What difference does it make? A lot. The labels have meaning. You are not describing Approval Voting.

Approval voting is a one shot deal...there is just one round. In an election with N candidates each voter can approve 0,1,2,3...or N candidates. Approving 0 or N candidates is equivalent to abstention. The candidate with greatest number of approval ratings wins the election.

Your scheme seems like a prescription for sustained deadlock.

As you say, the Republicans opposing H.R. 1 "don't think the Federal Government should be allowed to mandate all these things regarding elections when states are supposed to have control over how they administer their elections."

I had thought the same thing initially, like, where do the Feds get the power to pass an overreaching law like this, when elections in the U.S. are famously (and notoriously) conducted locally? Then I read the Constitution, where in one of its more fine-print sections, it says:

"Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators."

And that's before additional powers adhere to Congress to regulate elections so as to protect other constitutional rights such as equal justice under the law, etc.

In short, the Republicans are blowing smoke - the Feds have the right to regulate federal-level elections, and state-level as well when civil rights and equal access are challenged by local statutes.

Others have pointed out the folly of compromising over this by enticing the states to comply with rewards and punishments - the payoff to a minority party of limiting the franchise far outweighs any financial or voluntary sanctions, just as the need to preserve Jim Crow forced the Feds to pass national Civil Rights acts and Voting Acts regarding racial equality. The states most at fault are least likely to admit the fault or repair it, because to them it's not a fault but a feature.

I will be very interested to see how hard the Dems push H.R. 1 / S. 1 this year. As important as all of Biden's progressive legislative agenda is, this bill underlies the rest - no progressive legislators getting elected to represent progressive citizens means no progressive legislation far into the future, no matter what the majority of American citizens might want. It's not democracy, of course, but to the Republican Party democracy is a bug, not a feature.

Other than yourself, I can’t find any source advocating something called “rank choice counting.” Please post one. How can more than candidate get a majority in the second round? Gibberish.

You have a good point. Not only would red State Repugs resist such financial coercion, as some continue to do re ACA despite the pandemic, but once Repugs retake control of Federal government they'd simply cancel this approach and that would be that.

Besides,Voting rights are rights, and it should not be possible for any state to deny them.

good post; i had the same questions, then found you'd already written them, probably better than i could have.

one thing i'd add: reforming the filibuster isn't just about changing what types of bills it can (or can't) apply to, it's also about what procedures are required to maintain or to break a filibuster. therefore i think the question would have to be something like, "if the republicans absolutely refuse to allow any bill with this particular provision to go forward, what changes in the filibuster rules do you think might be appropriate to help resolve the impasse?"

JL

You state: "Rank choice voting should only be considered if it includes rank choice counting that does not eliminate candidates." So please explain exact how that would work? It seem to me that eliminating candidates is the whole point of any election. No matter how you do it you still must eliminate the candidate with fewer votes, no? What would the Don Harris system look like?

Again, action talks...

The right question is to the alleged progressives as to why they are not working together to make Manchin's one vote pale in comparison to their votes to pressure the establishment Deathocrats to stop using Manchin as an excuse to dole out smaller crumbs.

I am an "alleged Progressive" so what (besides One Demand, please) would you recommend?

Recall that I'm a Bernie Bro & that Biden was waaaaay down my list during the Dem's primary. Yes, I'm warming to Joe -- "So far, so good," -- but action talks and bullshit walks.

More than likely Joe has to go through the motions of trying to:

1- reach out to Repugs in the spirit of bi-partisanship, and,

2- protect bleeping Manchin & Sinema regarding the filibuster at least in the beginning of this process. Sure, I'd like to just damn these two to hell. But you gotta go to war with the Congress you have.

Believe me I'm watching the Dems veeeery closely. Because the Progressive within me believes that UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE both Parties ultimately work for the rich. You know, Ralph Nader and stuff.

Some good points. Do you [and CW, for that matter] have an opinion on "Ranked Choice" voting?

Speaking as an Army Vet, I'd like to see Election Day on Veteran's Day. Most of us Vets are especially patriotic, and the day the country recognizes the Vets who protect our freedoms outta be the same day America excercizes one of the most important of those freedoms.

Don't fool yourself!

There's not a prayer that Repugs won't fight every last bit of H.R. 1, even if they get a last 10-year Gerrymandering binge.

Repugs know that the demographics are increasingly against them, especially after the Trump Fiasco.

Biden and the Dems have the momentum and to forget (for even ONE nanosecond) the hard lessons they learned 2009-2017...

Would be political malpractice!

1) Is Manchin supposed to identify what he wants to cut from the bill, because he believes that doing so will attract the needed 10 Republican Senators along with his own consent? Is the question about what cuts will be needed to avoid getting rid of the filibuster, because he simply will not agree to getting rid of the filibuster?

2) Or is Manchin supposed to identify what he wants cut (and maybe others of the 50 Democratic senators) in order to allow him to vote to abolish the filibuster, or (as has been suggested a lot lately) abolish the filibuster just for legislation about voting rights? Is the question about what Joe and the other 49 Dems need to convince them to forget about signing up those ten Republicans?

And, since we're asking the gentleman from West Virginia these penetrating questions, does Joe Manchin or anyone else really believe that a single Republican Senator will vote for legislation containing just your first non-negotiable list, the Dems' die-on-our-feet-not-live-on-our-knees items, the ones that will cut the current Republican Party's throat for the better part of the coming decade?