For us not to qualify as a backwards ass country we’d also have to pretend that three mile island wasn’t one lucky accident away from doing just what Chernobyl did.

I would have loved to own one of these. By the time i saved up for one they were off the market.

Which still means absolutely nothing unless we have the context to judge it by. What if 25% of voters skipped over the city council part during the last election when ranked choice was not used? In that context is it still fair to blame ranked choice for the “disengagement”? Maybe people just naturally vote for congress and presidents a heck of a lot more than they do for city council. Maybe ranked choice actually increased the percentage of voters placing votes for city councilors. If that happens to be true, how could this headline be anything but intentionally misleading? And without last election’s city cousel percentages this scenario i describe might as well be true.

So A) i will have to assume that the original article is a bit of journalistic malarky. It’s locked behind a login so i don’t know if the article provides some reasonable backdrop to this 1 out 5 = cratering engagement BS, but i doubt it. More likely is that this is just more anti-alternate voting scheme propoganda.

B) it has everything to with previous elections. You can’t claim that a voting process has had a negative effect on some metric or another without inherently referencing previous elections. Something getting worse (voter engagement) requires that it was previously better. So yeah, the entire claim that this headline makes requires that it was better under the previous system.

1 in 5 voters, in this election, failed to vote on the ranked choice options when presented.

Sure, and if the headline stopped there it’d factual and i’d have no issue. Instead it specifically says voter engagement has worsened and then doesn’t back that up.

So i say again, show us the data on voter engagement from the previous system or stop spreading this status quo, two-party-maintaining hogwash.

If you cannot compare the previous voter engagement to the current voter engagement then why title your post in such a way? Why blame ranked choice voting for “cratering” voter engagement if you have no metric by which to judge that?

My point being that you cannot blame the lack of voting for city counsilors (by one out of five people) on the new system without comparing it to the old system. Frankly, four out of five voters voting for City council doesn’t sound atrocious, and may or may not be perfectly normal for the city of Portland. Heck, without the data we don’t know if only three out of five people voted for city council under the old voting system. For all we know this new system actually increased that number. Do you see my point?

How many out of 5 chose a city councilor during the last election when no ranked choice voting was available? If you can’t provide that data then shush up.

Because the other person didn’t do insane arithmetic between polls

The other person did no arithmetic at all. Nor did they provide any data at all. But you know what they did do? They claimed that the polling data supported the idea that third partiers support Harris over Trump. And they claimed that a couple very specific types of polling data supported this claim. You know which types? Yep, the exact ones i pulled polling data for. So, critisize the choice of those specific polls all you want, and go on about how i shouldn’t compare two polls of disparate groups of people (which was one of my own points before you latched onto it, you’re welcome), but in the end you’re only making my case for me that the commenter who said the polls support their claim is wrong.

Since then you have: A) misinterpretted my original comment in which i linked the polls, B) repeated your “1 = 3 = magical math” argument, and most recently, C) cast aspersions on all polling data.

We are past (A). I have addressed (B) multiple times and until you answer my question about the exact percentage range that you would accept as proof, i will consider your argument defeated. Now © i am in complete agreement on, but polling data being unreliable only helps my argument. I.e. if polls are unreliable then why was the other commenter stating that polling data would prove them right? If polling is unreliable then what basis does the article have for claiming that third partiers prefer Harris over Trump?

before backing down,

No, no, no. I have asked you a very specific question which you have refused to answer. This is not what me backing down looks like.

How on earth did you miss the part where i just explained in detail that making claims about what the polls show was something presented by someone on your side of the argument. I am literally here showing how the polls, whether you think they are wortheless or not, do not show what that person was claiming. If your complaint is with polls in general why are you huffing and puffing at me and not at that person. Could it be because that person just so happens to be arguing something that you’d like to be true and i am not?

So you’re not willing to answer my question?

I have answered all of yours and responded in good faith to each of your less than civil comments. In fact, i have already answered the very question you just re-asked.

Are you willing to answer my question, or should we let it drop?

