this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3792 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

For one person? No. For 1/5th of the voting population? It's a travesty.

Especially in the city council race...

These are photos of my ballot, I live in District 1. District 1 has NEVER had representation on the city council before.

This is why we voted to change the system of government, the city now has 4 districts, each district gets 3 councilmen.

Voters had a chance to rank their top 6 choices to elect 3 people per district and 20% of voters went "Nah!"

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 7 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

My city (Oakland) has ranked-choice voting for mayor and city council, and (as far as I’m aware) doesn’t have a similar issue with under-voting.

Was there another factor besides the number of candidates on the ballot (e.g., no candidate statements in voter guides, or an ad campaign against ranked voting)?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Could be a combination of first time with ranked choice and too many candidates. Somebody is going to earn a degree doing the analysis here.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 5 points 20 hours ago

It's almost certainly the number of candidates. On the other hand, top three out of a much smaller number doesn't present voters with a lot of choice.

[–] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

If it’s really just a matter of too many candidates, could they increase the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot?

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 18 hours ago* (last edited 18 hours ago)

It was less the number of signatures and more that this is the very first election for a new system of government, it drew out a TON of people.

Previously, we had a mayor and 5 city councilmen. Each elected city wide in a typical first past the post election.

Now we have a mayor elected citywide in a ranked choice, choose 6 election, who hires a city manager to run the different bureaus.

Then the city is split into 4 districts, each electing 3 councilmen in a rank 6 ballot.

So the city council is going from 5 to 12 and each district is guaranteed representation where often not only was it not guaranteed, there WAS no representation.

All in all, between the mayor and the council seats, 119 people were running.