Out of curiosity, what constitutional basis do they have to do this? Elections are explicitly run by the states and there’s nothing about RCV or any voting system that prevents a fair election.
RCV favours moderate candidates. If you are in a political extreme, you might argue that that’s not fair. But I don’t see how it not being perfect can result in a ban. Specially when the current system is more unfair.
There’s anywhere from 100-400MM USD distributed for election security and infrastructure provided by the federal government to states on a yearly basis. The path forward would likely to be barring distribution of such funds for any state which holds RCV elections.
Out of curiosity, what constitutional basis do they have to do this? Elections are explicitly run by the states and there’s nothing about RCV or any voting system that prevents a fair election.
There working on the constitutional basis of wanting to become a dictatorship, can’t have people voting against you now can you?
The same one where they can skip due process and “deport” people.
The rules are pretty muddy right now.
RCV favours moderate candidates. If you are in a political extreme, you might argue that that’s not fair. But I don’t see how it not being perfect can result in a ban. Specially when the current system is more unfair.
There’s anywhere from 100-400MM USD distributed for election security and infrastructure provided by the federal government to states on a yearly basis. The path forward would likely to be barring distribution of such funds for any state which holds RCV elections.