Didn’t fence-sitters vote for Biden and all his shenanigans by not voting against it?

[BrokeLoser]

I do not see any way should could be worse than the two we have

That’s weird….ALL the legit, normal productive folks I know were smiling ear to ear under Trumps America.

 

[initforme]

Hmmm…it seems like just yesterday you said you’d never vote for a wealthy person.
Can we take you seriously this time?

Not doing a good job of convincing me I must vote for your choice.

 

[dblack]

It certainly does eliminate 3rd party candidates pretty quickly, but I'm not sure that''s entirely a good thing.

They're "eliminated" before they begin in a plurality voting scheme, because of fears of the spoiler effect. RCV does away with that, and we get an honest read on how many people prefer those candidates. That might merely mean that a minor party gets 10% of the the vote, rather than 1%, but still gets eliminated. Which might not sound like much, but it's huge from a fledgling party's perspective. 10% will give them momentum. 1% will give the two-party goons another opportunity to gloat (because their flawed system squelched the opposition, yay!). 10% will also give them more leverage and influence in the next election, where the majors will be looking for ways to attract these voters, who demonstrably preferred someone else.

The key to understanding ranked choice voting is that it's just another implementation of runoff elections. In most runoff schemes, the election is held as normal. But if no candidate gets an actual majority, the candidate(s) with the lowest vote totals are dropped from the ballot, and we vote again. Theoretically, this process continues until there are only two candidates left, in which case one of them WILL get a majority.

Ranked Choice Voting just lets us avoid the time and expense of multiple runoff elections. It allows voters to specify their votes for all potential runoffs at the same time. Your rankings are instructions to the vote counters telling them who gets your vote in various circumstances. This lets you rank your favorite candidate first, and your least favorite candidate last. That means that you can vote for a candidate who "can't win", to show your support, secure in the knowledge that if the last round really does boil down to the lesser of two evils (eg Trump vs Biden), your vote will go to the one you prefer.

 

[BrokeLoser]

They're "eliminated" before they begin in a plurality voting scheme, because of fears of the spoiler effect. RCV does away with that, and we get an honest read on how many people prefer those candidates. That might merely mean that a minor party gets 10% of the the vote, rather than 1%, but still gets eliminated. Which might not sound like much, but it's huge from a fledgling party's perspective. 10% will give them momentum. 1% will give the two-party goons another opportunity to gloat (because their flawed system squelched the opposition, yay!). 10% will also give them more leverage and influence in the next election, where the majors will be looking for ways to attract these voters, who demonstrably preferred someone else.

The key to understanding ranked choice voting is that it's just another implementation of runoff elections. In most runoff schemes, the election is held as normal. But if no candidate gets an actual majority, the candidate(s) with the lowest vote totals are dropped from the ballot, and we vote again. Theoretically, this process continues until there are only two candidates left, in which case one of them WILL get a majority.

Ranked Choice Voting just lets us avoid the time and expense of multiple runoff elections. It allows voters to specify their votes for all potential runoffs at the same time. Your rankings are instructions to the vote counters telling them who gets your vote in various circumstances. This lets you rank your favorite candidate first, and your least favorite candidate last. That means that you can vote for a candidate who "can't win", to show your support, secure in the knowledge that if the last round really does boil down to the lesser of two evils (eg Trump vs Biden), your vote will go to the one you prefer.

How/why are you so convinced the “system” is rigged? Could it be that LibLites and other third parties simply don’t have an offer with any appeal to the masses? Could it be that simple?

 

[Dragonlady]

They're "eliminated" before they begin in a plurality voting scheme, because of fears of the spoiler effect. RCV does away with that, and we get an honest read on how many people prefer those candidates. That might merely mean that they get 10% of the the vote, rather than 1%. Which might not sound like much, but it's huge from a fledgling party's perspective. 10% will give them momentum. 1% will give the two-party goons another opportunity to gloat (because their flawed system squelched the opposition, yay!). 10% will also give them more leverage and influence in the next election, where the majors will be looking for ways to attract these voters, who demonstrably preferred someone else.

The key to understanding ranked choice voting is that it's just another implementation of runoff elections. In most runoff schemes, the election is held as normal. But if no candidate gets an actual majority, the candidate(s) with the lowest vote totals are dropped from the ballot, and we vote again. Theoretically, this process continues until there are only two candidates left, in which case one of them WILL get a majority.

Ranked Choice Voting just lets us avoid the time and expense of multiple runoff elections. It allows voters to specify their votes for all potential runoffs at the same time. Your rankings are instructions to the vote counters telling them who gets your vote in various circumstances. This lets you rank your favorite candidate first, and your least favorite candidate last. That means that you can vote for a candidate who "can't win", to show your support, secure in the knowledge that if the last round really does boil down to the lesser of two evils (eg Trump vs Biden), your vote will go to the one you prefer.

In both of the elections I cited, the more centrist candidate ultimately won, which I don't consider a bad thing either. The former police chief in New York, was considered "right wing" by many Democrats, although I see him more as a centrist than a conservative.

We have 4 major parties, Liberal, Conservative, NDP (leftists), and Bloq Quebecois (Quebec Separatists). It's hard for Conservatives to get elected federally, because they have no party in Quebec. The NDP have never held the federal government but are frequently elected to head Provincial governments, Canadian Tradition is to not the same party in power both federally and provincially.

Some of our most successful and productive governments have been "minority governments", including this one. Lester B. Pearson never had a majority of seats as Prime Minister but he gave us the Canada Health Act, and considered one of the greatest PM's of all time. However, if a minority government propose legislation and it fails to pass, the government falls, and an election is called for 7 weeks time. Minority governments have to compromise and work well with others or they don't last.

