How's That "Lesser Of Two Evils" Working For Ya?

[dblack]

Ranked Choice Voting is a conjob.

Why do you think that? Because it gets rid of Lo2e?

 

[BrokeLoser]

I don't have to vote at all, if I think the system is a sham. Is someone holding a gun to my head in your asinine "analogy"?

Hahaha…you fools act like not voting or voting for Mickey Mouse prevents others from shoving the most fucked up politician down your throat. Are you that disconnected…do you thinks that‘s actually happening?

dblack
Golfing Gator
pknopp

 

[Lakhota]

Who would choose the greater of two evils?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Who would choose the greater of two evils?

Wetbacks, filthy natives, hood negroes, faggots, rug munchers, chicks with dicks, feminazis, criminals, degenerates….basically all of America‘s rejects.

 

[BackAgain]

Why do you think that? Because it gets rid of Lo2e?

Nah. I base my conclusion on reason and logic.

Here. Open your mid. Contemplate: The flaw in ranked-choice voting: rewarding extremists

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Hahaha…you fools act like not voting or voting for Mickey Mouse prevents others from shoving the most fucked up politician down your throat. Are you that disconnected…do you thinks that‘s actually happening?

Nope, we understand that you sheep are going to shove the most fucked up politicians down our throats. We just choose not to give that person our support via the ballot box.

 

[sealybobo]

Which is great. So great that we have low unemployment, millions of job openings and the fed trying to extinguish the cinders of the wildfire that is our economy.
There’s new fire that we need to learn to harness. The old measures are inadequate.


Would you rather an abject recession?

I heard Biden is getting the border under control too. That was a big issue for him.

Inflation getting fixed.

Russia retreating

Covid over

Republicans trying to ban abortions

Republicans launching witch hunts against Biden

Trump

Blue Wave

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Is THIS a "lesser of two evils"???!

 

[BrokeLoser]

Nope, we understand that you sheep are going to shove the most fucked up politicians down our throats. We just choose not to give that person our support via the ballot box.

The really strange part is…you freedom fighters actually preferred that we shoved the one down your throat that uses a corrupt media/social media to win elections and push a political agenda, the one that forced you to stop pursuing happiness, the one who stopped you from going to work, the one who forced you to take experimental medicine you didn’t want to take, the one who forced you to wear a face diaper you didn’t want to wear, the one who attacks your right to soverignty and your 1 and 2A rights, the one who ran fuel up to $5-$6 dollars with a shit energy policy, the one who spends billions fortifying Ukraines border while tearing yours down, the one who is shoving millions of Mexico’s trash down your throat, the one who tells you white people are America’s greatest threat while the blood flows in Baltimore every night….the crazy shit goes on and on.
YES, you voted for the greater of the two evils and there’s no way to spin it.

dblack
pknopp
buttercup

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The really strange part is…you freedom fighters actually preferred that we shoved the one down your throat that uses a corrupt media/social media to win elections and push a political agenda, the one that forced you to stop pursuing happiness, the one who stopped you from going to work, the one who forced you to take experimental medicine you didn’t want to take, the one who forced you to wear a face diaper you didn’t want to wear, the one who attacks your right to soverignty and your 1 and 2A rights, the one who ran fuel up to $5-$6 dollars with a shit energy policy, the one who spends billions fortifying Ukraines border while tearing yours down, the one who is shoving millions of Mexico’s trash down your throat, the one who tells you white people are America’s greatest threat while the blood flows in Baltimore every night….the crazy shit goes on and on.
YES, you voted for the greater of the two evils and there’s no way to spin it.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have no preference. Remove 2020 and I would say Trump was a better POTUS than Biden.

But that is akin to saying that Ryan Leaf was a better QB than JaMarcus Russell....it is not really a compliment.

 

[dblack]

Nah. I base my conclusion on reason and logic.

Here. Open your mid. Contemplate: The flaw in ranked-choice voting: rewarding extremists

Thanks for posting. I've seen several attempts to make this argument, but they always avoid the core question: "Compared to what?". Let's say we re-ran the election they cite with normal, plurality voting. Would the results have been "better"? No. In this case, they'd have been exactly the same. Which is what I've seen with nearly every critique of RCV so far. In every case, the "worst" possible outcome from RCV, with regard to extremism, is the same or better than typical plurality voting.

