Election Reform and the Spoiler Effect

[XponentialChaos]

I already explained it multiple times.

No, you actually haven’t.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you say so. A drone is a drone. Try thinking for yourself. You might like it.

Why? Thinking for yourself has obviously failed you because you come to wrong conclusions.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

That's not evidence. Just opinions. Notably ill-informed opinions for the most part.

I guess you don't believe in consensus.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Only if you assume that all of the Begich voters would have voted Republican if Palin were the candidate. Their rankings prove otherwise.

Yes. You do. Begich was the only candidate eliminated in that round.

That has no bearing on the Begich votes and who their second choice was. The fact is 7460 of them preferred Peltola over Palin. And that was enough to give Peltola a majority, and the win.

She did not have a majority, only a plurality. In any other race, that would require a runoff.

 

[dblack]

Still a “no” on ranked choice voting the way you describe it. For one thing, it’s possible for nearly everyone’s 2nd choice to get elected.

Lets say that the election isn’t for President but something benign...baseball teams.

Vote for the best baseball club...

3 candidates.
Yankees
Dodgers
Savannah Bananas (google them).

All 3 teams are on the ballot. Voting begins. The most voters will put either the Yanks or the Dodgers 1 and the other 3 with the SB’s #2 and some of the folks will vote for the SB’s #1.If neither the Yanks or the Dodgers get 50%, the SB’s will likely win the election eventhough they are clearly not the best baseball club.

What makes you say that they are "clearly not the best ballclub"? The only way the Bananas can win is if a majority of voters think they are better than the Yankees AND a majority of voters think they are better than the Dodgers. That's a consensus. That's a good thing.

The whole point of ranked choice voting is to avoid situations where the majority of the country opposes its leadership. In your example, if either the Yankees or the Dodgers were declared the best, more than half the voters would disagree. More than half the voters thought the Bananas were better. That's not such a big deal with a baseball team, but it's a bad idea for a government. It's unstable and guarantees most voters will be dissatisfied with their leaders.

 

[dblack]

I think it is a very small percentage.

Also, what do you do with states where the candidate pools are different due to either desire of the candidates or if they don’t qualify. RFK couldn’t make it on the ballot in many states.

Huh?

It can put you back into the “spoiler” scenario. Lets say that you have a very popular governor...like Jeb Bush was or like George W. Bush was in Texas and a national candidate like the blob. Does either one run for President in Florida or Texas to simply be a spoiler to Trump?

I'm not following this at all.

 

[dblack]

She did not have a majority, only a plurality. In any other race, that would require a runoff.

There was a runoff. And in that runoff Peltola got the majority of the votes. That's what each step of ranked choice voting IS, a runoff. At each step, if no candidate gets a majority, the candidates with the lowest vote totals are dropped from the ballot and a runoff is counted using the voters rankings. When Begich was eliminated, many of his voters chose Peltola over Palin. Enough to give her the majority.

Republicans seem to be fixating on the fact that more voters voted for a Republican in the first round. And therefore, they say, Republicans should win the election. But voters don't vote for parties, they vote for candidates. You are assuming all the Belich voters would have voted for Palin if she were the only Republican running. But the rankings clearly show that was not the case.

The majority of the voters thought Peltola was better than Palin. That's why she won and Palin lost.

 

[Mac1958]

The opponents of RCV are just fine with the status quo: Tribalism. Even though it's killing us.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I think it is a very small percentage.

Also, what do you do with states where the candidate pools are different due to either desire of the candidates or if they don’t qualify. RFK couldn’t make it on the ballot in many states.

It can put you back into the “spoiler” scenario. Lets say that you have a very popular governor...like Jeb Bush was or like George W. Bush was in Texas and a national candidate like the blob. Does either one run for President in Florida or Texas to simply be a spoiler to Trump?

I think it’s larger than just a very small percentage. Many people are not thrilled with their candidates and are primarily concerned with voting against the other candidate.

The national scale does raise some legitimate issues that would need to be ironed out. RFK is a good example of that. Ideally, if RCV is implemented appropriately at the national level, there shouldn’t be any issue with RFK’s electability. If he’s not on the ballot in multiple states then he ultimately can’t win. He gets knocked out, and any votes for him can be re-distributed to the voter’s secondary choice. Then the results are re-calculated until someone gets more than 50%. Same with Jeb. Low candidate gets knocked out and votes get re-distributed. No spoiler effect.

With that said, that would be a big picture goal. Short term, I’d love to see more RCV at the local and state level.

 

[candycorn]

I think it’s larger than just a very small percentage. Many people are not thrilled with their candidates and are primarily concerned with voting against the other candidate.

