Election Reform and the Spoiler Effect

[Independent thinker]

RCV is back on the ballot in Alaska, there is a good chance they will scrap it even though the effort to keep it is spending 100-1 in the campaign.

It's effect has been to split the republican votes and hand the election to the democrats.

Exactly, RCV is just a con to bring on one party rule.

 

[dblack]

Exactly, RCV is just a con to bring on one party rule.

What? Which party? Where do you come up with this shit?

 

[Independent thinker]

Imagine telling Bezos that he’s been running Amazon all wrong…do you realize how silly that sounds?

This seems to be a common problem with the left. They say all of these super rich business persons are running their companies all wrong.

 

[Independent thinker]

Yes please.

What exactly is the flaw with ranked-choice voting? Can someone please explain?

I explain it in post #32

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No. They didn't. Many of those conservatives preferred the Democrat to Palin. That's why she lost.

If they did not have that choice, the Democrat would have won fair and square, and most likely would have had a majority, which they did not under RCV. You really have not taken a serious look at the failures inherent to the system, have you?

 

[para bellum]

Because the spoiler concept is a flaw in plurality voting, not a "feature".

I have no problem accepting the winner of a plurality as the legitimate winner in a general election.

 

[dblack]

If they did not have that choice, the Democrat would have won fair and square, and most likely would have had a plurality, which they did not under RCV. You really have not taken a serious look at the failures inherent to the system, have you?

You really have not take a serious look at how RCV works at all, have you?

 

[Independent thinker]

The fact that you can't get it through your head just goes to show that your political convictions have nothing to do with any principles, and are only based on contrarianism. You're just predisposed to wanting whatever is not currently the case.

RCV is a simple concept for the simple minded, those who really don't want to think it through.

 

[dblack]

I have no problem accepting the winner of a plurality as the legitimate winner in a general election.

So, if a candidate gets 40% of the vote, and 60% of the voters don't support them - you think they should win? Why?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

What? Which party? Where do you come up with this shit?

If the Democrats had put up 3 other liberal candidates, they likely would have lost for certain, just based on numbers.

 

[dblack]

Yes please.

What exactly is the flaw with ranked-choice voting? Can someone please explain?

The flaw of with ranked choice voting is that it threatens two party dominance. That's all this is about. They want a captive audience.

 

[dblack]

If the Democrats had put up 3 other liberal candidates, they likely would have lost for certain, just based on numbers.

Good God you really don't understand it. It just doesn't work that way. It's hard to argue with your ignorance. You need to educate yourself.

 

[Independent thinker]

The main thing is, we must preserve the status quo. The two party system is working really well for the two parties. Kumbaya!

I don't like the two parties either and would love to have some relevant third parties challenge them. But RCV is not the answer. I'm not against runoff elections and laws limiting the power of the two parties, but, in order to change those laws, the duopoly would have to change them. And, I'm for keeping the electoral vote system but changing the 270 to win scenario for any relevant third party. But, I mean relevant third party, not a party that gets 5% of the vote. That's not relevant.

 

[Independent thinker]

What do you think went wrong with the current system we’ve used for decades and why did it go wrong?
Obviously you believe RCV will allow new parties to emerge, what differentiates these new parties from the duopoly? What policies do these new parties sell that are desirable, viable, sustainable and distinct?

RCV is just a con to bring on ONE PARTY rule so eventually there would only be one party and not even two.

 

[dblack]

RCV is just a con to bring on ONE PARTY rule so eventually there would only be one party and not even two.

Which party? Again, where do you come with this??

 

[dblack]

I don't like the two parties either and would love to have some relevant third parties challenge them. But RCV is not the answer. I'm not against runoff elections and laws limiting the power of the two parties, but, in order to change those laws, the duopoly would have to change them. And, I'm for keeping the electoral vote system but changing the 270 to win scenario for any relevant third party. But, I mean relevant third party, not a party that gets 5% of the vote. That's not relevant.

