SwBratcher on Nostr: Missouri voters will decide on Amendment 7, a constitutional amendment recommended by ...
Missouri voters will decide on Amendment 7, a constitutional amendment recommended by our current legislators, on November 5. This amendment is presented as a measure to ensure only citizens can vote. However, it also includes a ban on ranked choice voting.
While the idea of limiting voting to citizens seems straightforward, the bundled ban on ranked choice voting complicates things. If we decide we don’t want ranked choice voting in the future, we could simply avoid adopting it rather than blocking it outright. Restricting our options now could limit our ability to adapt to future needs.
Ranked choice voting has significant potential benefits. It reduces the influence of large campaign funds, loosens the media’s grip on candidate selection, and allows voters to not vote for candidates they disagree with outright, and rank their acceptable candidate choices in order of preference, preventing the feeling of “wasting” a vote on a less popular candidate, and . It encourages a more diverse field of candidates, and often leads to outcomes that reflect the broader preferences of the community, rather than pushing us to choose between two polarized options.
I can see it at the federal level, but I t’s surprising that our state level legislators recommended this amendment, as it appears to protect the two-party system and discouraging a shift toward community alignment. Instead of a direct vote on the idea that only citizens should vote, ranked choice voting is quietly prohibited in the same amendment. If ranked choice voting truly has issues, it should stand or fall on its own merits, not be tied to an unrelated and popular proposal.
Let’s vote “No” on this bundled amendment. Later, we can address the issue of citizen-only voting as its own, clear proposal. Unbundling such distinct issues is crucial to fair and transparent lawmaking, ensuring decisions that shape our state’s foundation are well-considered and appropriately separate.
While the idea of limiting voting to citizens seems straightforward, the bundled ban on ranked choice voting complicates things. If we decide we don’t want ranked choice voting in the future, we could simply avoid adopting it rather than blocking it outright. Restricting our options now could limit our ability to adapt to future needs.
Ranked choice voting has significant potential benefits. It reduces the influence of large campaign funds, loosens the media’s grip on candidate selection, and allows voters to not vote for candidates they disagree with outright, and rank their acceptable candidate choices in order of preference, preventing the feeling of “wasting” a vote on a less popular candidate, and . It encourages a more diverse field of candidates, and often leads to outcomes that reflect the broader preferences of the community, rather than pushing us to choose between two polarized options.
I can see it at the federal level, but I t’s surprising that our state level legislators recommended this amendment, as it appears to protect the two-party system and discouraging a shift toward community alignment. Instead of a direct vote on the idea that only citizens should vote, ranked choice voting is quietly prohibited in the same amendment. If ranked choice voting truly has issues, it should stand or fall on its own merits, not be tied to an unrelated and popular proposal.
Let’s vote “No” on this bundled amendment. Later, we can address the issue of citizen-only voting as its own, clear proposal. Unbundling such distinct issues is crucial to fair and transparent lawmaking, ensuring decisions that shape our state’s foundation are well-considered and appropriately separate.