The national scale does raise some legitimate issues that would need to be ironed out. RFK is a good example of that. Ideally, if RCV is implemented appropriately at the national level, there shouldn’t be any issue with RFK’s electability. If he’s not on the ballot in multiple states then he ultimately can’t win. He gets knocked out, and any votes for him can be re-distributed to the voter’s secondary choice. Then the results are re-calculated until someone gets more than 50%. Same with Jeb. Low candidate gets knocked out and votes get re-distributed. No spoiler effect.

With that said, that would be a big picture goal. Short term, I’d love to see more RCV at the local and state level.

Well, if you’re talking about marrying RCV with getting rid of the Electoral college, I understand that. I was operating on the assumtion that RCV would allocate the electoral votes.

My bad.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Well, if you’re talking about marrying RCV with getting rid of the Electoral college, I understand that. I was operating on the assumtion that RCV would allocate the electoral votes.

My bad.

I think the electoral college and RCV could go together fine with a little coordination between the states, which is asking way too much at this time.

Baby steps.

 

[candycorn]

I think the electoral college and RCV could go together fine with a little coordination between the states, which is asking way too much at this time.

Baby steps.

We’ve had our system for 200+ years with the popular vote determining the electoral collge receipents by each state. I think we’re fine the way it is. If anything, we should just make it to where the president elect has to get both 270 and a plurality of the popular vote. There is no reason not to allow the voters a hand in picking the President. The way it is now, if your candidate doesn’t win your state, you may as well not have voted for President.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Lets say that the election isn’t for President but something benign...baseball teams.

Vote for the best baseball club...

3 candidates.
Yankees
Dodgers
Savannah Bananas (google them).

All 3 teams are on the ballot. Voting begins. The most voters will put either the Yanks or the Dodgers 1 and the other 3 with the SB’s #2 and some of the folks will vote for the SB’s #1. If neither the Yanks or the Dodgers get 50%, the SB’s will likely win the election eventhough they are clearly not the best baseball club.

If most people are voting for the Yankees or Dodgers, then the Savannah Bananas would have the least amount of first place votes, which would make them the first team eliminated from the running. Their votes would be re-allocated to whichever 2nd place team the Savannah Banana voters selected.

So, no, the SB’s wouldn’t win based on what you’re saying.

 

[candycorn]

If most people are voting for the Yankees or Dodgers, then the Savannah Bananas would have the least amount of first place votes, which would make them the first team eliminated from the running. Their votes would be re-allocated to whichever 2nd place team the Savannah Banana voters selected.

So, no, the SB’s wouldn’t win based on what you’re saying.

Mmm-hmm...so the voters of the SB’s 2nd choice determine who wins then, right?

 

[XponentialChaos]

We’ve had our system for 200+ years with the popular vote determining the electoral collge receipents by each state. I think we’re fine the way it is. If anything, we should just make it to where the president elect has to get both 270 and a plurality of the popular vote. There is no reason not to allow the voters a hand in picking the President. The way it is now, if your candidate doesn’t win your state, you may as well not have voted for President.

We’ve gone from George Washington to Donald Trump in that time span. I don’t think that’s fine.

We’re getting more divided and our candidates are getting worse. The people in solid blue or solid red states have almost no reason to even show up to vote, so their voices aren’t being heard.

Other than that, sure, it’s great at selecting a winner.

The fact that it has been around for a long time doesn’t make it good. We could also just eliminate the vote entirely and have a king rule over us lowly peasants, which has been done for a lot longer than 200 years, but I don’t think that’s a good idea either.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Mmm-hmm...so the voters of the SB’s 2nd choice determine who wins then, right?

Potentially, if the Dodgers and Yankees are that close in vote totals.

But the SB’s won’t win, contrary to what you said.

 

[SweetSue92]

The opponents of RCV are just fine with the status quo: Tribalism. Even though it's killing us.

From the poster who is NEVER, and I mean EVER, tribalistic

 

[candycorn]

Potentially, if the Dodgers and Yankees are that close in vote totals.

But the SB’s won’t win, contrary to what you said.

I understand what you’re saying. Again, my bad.

 

[candycorn]

The opponents of RCV are just fine with the status quo: Tribalism. Even though it's killing us.

Well, we’ve had the system we’ve had for 200+ years. It has delivered the greatest civilization ever in terms of standard of living, benefit to mankind, advanced citizenry etc.... Full stop. We have our issues as all societies do.

We’re a divided nation at this point to where the extremes on the spectrum are closer to one another in tems of net result than the sensible center. Is that a reason to change what has served us for so well and for so long? I don’t think so. But I would like to see the president elect have to get a plurality of the popular vote as well as winning the electoral vote. The majority of voters should have their wishes honored.

 

[JoeB131]

Do you have any evidence that Jeb cheated in Florida? You guys say all the time that Trump says, without evidence, that the election was stolen. Where is your evidence?

Yes, we have lots of evidence Jeb Cheated in Florida,

From expunging tens of thousands of eligible voters to blocking recounts that would have given the election to Gore.