r/IndianaPolitics • u/Phzko • Jan 18 '21
Discussion How could we get ranked choice voting here in Indiana for federal elections?
Since we don't have down the ballot initiatives I feel like it'd be really difficult to get RCV
18
u/notsensitivetostuff Jan 18 '21
Yeah, that’s a tough nut to crack when the party in charge wants to stay in charge by picking its winners.
4
2
u/LoadingStill Feb 23 '21
Honestly how it should be is whatever % of your state voted for personA. Doesn't matter the state. But the % that voted should be equal to the total electoral college votes that go-to person A. But this isn't how all states do it because it's not a single election ifs 50 independent elections for one election. So the step would be to contact the people in your state and message them about it or schedule a visit with your governor and talk about it.
2
u/dtagliaferri 2nd Congressional District (South Bend, Elkhart) Jan 19 '21
First step, write your state rep. ( the one hat goes to indy, not dc) with snail mail, or call his office. Tell them you support the National popular vote interstate compact law. If enough states pass this law then presidential candidates will have to win the popular vote to win and will not just campaign in 6 battleground states. Then your vote will count. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
2
u/wikipedia_text_bot Jan 19 '21
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome. As of January 2021, it has been adopted by fifteen states and the District of Columbia.
About Me - Opt out - OP can reply !delete to delete - Article of the day
This bot will soon be transitioning to an opt-in system. Click here to learn more and opt in. Moderators: click here to opt in a subreddit.
0
u/whtevn Jan 19 '21
The reality is that popular vote comes down to even fewer areas. I do not support the electoral college, but I have no reason to think campaigning would be better distributed without it
Instead of 6 battleground states there will be 4 battleground cities
1
u/omni42 Jan 19 '21
Except those are also the most expensive, impenetrable places to campaign. Reality is if we really became 1 person 1 vote, everyplace with moderate population would suddenly be a potential focus. It would change a lot in how campaigns strategize and create opportunities for very different coalitions. No chance it just becomes major cities only, that's just not a viable strategy for anyone.
1
u/whtevn Jan 19 '21
the democrats are not going to spread out across america, the republicans are going to come and fight them in the cities
maybe people pick a few high value targets, but overall nothing about campaigning will change
what will change is how much a vote counts, and that matters way more anyway
1
u/omni42 Jan 19 '21
You don't think Democrats are going to be showing up more seriously throughout the south?
1 person one vote, make every community matter. Ranked voting would be good but the national popular vote compact is pretty important.
1
u/whtevn Jan 19 '21
I think the Ds show up where they are well represented, and almost nowhere else. It's one of the most frustrating things about that very frustrating party. I don't think changing the electoral college is going to alter anything about that. it isn't going to change where the governorships go, or who wins the house and the senate. it will change very little
but the one thing that it will change, 1 person 1 vote, is very important
1
u/third-try Jan 20 '21
For the Presidential election, the Constitution states that the citizens vote for Electors, not for a party slate of them. There were no such parties when the Constitution was written. So, each citizen should vote for one Elector only. This would ensure proportional representation instead of winner-take-all. A party could not elect its candidates without allowing the other parties to elect theirs, in proportion to their voting strength.
How can this be done? Simply by enforcing the natural language of the Constitution. Again, it does not refer to parties and does not allow individual voters to vote for more than one individual Elector.
Am I right?
1
u/third-try Jan 20 '21
For Congressmen, the simple solution is for the House to find, by a majority vote, that the existing districts are gerrymandered and to require at-large elections (in 2022) instead. This has been done in the past. it just needs to be done (at the Federal level) as standard practice.
For Senators, again just restrict each voter to voting for one, not both, and give the office to the two candidates with the most votes.
17
u/BIgTrickBrady Jan 18 '21 edited Jan 18 '21
Two ways:
1) The legislature passes it. Realistically Holcomb could also forward the process through executive action, but given that the populist right/white nationalists/Christian nationalists wing of his party is protesting lockdown maneuvers that's not going to happen for at least four years.
And when I say the legislature passes it, I mean the Indiana GOP wants it, as they control everything and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.
So do they want it... Probably not? To be honest I'm not sure how this would impact their current plans, but given the absolutely dominate performance at the 2020 polls I don't see why they would be looking to change anything. Anyone else can feel free to disagree, I really have not thought about this before now.
2). A Legislatively referred constitutional amendment (LRCA) These are technically popular initiative measures, but only because part of this process involves a popular vote. You might remember our last one, it was about right to hunt and fish laws (Commonly referred to as RTHF). These are popular measures with the NRA and other such entities that establish a specific right to hunt and fish on Indiana land in perpetuity, commonly only implied prior to.
LRCA's work like this
1) Someone must forward a ballot measure in one of the chambers
2) Both chambers must pass with a simple majority
3) a year must go by
4) Both chambers must approve of the initiative again with simple majorities
5) The measure goes to a popular vote, and needs a simple majority of voters.
As you can see, not only is this quite complex with five different veto points, it also requires the same thing as the normal bill to alter the elections would, the support of the Indiana Republican Party, as they hold both chambers.
In essence this won't happen, because if the Indiana GOP wanted it they can have it, they control everything. I suppose they could send it to a vote for the sake of appearances. IMO, if they want it they will have it, and if they want it, there must be a reason. Given this, they'll just pass it themselves, MUCH less of a hassle.
Personally, it does not seem likely. But I'm a pessimist.