Ranked Choice Voting on Smerconish Today

[dblack]

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

RCV would have produced a different flock of candidates.

RCV punishes divisive candidates and rewards those who seek consensus. You seem to think that's a bad thing. It's not.

 

[candycorn]

RCV would have produced a different flock of candidates.

Really? None or fewer of those guys who ran in 2016 would have run with RCV? Wow. Please explain.

See, RCV punishes divisive candidates. You seem to think that's a bad thing. It's not.

Another falsehood.

 

[candycorn]

Well?

 

[dblack]

Really? None or fewer of those guys who ran in 2016 would have run with RCV? Wow. Please explain.

Alright. I'll try, but I can't help but think it's futile.

You complained that using RCV in primaries might produce a candidate who received a lot of second place votes. That generally only happens when there are very divisive candidates running. Some people really won't like them and will rank them last. Candidates who aren't so divisive might not get the most first place votes, but they get a lot more second place votes, because they're not assholes. The end result will be a candidate more likely to win in the general.

You're fixating on the Republicans in 2016, so let's take that as an example. I didn't pay a lot of attention (I'm not a Republican) but I assume you'd agree with me that Trump was the worst of the lot. He may have received the most first place votes, but, with RCV, he'd also have received a lot of last place votes, effectively canceling them out. There were a lot of never-Trumpers back then, but - because they didn't use RCV - their support was spread out over other candidates.

With RCV, relatively sane candidates (like Kasich) would have had a distinct advantage. And that advantage would carry over into the general.

See, RCV punishes divisive candidates. You seem to think that's a bad thing. It's not.

Another falsehood.

Are you saying RCV doesn't punish divisive candidates? Or are you saying that avoiding divisive candidates is a bad thing?

 

[candycorn]

Alright. I'll try, but I can't help but think it's futile.

You complained that using RCV in primaries might produce a candidate who received a lot of second place votes. That generally only happens when there are very divisive candidates running. Some people really won't like them and will rank them last. Candidates who aren't so divisive might not get the most first place votes, but they get a lot more second place votes, because they're not assholes. The end result will be a candidate more likely to win in the general.

You're fixating on the Republicans in 2016, so let's take that as an example. I didn't pay a lot of attention (I'm not a Republican) but I assume you'd agree with me that Trump was the worst of the lot. He may have received the most first place votes, but he'd also received a lot of last place votes, canceling them out. With RCV, relatively sane candidates (like Kasich) would have a distinct advantage. And that advantage would carry over into the general.

You proved my thesis. Kasich’s only hope would be to get more 2nd place votes and that Trump didn’t get over 50% of the first place votes. Thanks.

So the whole thing about getting different candidates is false. You’d still have the same candidates but supposedly a different winner because he was fewer voters’ first choice but a greater number of voters’ second choice.

And how exactly does this get rid of the dynamic of “the lesser of two evils” in the General?

Are you saying RCV doesn't punish divisive candidates? Or are you saying that avoiding divisive candidates is a bad thing?

Divisive candidates are a bad thing. RCV may work fine in a scenario where the voters must rank every candidate on the ballot AND you have a jungle primary.

How it improves on our current system is still a pipe dream.

 

[dblack]

You proved my thesis. Kasich’s only hope would be to get more 2nd place votes and that Trump didn’t get over 50% of the first place votes. Thanks.

WTF are you talking about? Are you even trying to make sense? Or are you just mashing keys randomly?

And how exactly does this get rid of the dynamic of “the lesser of two evils” in the General?

We won't get rid of lesser-of-two-evils in the general until we user RCV there as well. But RCV in the primaries would produce candidates who were "less evil", so there's that.

Divisive candidates are a bad thing. RCV may work fine in a scenario where the voters must rank every candidate on the ballot AND you have a jungle primary.

I'm tempted to ask why. But you'd just post more horseshit talking points.

Your party leadership tells you RCV is bad. So stick with that. For fuck sake don't try to think. You suck at it.

 

[candycorn]

WTF are you talking about? Are you even trying to make sense? Or are you just mashing keys randomly?


We won't get rid of lesser-of-two-evils in the general until we user RCV there as well. But RCV in the primaries would produce candidates who were "less evil", so there's that.


I don't know what you mean by "jungle primary". Are you being racist?



Your party leadership tells you RCV is bad. So stick with that. For fuck sake don't try to think. You suck at it.

Civil discussion is wasted on you. Goodbye

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

But for 112 years the system worked – until corrupted and compromised.

And it’s not that the EC is a joke, it’s that it was perceived as an anachronism, rarely mentioned or considered – until 2000 with the Supreme Court’s unwarranted, partisan interference in a process the sole purview of the states and the people of the states.