So, to say that RCV doesn't always produce a different outcome from plurality voting, even when we might want it to, is a fair critique. Sometimes RCV is no better than what we have now. But most of the time it is better.

And, by focusing on specific outcomes, we're ignoring the more subtle benefits. Like the incentives for candidates to be less polarizing. They want those second place votes, so if they can offer at least something to the "other side", it gives them an advantage.

The ranked-choice system that is being used around the country to conduct elections with more than two candidates is biased towards extreme candidates and away from moderate ones.

This simply isn't true. And it isn't supported by the article. In point of fact, RCV doesn't reward extremism, it does the opposite. The article is "headlining" the opposite of the truth, likely for political reasons.

What should be done? Locales interested in holding elections with more than two candidates should use a different vote counting system. There are many voting methods that ensure moderate candidates will tend to beat extreme candidates in the presence of a polarized electorate.

There are many other systems that achieve similar ends to RCV. They all have their flaws, but most all of them are vastly superior to plurality voting, especial when it comes to "extremism". If you want to start a campaign to implement Borda voting, or Copeland, etc ... go for it. I'll support you full on. Those systems are more complicated, and since the complexity of RCV is one of the main things people complain about, trying to sell more complex systems seems like a bridge too far. But if that's what you're after, I'm on board.

 

[dblack]

The really strange part is…you freedom fighters actually preferred ..

Ahh.. .lying. Nice.

Why are you so afraid of brown people?

 

[BackAgain]

Why do you think that? Because it gets rid of Lo2e?

Learn how to spell.

 

[BackAgain]

Thanks for posting. I've seen several attempts to make this argument, but they always avoid the core question: "Compared to what?". Let's say we re-ran the election they cite with normal, plurality voting. Would the results have been "better"? No. In this case, they'd have been exactly the same. Which is what I've seen with nearly every critique of RCV so far. In every case, the "worst" possible outcome from RCV, with regard to extremism, is the same or better than typical plurality voting.

So, to say that RCV doesn't always produce a different outcome from plurality voting, even when we might want it to, is a fair critique. Sometimes RCV is no better than what we have now. But most of the time it is better.

And, by focusing on specific outcomes, we're ignoring the more subtle benefits. Like the incentives for candidates to be less polarizing. They want those second place votes, so if they can offer at least something to the "other side", it gives them an advantage.



This simply isn't true. And it isn't supported by the article. In point of fact, RCV doesn't reward extremism, it does the opposite. The article is "headlining" the opposite of the truth, likely for political reasons.



There are many other systems that achieve similar ends to RCV. They all have their flaws, but most all of them are vastly superior to plurality voting, especial when it comes to "extremism". If you want to start a campaign to implement Borda voting, or Copeland, etc ... go for it. I'll support you full on. Those systems are more complicated, and since the complexity of RCV is one of the main things people complain about, trying to sell more complex systems seems like a bridge too far. But if that's what you're after, I'm on board.

You’re a devotee of rcv. After all ^ those words, you can’t actually defend it.

If we have 3 candidates. A fine conservative Republican. A mediocre independent with no particular conviction about how things should go. And a run of the mill leftist Democrat.

The voting base, for example, isn’t 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3. It’s like 46% for the Republican. It’s like 45% for the Democrap. And 9% for the independent. No winner.

So they count and then distribute the Independent’s vote. All of the wishy washy Dims voted for the Independent as their second tier. But almost none of the Republicans gave that indecisive nobody any support.

The one who didn’t even have a plurality win suddenly becomes the “elected” winner. But if, instead, the race had to go to a run-off election, maybe the Dim loses.

 

[dblack]

You’re a devotee of rcv.

Not necessarily. Like I said, there are many other systems that would work. I am a devotee of improve our elections. RCV would accomplish that.

If we have 3 candidates. A fine conservative Republican. A mediocre independent with no particular conviction about how things should go. And a run of the mill leftist Democrat.

The voting base, for example, isn’t 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3. It’s like 46% for the Republican. It’s like 45% for the Democrap. And 9% for the independent. No winner.

So they count and then distribute the Independent’s vote. All of the wishy washy Dims voted for the Independent as their second tier. But almost none of the Republicans gave that indecisive nobody any support.

