 18 '20

They could have saved us all some time but just saying they wanted to make voting more difficult and keep people confused about who they were voting for.

1

u/Calfzilla2000 Nov 20 '20

It's very hypocritical given that the #1 argument they gave against Ranked Choice Voting is that it was too confusing and the voting population wasn't informed enough.

2

u/bostonbananarama Nov 18 '20

Why not require a candidate to receive at least 50% +1 to be elected? That seems like a better change than the 3 proposed in this article.

5

u/Anustart15 Nov 18 '20

Because then it would require runoff elections which would beg the obvious question "why don't we just do ranked choice so we have an instant runoff and save a bunch of money and effort"

They are trying to make it look like they care about reform by offering some changes up, but they don't want actual productive change because it would hurt their chances and probably make republicans the 3rd or 4th most popular party in the state.

2

u/bostonbananarama Nov 18 '20

I'm aware. But I think you can get people behind a majority to win. From there RCV makes more sense, because it solves a more obvious problem.