 

[dblack]

Civil discussion is wasted on you. Goodbye

Fan-fucking-tastic. Don't let the door hit you in the ass.

 

[frigidweirdo]

But for 112 years the system worked – until corrupted and compromised.

And it’s not that the EC is a joke, it’s that it was perceived as an anachronism, rarely mentioned or considered – until 2000 with the Supreme Court’s unwarranted, partisan interference in a process the sole purview of the states and the people of the states.

"worked", in what way did it "work"?
I mean, the Hong Kong system "works", it has some people voting and you end up with a leader at the end of it.

Maybe it was perceived to work because it was better than a dictatorship or a monarchy with little to not choice at all.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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

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

The problem is that citizens’ rights and protected liberties have become the spoils of political war – contrary to the original intent of the Framers; where our rights and protected liberties are no longer protected.

This is the consequence of the Imperial Presidency, and the political lust to control that inexhaustible unwarranted power – destroying the right’s of citizens in the process.

 

[dblack]

Partisans agree:

Both parties oppose November’s ranked-choice ballot initiative

Republicans and Democrats both oppose the ranked-choice ballot initiative. The group behind a proposed constitutional amendment takes that as a good sign.

www.reviewjournal.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"worked", in what way did it "work"?
I mean, the Hong Kong system "works", it has some people voting and you end up with a leader at the end of it.

Maybe it was perceived to work because it was better than a dictatorship or a monarchy with little to not choice at all.

It worked in that the candidate who won the popular vote likewise won the EC vote and became president, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

And although it may have only been perception on the part of the voters, they nonetheless believed in the process and participated.

That’s not the case today – this thread is evidence of that.

Again, the problem isn’t the EC – the problem is an Imperial Presidency and its virtually unlimited power and how obtaining that unlimited power has corrupted the process.

This was not the intent of the Framers.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It worked in that the candidate who won the popular vote likewise won the EC vote and became president, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

And although it may have only been perception on the part of the voters, they nonetheless believed in the process and participated.

That’s not the case today – this thread is evidence of that.

Again, the problem isn’t the EC – the problem is an Imperial Presidency and its virtually unlimited power and how obtaining that unlimited power has corrupted the process.

This was not the intent of the Framers.

The thing is, is the person who wins the popular vote, the person people actually wanted?
1852 was the last time the Democrats and Republicans didn't come first and second. (there was 1912 when Republican Theodore Roosevelt ran as a progressive, but really was an offshoot Republican party splitting the vote, losing the Republicans the presidency, as Taft and Roosevelt got more votes than Wilson, but a lot less EC votes.)

I happen to think that people end up voting negatively to stop someone winning, rather than voting for someone.
In Germany we can see that in 2017 the CDU/CSU gained 37.2% of the vote, but 77% of the seats with their FPTP system. Why? Because the CDU/CSU was winning constituencies with a few percentage more than other parties... when it came to Proportional Representation they lost 5% of the voters, and their seat percentage went way down.

When you have only two parties, which has become the norm in the US, people don't have choice and the system stops "working".

Let's work backwards.

2020 = 1.18% for the third party
1980 = 6.6% for the "third party"
1940 = 0.23% for the third party
1900 = 1.51% for the third party
1860 = 29.5% for the third party
Something changed in the 1800s. For the last 120 years, the system hasn't worked at all.

 

[candycorn]

It worked in that the candidate who won the popular vote likewise won the EC vote and became president, reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

And although it may have only been perception on the part of the voters, they nonetheless believed in the process and participated.

That’s not the case today – this thread is evidence of that.

Again, the problem isn’t the EC – the problem is an Imperial Presidency and its virtually unlimited power and how obtaining that unlimited power has corrupted the process.

This was not the intent of the Framers.

The imperial presidency is a problem. It's not the scope of this thread however. Neither is the EC although it is adjacent.

Ranked Choice voting is interesting. But the system we have has served the nation well for a couple of centuries now. I don't see a need to change on the national level.

 

[dblack]

The imperial presidency is a problem. It's not the scope of this thread however. Neither is the EC although it is adjacent.

Ranked Choice voting is interesting. But the system we have has served the nation well for a couple of centuries now. I don't see a need to change on the national level.

I don't see how anyone can look at the idiots we elect and conclude there's no change needed.

 

[candycorn]

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.

What is AV?

I'm telling you the current system doesn't work fine.

Based on what?

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.

Well...that is the essence of voting. Except for the Presidency, the person who gets the most votes, wins. The people are the ones voting. Unlike your examples above; we don't have party officials doing the voting

So, this is the topic.

The current FPTP system is a disaster.

Not sure what FPTP is or why you think it is a disaster.

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

Well, I'll present you with the same scenario.

