this post was submitted on 20 May 2025
868 points (97.9% liked)

You Should Know

38185 readers
1962 users here now

YSK - for all the things that can make your life easier!

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must begin with YSK.

All posts must begin with YSK. If you're a Mastodon user, then include YSK after @youshouldknow. This is a community to share tips and tricks that will help you improve your life.



Rule 2- Your post body text must include the reason "Why" YSK:

**In your post's text body, you must include the reason "Why" YSK: It’s helpful for readability, and informs readers about the importance of the content. **



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Posts and comments which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding non-YSK posts.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-YSK posts using the [META] tag on your post title.



Rule 7- You can't harass or disturb other members.

If you harass or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

If you are a member, sympathizer or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.

For further explanation, clarification and feedback about this rule, you may follow this link.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- The majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Unless included in our Whitelist for Bots, your bot will not be allowed to participate in this community. To have your bot whitelisted, please contact the moderators for a short review.



Rule 11- Posts must actually be true: Disiniformation, trolling, and being misleading will not be tolerated. Repeated or egregious attempts will earn you a ban. This also applies to filing reports: If you continually file false reports YOU WILL BE BANNED! We can see who reports what, and shenanigans will not be tolerated.



Partnered Communities:

You can view our partnered communities list by following this link. To partner with our community and be included, you are free to message the moderators or comment on a pinned post.

Community Moderation

For inquiry on becoming a moderator of this community, you may comment on the pinned post of the time, or simply shoot a message to the current moderators.

Credits

Our icon(masterpiece) was made by @clen15!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

RCV trends: Four states ban RCV in 2025, bringing the number of states with bans to 15.

(Okay idk why it says 15 up here then later says 16, somebody on that site probably didn't update the title text)

As of April 30, five states had banned RCV in 2025, which brought the total number of states that prohibit RCV to 16.

  • Gov. Mark Gordon (Republican) signed HB 165 on March 18.
  • West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (Republican) signed SB 490 the March 19.
  • Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (Democrat) signed SB 6 into law on April 1.
  • North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (Republican) signed HB 1297 on April 15.
  • Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Republican) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17.

Six states banned RCV in 2024.

Why YSK: If you're a US-American, its time to pay attention to State and Local politics instead of solely on the Federal. There is a trend in conservative jurisdictions to stop progress in making elecoral systems more fair. Use this opportunity as a rallying-cry to pass Ranked-Choice Voting in progressive jurisdictions, and hopefully everyone else takes notes. Sometimes, all you need is a few states adopting a law to become the catalyst for it to become the model for the entire country, for better or for worse. Don't allow anti-RCV legislations to dominate, counter the propaganda with pro-RCV arguments. Time to turn the tide.

Edit: fixed formatting

Edit 2: Added in the map so you don't have to click the link:

See the pattern? πŸ€”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old

Well, you know its the right thing if they are banning it.

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 12 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

There was a STRONG effort to ban (or at least end) RCV here in Alaska, and it failed, but barely. They even did the super misleading wording, too, in order to make it unclear if the measure banned RCV or supported it.

I was always so confused by the adamant support that was being shown by general people, though. Like, I get why both Dems and Republicans would be against it: they want to be the only two players in the game. But why any general people would want less choice is beyond me. And it's funny, because the staunchest proponents (at least where I am) were conservatives, when (again, where I live) RCV basically drove out the Democrats. There were Progressives, there were "centrists," there were Libertarians, and then there was Republican/MAGA. Dems didn't even get enough support to be on the ballot. So their hated Libs were wiped off the board entirely for being so ill-liked, but they want to get rid of that system? I just don't get it.

[–] throwawayacc0430@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

People are stupid. They think RCV is "too confusing"

[–] TheDoozer@lemmy.world 2 points 20 minutes ago

I feel like it can kind of be confusing to understand how the process works for it.

But it is not even remotely confusing as to what you do. Choose, from most to least, who you want. It's that simple. You want to get into how those votes are tallied, do a little dive, there's plenty of videos very simply explaining it. If you don't, and just want to be able to go vote? Just go vote. If even ranking them is too complicated because you have a worm in your brain, just choose one and ignore everything else.

It might be complicated to tally, but it is not complicated to do. It's just people being duped by the Big 2 parties to not want choices.

[–] yuxian20@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Love how it's the cousin fucking states and the flyover Midwest.

[–] Bieren@lemmy.world 10 points 8 hours ago

Don’t worry. Voting altogether will be next.

[–] RaptorBenn@lemmy.world 23 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

The fact that Americans banned it, means it good for the people.

[–] tempest@lemmy.ca 4 points 10 hours ago

Lol home of the free, what a shit hole

[–] iglou@programming.dev 55 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Nothing screams "democracy" like explicitely banning a voting system

[–] nico198x@europe.pub 13 points 13 hours ago (2 children)

well, to be fair, shitty electoral systems should be banned, like FPTP, because they aren't representative. what's happening here is sadly the opposite.

[–] iglou@programming.dev 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

It still shouldn't be banned, it should be up for debate when picking a system. Explicitly banning a system is pretty much anti-democratic by nature.

