Ranked Choice Voting on Smerconish Today

[dblack]

Yeah...everyone else is wrong and you're right.

Never said everyone is wrong. But, in this case, you are.

In our current system, the vote for Biden or DeSantis (in the example I gave above that you ran from) does the same thing.

What? You're not even making any sense. No, the current system doesn't work the same as RCV. You're truly a moron, do you realize that?

 

[dblack]

RCV is a disaster in a general election. It may have some uses in a primary election though. But the uses it would have would be experienced only if there was a true "jungle" primary where everyone is on the ballot from all parties. Party primaries using RCV are silly for a number of reasons. Chief amongst these is that the goal of a political party is to win the general election. Having a lot of party voter's 2nd choice as your standard bearer in the general is not a good idea.

It's hilarious. It's as though you've taken every fact about RCV and inverted it. You really couldn't be more wrong if you tried. But by all means, keep trying. It's sort of funny.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not sure. I have never studied their elections.

Again, not sure.

Well, you're talking about the electoral college. That has nothing to do with Ranked Choice Voting. Separate discussion.

RCV is a disaster in a general election. It may have some uses in a primary election though. But the uses it would have would be experienced only if there was a true "jungle" primary where everyone is on the ballot from all parties. Party primaries using RCV are silly for a number of reasons. Chief amongst these is that the goal of a political party is to win the general election. Having a lot of party voter's 2nd choice as your standard bearer in the general is not a good idea.

Let me tell you Hong Kong's elections and you can decide. They have a choice between three candidates chosen by Beijing. Then 1,500 people get to vote for who they want to be the leader of Hong Kong.

Let me tell you about China's elections. The President is elected by the NPC, essentially 3,000 Communist Party officials, essentially like Congress.

In both, there is voting. In both, the system produces a leader.

Yes, I know I'm talking about the Electoral College. You said you don't want AV because the apparently the current system "works fine". That's what we're talking about.

I'm telling you the current system doesn't work fine. Your argument about why it does work fine is "there are elections with people voting that produces a winner" or something like that, correct me if I'm wrong.

So, this is the topic.

The current FPTP system is a disaster. So, replacing it with something better that might be less of a disaster, is better.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The Electoral college is likely the best idea we've ever come up with. Direct election of the President would be horrendously bad.

It's an AWFUL idea that is currently consuming US politics along with FPTP.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Primaries are literally party constructs these days.

They always have been. Was not that long ago primaries did not exist.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

General elections are, at least on paper, run by the county clerks and state election officials.

…who are controlled by one of the two major parties.

Or are controlled by one or the other major party depending on jurisdiction.

 

[Papageorgio]

The early results speak....The mediocre staus quo statists remain in power.

Mediocre is better than what we have currently, our choices for President the last few cycles has led to the extremism on the left and right. I am wanting to break the cycle as it is not serving us but is now dividing us.

 

[Papageorgio]

RCV might have been the answer forty years ago. As it is, I fear it's too late. It's possible we've already jumped the shark in a way that can't be undone.

Yeah. Democracy can't really withstand stupid, selfish voters.

I sure hope you are wrong, we need to change what we are doing because it is not working. Our current system gave us Trump, Hillary and Biden, I am worried how much more we will sink.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sure it does.

In the general election....
You have candidates and people vote for them.

In the primary election...
You have candidates and people vote for them.

Let’s say that to many voters the system seems broken.

Every two years voters are presented with a slate of candidates and incumbents they care nothing about; they feel alienated and disconnected from the process.

Every two years voters are presented with a slate of candidates and incumbents voters feel in no manner represent them, candidates and incumbents interested only in advancing their careers and pursuing a political agenda they as voters oppose.

Some have resigned themselves to the lesser of two evils paradigm, others have abandoned participation altogether.

Clearly there’s a problem – it may not be the system per se, but for a significant number of Americans it’s a system that isn’t working for them.

 

[dblack]

I sure hope you are wrong, we need to change what we are doing because it is not working. Our current system gave us Trump, Hillary and Biden, I am worried how much more we will sink.

Me too. And we shouldn't be complacent, it can definitely get worse.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Electoral college is likely the best idea we've ever come up with. Direct election of the President would be horrendously bad.

At the time of the Founding, the office of president wasn’t particularly important – equal to the other two branches of government, but otherwise unremarkable; in that context the Electoral College made sense.

That was before the advent of the Imperial Presidency, however – rendering the EC problematic, especially when someone becomes president contrary to the will of the majority of the voters.

It’s another example of how the system is perceived to be broken – or more precisely, how the system has been corrupted, where the solution is not to replace the system but to return it to a condition as originally intended by the Framers.