You sound like you’re scared that you won’t be able to find any good data that supports you.

you concluded that 3.5% of Americans were trump hating non democrats and that since 8.5% of Americans were trump hating republicans and that number is bigger, all the trump hating non democrats must be republicans and none of them could possibly be third party,

This is a mischaracterization of the conclusions i made. I have made it clear that i only need to argue for it being possible that half or more of the 3% third partiers could be in favor of Trump over Harris. Of course many of them favor Harris. You find me where i said otherwise. I double dog date you. Im fact, it was the original article that made the preposterous unsupported claim that almost all third partiers are closet-aupportera of one side or the other. My argument this entire time has been that this claim is BS unless someone can provide support for it.

Since you keep skipping over all of my points in order to get to the part where you criticize me as quickly as possible i am going to ask you exactly one question this time. Please answer.

What exactly is the range of percentages for anti-Trump Republicans that you would accept to be in support of my conclusion?

I’ve addeessed this every time you’ve stated it. Rather than continue two threads i am going to link to my response from the other one where i adress it once again. https://lemmy.world/comment/12887849

Are you pretending that you and i are not engaged elsewhere in this comment section where i continue to post data and you continue to post none? Of course i continue to await your data. What else can i do?

I do this in the interest of an open discussion, despite the absurdity of a) an article giving bold directives to a group of people which are completely based an assertion made within the same article, b) the article giving zero support for this assertion, c) me asking for someone to please back up the assertion, and then d) you and others retorting with “no, you first.”

I have responded in good faith to each of your criticisms. I have provided polling data when you asked. I have not once waffled… what do you think that means, exactly?

I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question. “Why are we assuming that all of the third party votes would go to Harris if they were forced to choose between her and Trump?”

If you have no real input to add then just stop responding.

You’re using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don’t like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.

Actually what i’m doing is pointing out a glaring logical flaw in the article that is the subject of this post. The fact that others are willing to accept the conclusions drawn by the unsupported claim of this article is worrisome. It speaks to a lack of critical thinking and a wiillingness accept illogical arguments simply because they fit with ones world view. It is fairly absurd to me that i need to spell this out.

And i have reaponded to you elsewhere with plenty of data that supports me. Unfortunately no one else in this thread has attempted to do the same in support of the article’s claim. Not one single person.

You’re painting yourself as a neutral who is just asking for information, when in fact you’re heavily partisan. It’s misleading.

I would be entertained to hear how exactly you think i am partisan. I am, in fact, one of these braindead third party voters that everyone in this thread is raging against. About as far from a partisan as one can get.

And you, and everyone else here, has had ample time and opportunity to provide any bit of data that you like to show that i am wrong. But y’all consistently turn to attacks against me or my character instead. And that right there, my friend, is a true Trump tactic.

If you are right then show the data.

I am not saying it’s absurd. I am asking for data.

I mean, i’d like to believe that you make that case in good faith. But you have to realize that third party voters are admonished by the status quo voters every single presidential election. Every one. So, while this may be the first time you personally have argued that a third partier should vote for your candidate, third partiers have heard it over and over again. You know all those other elections that didn’t have a Trump in them? Yeah, we heard it then too. So, i’m sorry but the whole “this is the most important election in history” schtick just doesn’t warrant any consideration when you’re hearing it for the umpteenth time.

I find it to be quite the opposite.

So this election cycle it’s climate and the Supreme Court for you. That’s great. If you feel Harris will help fix those things then have it. The policies I’m voting for will absolutely help with those issues. Every 4 years there are going to be major major things that folks think their particular guy or gal is going to fix. And then they won’t. And then there’ll be another (or the same) set of things in another four years. I’m gonna go ahead and vote for some real change instead.

I disagree. Third party votes do quite a bit to move political platforms. No one wants to leave 10% of the vote on the table when that’s all it takes to seize victory. So they move their platforms to encompass what the 10% are voting for.

if you actually want to have a say in which of these two wins,

That’s just it. I, and many others do not value having a say in which of these two gets elected as highly as we value promoting 3rd parties, speaking our hearts with our votes, and edging towards a better political situation for the next generation.

But yes, the electoral system is broken. And ending first past the post will be the single biggest savior of US politics.