I understand it's a tough problem, but I think you ahould not endorse over very marginal differences if the candidate is net bad on your issue.
One, candidates have no incentive to be better than marginal. Two, people usually decide who to vote for on mutiple dimensions, i.e. are not single-issue voters. Telling people they have two bad candidates on housing is still useful.
There’s definitely a logic to this, but it risks a lot of motivated reasoning. The east coast YIMBY groups I follow use this sort of logic to endorse left wing candidates who inevitably vote left wing, including on housing. Conspicuously, they never endorse moderate or conservative less bad on housing candidates.
I understand it's a tough problem, but I think you ahould not endorse over very marginal differences if the candidate is net bad on your issue.
One, candidates have no incentive to be better than marginal. Two, people usually decide who to vote for on mutiple dimensions, i.e. are not single-issue voters. Telling people they have two bad candidates on housing is still useful.
Love it! Wish you all the best! A more YIMBY California benefits all residents of America.
You don’t have to endorse in every race. I’ve be telling y’all for years now. It breaks your coalitions you spend so much time trying to build.
It works well when RCV creates potential to be kingmaker.
There’s definitely a logic to this, but it risks a lot of motivated reasoning. The east coast YIMBY groups I follow use this sort of logic to endorse left wing candidates who inevitably vote left wing, including on housing. Conspicuously, they never endorse moderate or conservative less bad on housing candidates.