politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
except that they didn't need to tie it to race at all. you're right. they have polling data. "These wards were severely undervoting in the last election because of a lack of awareness; ranked choice disenfranchises our constituents" is really all that needed to be said. Unless you think race is actually the contributing factor and not - just here me out here- adequate resrouces spent on awareness campaigns in those wards prior to the vote and in the polling stations day of.
But awareness campaigns and extra pollworkers to make things go smoothly... don't help keep status quo with democrats and republicans sharing power by agreement because ranked choice (among other reforms,) absolutely would weaken their power. as out outsider looking in and only knowing this... they really don't seem all that progressive, here.
I do appologize for the assumptions. being anti-rank-choice tends to be a corpo-dem position; not a progressive one. Because it makes... you know... progressives... easier to elect. (more broadly, 3rd party.)
once again. the point is there's zero need at all to tie this to racism, which they very much did. IMO, "its confusing" is not a valid argument for not doing something new. people can learn and get through it- particularly with help. "its confusing" is a very good argument for taking steps to clear up the confusion. which of these two options do you think supports their constituents better?