Lets say that Trump goes independent and you end up with:

Biden
DeSantis
Trump

In the conventional system, what would likely happen is that Biden would win as DeSantis and Trump split the votes from the right wing.

In a Ranked Choice Voting scenario, Either Desantis or Trump would win because they would likely get more "second choice" votes than Biden.
Politics aside, the person who is more people's second choice becomes the victor. This is my problem with RCV. I think that the person who gets the most votes should win.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What is AV?

Based on what?

Well...that is the essence of voting. Except for the Presidency, the person who gets the most votes, wins. The people are the ones voting. Unlike your examples above; we don't have party officials doing the voting

Not sure what FPTP is or why you think it is a disaster.

Well, I'll present you with the same scenario.

Lets say that Trump goes independent and you end up with:

Biden
DeSantis
Trump

In the conventional system, what would likely happen is that Biden would win as DeSantis and Trump split the votes from the right wing.

In a Ranked Choice Voting scenario, Either Desantis or Trump would win because they would likely get more "second choice" votes than Biden.
Politics aside, the person who is more people's second choice becomes the victor. This is my problem with RCV. I think that the person who gets the most votes should win.

AV is alternative voting. Or Japanese porn.

You vote for one, and then vote for an alternative. Same as Ranked Choice with potentially the difference being you do 1 and 2, not 1,2,3,4,5,6

Okay, based on my own observations.

1) The German federal elections.
They use both FPTP (current US system) and proportional representation (PR) at the same time.

2017 German federal election - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

2017 was a good example.

The CDU/CSU, Merkel's party, 37.27% of the vote but 77% of the constituency seats (211 out of 299 seats)

That isn't the "will of the people". That's the system deciding who gets to win.

You can see that the SPD also does better, the traditional left wing party (current leaders from 2021 onwards).
The smaller parties get screwed.

The FDP, center right, get 7% of the vote, and no seats, because they couldn't get more votes than any other party in any constituency. But with PR they got 10.75% of the vote, and increase of 3.75% or 50% more and 80 seats. That's fair.

Literally the larger parties get more votes with FPTP because people feel they only have two choices, and often they'll vote negatively, voting AGAINST the party they don't like.

With PR they vote positively, voting for the party they like because they know their vote actually counts.

Also in Germany they have 6 viable political parties, because they have a 5% run off. (you need 5% of the PR vote to get PR seats). In Denmark it's 2% and they have 10 viable political parties.

Take a look at the US presidential election. The state with the most votes for Trump gave Trump no EC votes. They were totally disenfranchised. Two presidents out of the last four (both Republican) won with a minority of the vote too. That's awful.

With FPTP at House level you have gerrymandering like crazy.

In North Carolina in 2018, the Reps got 50.39% of the vote. Dems got 48.35% of the vote.

Reps got 75% of the seats, Dems got 25% (9-3) because the Reps control the state, so they control the districting, so they control who gets their seats at a national level.

 

[dblack]

Not sure what FPTP is or why you think it is a disaster.

FPTP is "first past the post" - it refers to plurality, single-round voting where whoever gets the most votes in the first tally wins (what we have now). That means someone can win with are a relatively small minority of the voter's support. A good example is the 2016 Republican primaries. Trump was only getting 20-25% support from Republicans. And most of those who didn't support him hated him - would have ranked him last in RCV. He would have lost momentum in the early rounds and never won the nomination.

AV is Approval Voting, another alternative voting system that lets people vote against candidates they find unacceptable. With AV you get and up or down vote on every candidate. It's another way to prevent candidates from winning when a majority over voters don't actually support them.

The main improvement, in both systems, is that we avoid the circumstance where unpopular candidates win simply because the opposition's voters were split among several candidates. It does away with the 'spoiler effect' when third party candidates run.

In the conventional system, what would likely happen is that Biden would win as DeSantis and Trump split the votes from the right wing. In a Ranked Choice Voting scenario, Either Desantis or Trump would win because they would likely get more "second choice" votes than Biden.

Apart from the fact that you probably hate DeSantis and Trump, why is that a bad thing? Why should a Democrat win if the majority of voters prefer a Republican?

Politics aside, the person who is more people's second choice becomes the victor. This is my problem with RCV.'

Again, why is that a problem? Why should a candidate whom the majority of voters find unacceptable win??

I think that the person who gets the most votes should win.

Why? Apart from your simplistic language and perspective, apart from your short-sighted, partisan interests, why is it a good thing that assholes, who the majority of voters don't want, win? Wouldn't it be better to have leaders who have real consensus support of the nation, even if they don't cater to more radical ambitions?

 

[lennypartiv]

Of course Democrats loved it, it helped them beat Sarah Palan.