Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) went after former President Trump for his legal woes in an interview on MSNBC Saturday.
“I’ll take the individual who’s 81 over the guy who has 91 felony counts,” Swalwell said, making a reference to President Biden’s age in an interview on MSNBC’s “The Katie Phang Show” on Saturday.
“It’s not about two individuals,” Swalwell continued, speaking about the 2024 election. “It’s about the idea of competence versus chaos, or even greater, freedom versus fascism. If we make it about those ideas, and what they mean in our daily lives, we’re gonna win.”
Swalwell’s comments come after Trump was ordered to pay almost $355 million in penalties in a civil fraud case and amid increased scrutiny faced by the president on his age and memory in the wake of a special counsel report on Biden’s handling of classified documents. The report noted that Biden had problems with memory and recall.
It’s already going to be a hugely heavy lift to get RCV, so no need to complicate the effort by suggesting alternatives to RCV.
Just don’t think there’s room for that conversation in our political environment today.
Arguably, RCV is just as complicated as STAR, and approval is simpler than RCV. And part of the difficulty in the heavy lift to get RCV is that it has some pretty rough flaws, flaws that don’t exist within the alternatives.
And the political environment is easing up to the idea of moving towards better voting methods. I’m not saying we should let perfection be the enemy of progress. All I am saying is that if we are going to be making changes, we should at least attempt the better options.
I’ll take your word for it, sincerely, as I’m not familiar with STAR, but was speaking more from a social ‘selling it’ point of view. Simplicity tends to sell better than complexity, and RCV is the one that’s known of already.
What we citizens need to do now is get our elected officials to start talking about the pros and cons of STAR versus RCV, etc. So far they’ve been more than happy to ignore everything except the status quo, unfortunately.
Agreed. And that’s why I think approval is such a big improvement over ranked choice.
“Tell us who you approve of, candidate with the most approval wins”
Is a hell of a lot simpler than
“Rank every candidate without ranking multiple as the same level, then we check if any candidate has a 50% majority, if not, the lowest candidate gets booted and the next wave of second choices comes in, repeat until there is 50% majority.”
And that’s before the peripheral benefits.
Agreed. It’s honestly sad.
My city/state has been warming up to these kinds of talks and candidates at least, which gives me a glimmer of hope. But for now it is not enough.