You have made 15 comments that reference ranked choice voting in any way, with several of those emphasizing that in your opinion, Green Party support needs to come first, and only after that, can ranked choice voting come about.
Here are some examples:
I don’t feel that democrats and republicans will ever allow ranked choice to happen.
If you truly support ranked choice voting and breaking the duopoly, then you should understand that the fight starts with challenging the status quo, even if it’s uncomfortable.
There’s also this absolute gem:
You argue that voting third party only serves to undermine the party most similar to it, effectively helping the opposition. But this perspective assumes the current system is the only possible framework.
The very act of voting third party is a challenge to this idea, a refusal to accept that our choices must be limited to two parties that both uphold the same capitalist structure.
While ranked-choice voting would definitely take care of some of the issues you mention, the push for third parties is not just about winning elections under the current system—it’s about forcing a broader discussion, about demanding that the system itself be questioned and eventually changed.
You’ve also made two posts about ranked choice voting. I don’t know how many of your 5,000+ postings have dealt with Jill Stein, since the API doesn’t let me count up that high, but if we conservatively say that one-third of what you say is supportive of third parties in some fashion, that means you’ve posted approximately 99% content supportive of third parties within our current FPTP framework, and 1% supportive of changing the framework in a way that would let third parties get some traction, which in the current system they cannot.
The question I was asking, which you didn’t answer, was: Why? It seems like putting 99% effort to changing the system to allow the third parties to succeed, and 1% effort into supporting them in their currently-doomed effort, would be a better use of your time to accomplish the future you claim that you’re trying to accomplish. What am I missing?
I support both. I am just not going to wait for RCV first. I don’t feel that Democrats or the Republicans have taken it very seriously, but to your point, it IS starting to make some headway. But I’m not going to wait for it to vote for who I want to vote for. I still don’t like the democratic candidates or the republican candidates.
You have made 15 comments that reference ranked choice voting in any way, with several of those emphasizing that in your opinion, Green Party support needs to come first, and only after that, can ranked choice voting come about.
Here are some examples:
There’s also this absolute gem:
You’ve also made two posts about ranked choice voting. I don’t know how many of your 5,000+ postings have dealt with Jill Stein, since the API doesn’t let me count up that high, but if we conservatively say that one-third of what you say is supportive of third parties in some fashion, that means you’ve posted approximately 99% content supportive of third parties within our current FPTP framework, and 1% supportive of changing the framework in a way that would let third parties get some traction, which in the current system they cannot.
The question I was asking, which you didn’t answer, was: Why? It seems like putting 99% effort to changing the system to allow the third parties to succeed, and 1% effort into supporting them in their currently-doomed effort, would be a better use of your time to accomplish the future you claim that you’re trying to accomplish. What am I missing?
I support both. I am just not going to wait for RCV first. I don’t feel that Democrats or the Republicans have taken it very seriously, but to your point, it IS starting to make some headway. But I’m not going to wait for it to vote for who I want to vote for. I still don’t like the democratic candidates or the republican candidates.