Conservatives here are proposing "representative government" whereby you get the same proportion of seats, as your received in votes. If your party got 35% of the votes, it gets 35% of the seats, which would have given Conservatives more seats in recent elections. That to me sounds a like quick way to arrive at a "tyranny of the majority".

 

[Harry Dresden]

How/why are you so convinced the “system” is rigged? Could it be that LibLites and other third parties simply don’t have an offer with any appeal to the masses? Could it be that simple?

what does trump offer the masses?....

 

[Dragonlady]

How/why are you so convinced the “system” is rigged? Could it be that LibLites and other third parties simply don’t have an offer with any appeal to the masses? Could it be that simple?

You simply have to look at how Donald Trump seized control of the Republican Party, after winning just 44% of the popular vote in the primaries, in 2016. And was only getting 50% of the primary votes before be pushed everybody else out of the primaries in 2024.

 

[BrokeLoser]

You simply have to look at how Donald Trump seized control of the Republican Party, after winning just 44% of the popular vote in the primaries, in 2016. And was only getting 50% of the primary votes before be pushed everybody else out of the primaries in 2024.

There is no such thing as a popular vote, that is made up Lib speak, nobody is campaigning to win a popular vote in an electoral system… No legitimate republican can ever win Loon York or Mexifornia.

 

[BrokeLoser]

what does trump offer the masses?....

America first policies
Fewer wetbacks
Lower taxes
Energy independence
Law and order
Foreign policy/Command of the world
Protection of Constitutional Rights
Nationalism
Patriotism
Traditionalism
The preservation & protection of American culture

You know…all the things the crypt keeper doesn’t offer.

 

[dblack]

How/why are you so convinced the “system” is rigged?

I never said it was rigged. But the spoiler effect is a major flaw of simple, first-past-the-post voting systems. It encourages lesser-of-two-evils. I realize it's a flaw that you actually like; fear mongering is the only way your douchebags can win elections. But it distorts what voters actually value and creates entrenched parties (Ds and Rs).

Could it be that LibLites and other third parties simply don’t have an offer with any appeal to the masses? Could it be that simple?

It could be. If we went to something like RCV we'd find out. That's really the whole point.

 

[dblack]

In both of the elections I cited, the more centrist candidate ultimately won, which I don't consider a bad thing either. The former police chief in New York, was considered "right wing" by many Democrats, although I see him more as a centrist than a conservative.

They key is, regardless of how a candidate leans on the left/right scale, divisive candidates won't do as well under RCV. Less divisive candidates (I won't say centrist, because candidates can be right or left without being utterly offensive to the other side), will do better because they're more likely to get ranked in the middle than at the bottom.

For example, a candidate like Reagan (arguably further "right" than Trump), would do pretty well under RCV because he had actual leadership ability and could make the case for conservatism without inspiring abject hatred from those who disagreed. Whereas Trump might be popular with his base, but most people who don't like him would rank him dead last. Under RCV, those second and third place rankings can really lift up a candidate and improve their chances. They have a strong incentive to not alienate half the country.

That's a huge win in my view.

 

[GMCGeneral]

You refuse to consider ANY candidate who isn't a white man. You have no credibility.

I refuse to consider anyone who is a far Left whackjob.like you.

 

[GMCGeneral]

They key is, regardless of how a candidate leans on the left/right scale, divisive candidates won't do as well under RCV. Less divisive candidates (I won't say centrist, because candidates can be right or left without being utterly offensive to the other side), will do better because they're more likely to get ranked in the middle than at the bottom.

For example, a candidate like Reagan (arguably further "right" than Trump), would do pretty well under RCV because he had actual leadership ability and could make the case for conservatism without inspiring abject hatred from those who disagreed. Whereas Trump might be popular with his base, but most people who don't like him would rank him dead last. Under RCV, those second and third place rankings can really lift up a candidate and improve their chances. They have a strong incentive to not alienate half the country.

That's a huge win in my view.

What if that half is the enemy?

 

[dblack]

What if that half is the enemy?

I don't play the "enemy" game. That's a sickness. If you insist on seeing your fellow citizens as the enemy, why are you screwing around with voting?

 

[GMCGeneral]

I don't play the "enemy" game. That's a sickness. If you insist on seeing your fellow citizens as the enemy, why are you screwing around with voting?

Not a sickness when we see all too well how the Left is systematically destroying the US. This is why they need to be stopped at all costs.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Not a sickness when we see all too well how the Left is systematically destroying the US. This is why they need to be stopped at all costs.

Don’t waste your time…These fence-sitters here take great pride in fucking themselves, their wives and kids over…CUZ FREEDOMS, conscience and integrity and all that loony ass shit.
Harpy Eagle
Harry Dresden
dblack
buttercup

 

[Harpy Eagle]

CUZ FREEDOMS, conscience and integrity and all that loony ass shit.

Yep, all those things are loony to you, I am glad you are so open about it

 

[BrokeLoser]

Yep, all those things are loony to you, I am glad you are so open about it

Oh you’ve made it crystal clear… none of that shit means anything to you, if it did you’d vote for your best available option. Instead you vote for Mickey Mouse

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Oh you’ve made it crystal clear… none of that shit means anything to you, if it did you’d vote for your best available option. Instead you vote for Mickey Mouse

Little late now, you just called all those things looney, that is there for all to see

 

[buttercup]

Yep, all those things are loony to you, I am glad you are so open about it

It's sig-worthy. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be that vile and stupid at the same time, but apparently it is. I can think of a few people on this site who come close, but he wins the prize.