 

[Oddball]

Mediocre is better than what we have currently, our choices for President the last few cycles has led to the extremism on the left and right. I am wanting to break the cycle as it is not serving us but is now dividing us.

What "extremism on the right"?....The Trumpster populists are closer to mid-70s democrats than anything else.....Are you saying that they were "extremists"?

 

[dblack]

Party primaries using RCV are silly for a number of reasons. Chief amongst these is that the goal of a political party is to win the general election. Having a lot of party voter's 2nd choice as your standard bearer in the general is not a good idea.

It's a great idea, actually. And the first party to do so will win in a landslide.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It's an AWFUL idea that is currently consuming US politics along with FPTP.

Currently, but that wasn’t always the case.

For 112 years the EC was ignored as an anachronism, nothing but a silly technicality – whomever won the popular vote became president, no one gave it a second thought.

I recall in December 1976 when David Brinkley jokingly announced during his nightly newscast that “today, America elected a president.” Reporting on the EC was considered a fluff piece, a man bites dog story lasting perhaps a minute or two.

During those years we perceived America to be a democracy, the people elected the president, one’s vote actually counted.

Until the 2000 General Election.

So, is the system at fault, or is the problem how the system has been corrupted and compromised?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Currently, but that wasn’t always the case.

For 112 years the EC was ignored as an anachronism, nothing but a silly technicality – whomever won the popular vote became president, no one gave it a second thought.

I recall in December 1976 when David Brinkley jokingly announced during his nightly newscast that “today, America elected a president.” Reporting on the EC was considered a fluff piece, a man bites dog story lasting perhaps a minute or two.

During those years we perceived America to be a democracy, the people elected the president, one’s vote actually counted.

Until the 2000 General Election.

So, is the system at fault, or is the problem how the system has been corrupted and compromised?

Well, I disagree. The system has an impact.

Three presidential elections before 2000 had a minority winner. 1824 United States presidential election - Wikipedia 1824 being the weirdest.

Also the system leads to negative voting. This means the EC isn't a joke, it changes how people vote.

 

[dblack]

Well, I disagree. The system has an impact.

Yes, it's supposed to.

Three presidential elections before 2000 had a minority winner. 1824 United States presidential election - Wikipedia 1824 being the weirdest.

I don't worship majority rule. We should strive, instead, for good government. Sometimes that means denying the will of the majority. That's OK.

Also the system leads to negative voting. This means the EC isn't a joke, it changes how people vote.

What are you calling "negative voting"?

 

[candycorn]

It's a great idea, actually. And the first party to do so will win in a landslide.

Ok…thanks for the chuckle.

 

[Indeependent]

Smerconish had a good discussion today about Ranked Choice Voting. I encourage you all to check out the on-demand section of xmradio.com and seek it out. Unlike the normal discussions, there were some new wrinkles introduced. I'm still a "no" on RCV but these latest wrinkles do give me a bit of pause on how it works on the ground vs. the letter of the law.

For those who don't know what it is, essentially, it is a way to eliminate runoff elections by having you vote for your candidate during a general election or a primary contest. Here is a diagram:
View attachment 692763

To me, it gives the 2nd and 3rd choice candidates too much pull. I like what we have. In Australia, however, they have a system to where the voters have to fill out preferences for all candidates on the ballot. Meaning that you have to rank everyone or your ballot gets tossed out. This changes the dynamic a bit because it speaks to the appeal of the candidate and forces the voter to actually consider the consequences of making your 2nd or 3rd choice a spoiler.

Open Borders, Global Slave Labor loving Smerconish...a true Establishment Republican scumbag.

 

[dblack]

Ok…thanks for the chuckle.

It's probably too hard for you to think about. Just keep chuckling instead.

 

[candycorn]

At the time of the Founding, the office of president wasn’t particularly important – equal to the other two branches of government, but otherwise unremarkable; in that context the Electoral College made sense.

That was before the advent of the Imperial Presidency, however – rendering the EC problematic, especially when someone becomes president contrary to the will of the majority of the voters.

It’s another example of how the system is perceived to be broken – or more precisely, how the system has been corrupted, where the solution is not to replace the system but to return it to a condition as originally intended by the Framers.

The problem with direct elections is that candidates would never leave the large cities to campaign in the hinterlands.

The other problem is that a winner could have like 25-30% of the vote if we have multiple strong parties

It's probably too hard for you to think about. Just keep chuckling instead.

Again, I invite you to look at the 2016 GOP field and tell us how RCV would have turned out a superior candidate.