The one who didn’t even have a plurality win suddenly becomes the “elected” winner. But if, instead, the race had to go to a run-off election, maybe the Dim loses.

That's actually not the way RCV works. If the independent is knocked out after the first round, the second place choices of the wishy washy Dems, and the very fine Republicans, are irrelevant - their votes still go to their first choice. The second place votes of the independent voters is what would make the difference. If more of them like the Republican, the republican wins.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of majority requirements that impose runoffs? like in Georgia or South Carolina?

 

[BackAgain]

Not necessarily. Like I said, there are many other systems that would work. I am a devotee of improve our elections. RCV would accomplish that.

No. It sure wouldn’t.

That's actually not the way RCV works.

Yes. It is.

If the independent is knocked out after the first round, the second place choices of the wishy washy Dems, and the very fine Republicans, are irrelevant - their votes still go to their first choice. The second place votes of the independent voters is what would make the difference. If more of them like the Republican, the republican wins.

You’re talking gibberish. The second place votes would be distributed based on how the voters cast their second place votes. Which is exactly what I said. Why you find it necessary to argue is odd.

Out of curiosity, what do you think of majority requirements that impose runoffs? like in Georgia or South Carolina?

Elections should go to the winner. Which is why I have already said I prefer runoff’s. RCV is bullshit.

 

[dblack]

No. It sure wouldn’t.

I'm all ears as to why. But every critique I've seen yet is either comparing RCV to other alternative voting systems (like the article you posted) or involves a misunderstanding of how RCV works, like the example you came up with.

Yes. It is.

Well, no, you got it exactly backwards. You were suggesting that the second place votes of Ds and Rs would make a difference in the outcome. But, in the example you cited, they are irrelevant. It's the second place votes of independent that would make the difference. Seriously, have a look. I respect your critique, but you've just got the facts wrong.

You’re talking gibberish. The second place votes would be distributed based on how the voters cast their second place votes. Which is exactly what I said. Why you find it necessary to argue is odd.

Because that's just a factual error about how RCV works. If your first place candidate is still in the running, your second place votes never come into play.

Elections should go to the winner. Which is why I have already said I prefer runoff’s. RCV is bullshit.

RCV is exactly the same as runoffs. It just records the runoff votes at the first polling, so we don't have to mess with all the overhead of doing it twice. If you like runoff elections to ensure a majority, then you like RCV - because that's what it is.

 

[BackAgain]

I'm all ears as to why. But every critique I've seen yet is either comparing RCV to other alternative voting systems (like the article you posted) or involves a misunderstanding of how RCV works, like the example you came up with.

Well, no, you got it exactly backwards. You were suggesting that the second place votes of Ds and Rs would make a difference in the outcome. But, in the example you cited, they are irrelevant. It's the second place votes of independent that would make the difference. Seriously, have a look. I respect your critique, but you've just got the facts wrong.

Because that's just a factual error about how RCV works. If your first place candidate is still in the running, your second place votes never come into play.

RCV is exactly the same as runoffs. It just records the runoff votes at the first polling, so we don't have to mess with all the overhead of doing it twice. If you like runoff elections to ensure a majority, then you like RCV - because that's what it is.

Zzz. I already laid it out. You don’t wish to consider it. Fine. Then don’t.

But that’s ok. I’m not buying your bullshit.

 

[dblack]

Zzz. I already laid it out. You don’t wish to consider it. Fine. Then don’t.

But that’s ok. I’m not buying your bullshit.

Alright. Looks like you're just here to fight. And I'm not, so I'll leave you alone. But I encourage you to look closer. RCV would be a real improvement. It's not what the partisans are telling you. They just don't like it because it does away with the lesser-of-two-evils fear mongering, and that's become their main campaign tool.

 

[BackAgain]

Alright. Looks like you're just here to fight. And I'm not, so I'll leave you alone. But I encourage you to look closer. RCV would be a real improvement. It's not what the partisans are telling you. They just don't like it because it does away with the lesser-of-two-evils fear mongering, and that's become their main campaign tool.

You are here to fight. And sometimes that’s fine.

I’m still not buying this rcv crap.

And the reason it’s a mistake involves the fact that it can yield the election of a person who isn’t truly the person the people wanted.