[–] nico198x@europe.pub 3 points 3 hours ago

No it is not. Agreeing on that it should be banned is a democratic choice. It is an anti-democratic system not fit for purpose in 2025. our understanding of electoral science and maths is much more advanced now. FPTP should NEVER be on the table.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

FPTP is fine in many small scale applications. How should a town of 5,000 people elect their mayor otherwise?

[–] nico198x@europe.pub 2 points 3 hours ago
[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

Ranked choice is still better though… scale doesn’t really matter here, the point is to let people vote for who they want, not for who they think might win.

[–] Saleh@feddit.org 0 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

On that level you often only have two, one or sometimes no candidate.

There is no need to enforce a more complicated system that needs to be explained to everyone, risks more people accidentally voting different than they wanted or invalidating their vote by misunderstanding the rules.

I have helped with elections in Germany where the parliament has two votes. One for the local candidate FPTP and one for a party, where the parties proportional rates are then assembled in the parliament. I had to explain people the votes and what they do all the time. Because the two votes are on one paper it is a mess to count, as you can't just stack them easily because of the possible combinations.

When it gets to state and national levels having proportional systems for parliaments and ranked choice for single candidates i am all for it. But there is no point in pushing for a more complicated system for smaller elections.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 6 points 8 hours ago

It's not anymore complicated. This is the exact argument that got it banned in my state. Because some people think we're too stupid to count to 2. No if there are only 2 candidates you vore for one or the other and if you really want to be special you can rank them even if it won't matter. This is not a difficult concept.

[–] FlyingCircus@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago

Yeah that makes sense. I guess once people get used to ranked voting in large elections, then you could have it in small elections too. Thanks for the reply.

[–] stinky@redlemmy.com 4 points 22 hours ago
[–] bitwolf@sh.itjust.works 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

What is a ban going to do.

It just changes the language of the acceptance bill

Pre-empts local laws preventing sub-divisions of the State (Cities, Towns) from enacting their own election system that would use "ranking" as a method of determining candidates winning or losing.

Renaming the system will not bypass the ban.

[–] Cheems@lemmy.world 21 points 1 day ago

Ranked choice should be the standard

[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 39 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

This is democrats and Republicans not wanting people to vote for their candidate of choice because they have to constantly play the game of the lesser of two evils. They wanna keep power

[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 14 points 17 hours ago (2 children)

Not even one state that has banned it is run by Democrats.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (3 children)

Gov. Mark Gordon (Republican) signed HB 165 on March 18.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey (Republican) signed SB 490 the March 19.

Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly (Democrat) signed SB 6 into law on April 1.

North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong (Republican) signed HB 1297 on April 15.

Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (Republican) signed HB 1706 which became law on April 17.

5/6 are Republican shitheads however.

[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Kansas has Republican supermajorities in both legislative houses. She didn't have a choice but to sign.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 3 hours ago (1 children)
[–] HighFructoseLowStand@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Do you not know what a supermajority is?

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 2 hours ago

Yes, I'm just saying making Republicans do extra work is good.

[–] JackFrostNCola@lemmy.world 5 points 9 hours ago

This is the reality of the 'both sides...' arguments, yes both sides are guilty of doing despicable things but the scales are very heavily tipped in one direction.
Unfortunately with how far americans have legislated and tightened the stranglehold on control of the 'democratic' process, i dont see this ever being undone... 'willingly'...

[–] 13igTyme@lemmy.world 3 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) (2 children)

While Kansas has a Democratic governor, I wouldn't call it a blue state. State Congress is likely all red. This was likely a ballot measure and the people voted on it. The governor just put into law what the people voted on. Nothing more.

[–] Zexks@lemmy.world 4 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

So I looked into this being from Kansas it kind of pissed me off. Turns out she won with like 49% where the Rs got only 47 and two different third parties took about 4%. So Rs were pushing for it thinking those that cast third party would put them next over the Dem, while calling them wasted and spoiled votes. So this was proposed by the Wichita mayor under the guise that RCV was too complicated for people to understand, and likely kelly signed the ban because of fear she might lose her minor majority. Total fucking bullshit politics as usual.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 2 hours ago

So this was proposed by the Wichita mayor under the guise that RCV was too complicated for people to understand, and likely kelly signed the ban because of fear she might lose her minor majority. Total fucking bullshit politics as usual.

Sounds like them. Capitulating to Republicans because of fear.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 4 hours ago

While Kansas has a Democratic governor, I wouldn’t call it a blue state.

Ah so the one time it happened it doesn't count.

[–] MetalMachine@feddit.nl 9 points 17 hours ago

Your right about that, it is a fair thing to point out. However, I will mention that the democratic party has a hostile past to 3rd parties where they would do things like suing them to get them off ballots.

Here is one example for reference: https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-lawsuits-voting-north-carolina-raleigh-48f1e61c1988c7083edcdc7bb1eace4a

[–] FreakinSteve@lemmy.world 4 points 16 hours ago

And this is why you have the 2A

We voted for it at the county level here in CA. That was back in 2020. San Diego county voted to use RCV, as did several other counties in CA. The county registrar of voters is refusing to change from FPTP, and is waiting to see how the lawsuits turn out.

Even if your state hasn't banned it, they will fight you tooth and nail not to change it.

load more comments
view more: next β€Ί