I don't know why you want to condemn something you don't understand. But it seems to be par for the course around here.

 

[Independent thinker]

I think I explained most of that in the OP. This isn't about any specific parties. It's about eliminate lesser-of-two-evils voting. I think it's poison.

First, let's take all the parties running today. Trump, Harris, Cornell West, Jill Stein, Chase Oliver, and we'll even include RFK Jr. That's six people. Wouldn't having one of those six win the presidency just be a choice of the lesser of six evils?

Second, RCV would still mean either Harris or Trump wins if you want to accept the reality.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Lurking at the heart of our extreme political dysfunction is a fundamentally flawed election process. The way we currently vote, everyone picks their favorite candidate, and whoever gets the most votes wins. This is called "plurality voting". Sometimes referred to as "first past the post" voting.

It sounds reasonable enough, and if there are only two candidates running it kind of works. But it breaks down when there are more than two candidates. It creates a situation where a candidate can win, even though a majority of the voters don't like them. This problem is called the "spoiler effect". And it happens fairly often.

One good example is the 1992 US Presidential Election. In that election there were three high-profile candidates. Bush Sr., Bill Clinton and Ross Perot. Conservative votes were split between Bush Sr.(37.4%) and Perot(18.9%). Bill Clinton won the election with only 43% of the vote - even though the majority of voters would have preferred a conservative President.

It happened again in 2000 when the liberal vote was split between Gore and Nader. Most Nader voters would have chosen Gore over Bush - Gore would have likely won if not for Nader being in the race.

The problem with the spoiler effect is broader than just electing the wrong candidate. To win, the major parties must discourage any like minded candidates from running in the same race. That's why the two major parties viciously attack third party candidates, even when they mostly agree with them - especially when they mostly agree with them. They actually encourage third party candidates that they disagree with, because that will split the vote of the other side. It's a backassward mess that causes a lot of unnecessary acrimony.

One way around the spoiler effect is requiring the winner to have at least 50% of the vote. Some states have implemented this (eg Georgia). The idea is that if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote in the election, the "spoilers" are eliminated from the ballot, and everyone votes again in a runoff election. With only two candidates left, it's a certainty that one of them will get 50% of the vote.

But these runoff elections are expensive, time consuming (we might not know the results for weeks or months) and suffer from "voter fatigue" - the turnout for the runoffs is generally much lower than the initial vote. They also exclude third or fourth place vote-getters, who might have actually been the consensus winner if they'd eliminated the "spoilers" one at a time, instead of all at once.

So runoffs neutralize the spoiler effect, but most states have decided they aren't affordable and not worth the extra trouble.

This is the problem that vote-ranking systems solve. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) or Ranked Choice Voting(RCV), lets voters rank the candidates in order of their preference. Essentially, the are casting their votes in potential runoff elections when they first go to the polls. You can, for example, say "Nader is my favorite, but if he's not close, I'd rather have Gore than Bush. Or "Perot is my favorite, but if he doesn't get a majority, I'd rather my vote go to Bush than Clinton".

It's a subtle change, but it has some really nice benefits. First of all, the major parties no longer have incentive to attack third party candidates. Instead of alienating third party voters, the major parties will have incentive to make an honest appeal to them. It also does away with the lesser of two evils conceit. I you really think Harris and Trump both suck, you can give your first place vote to a candidate you do like, yet still have some say if, in the end, Harris and Trump are the only two left.

This kind of reform is happening all over the country - mostly at the grass roots, local level. People recognize the improvement and like having a more expressive vote. But the two entrenched parties have taken note, and are fighting it vigorously. Turns out they kind of like seeing us limited to two choices (as long as they are one of the choices). They claim that the ballot is too complicated and that voters are too stupid to rank the candidates. Or they suggest it's a plot by the other side to trick voters! They site case studies where their candidate didn't win - which of course means the system is bad. All of their complaints, that I've heard, fall apart on examination. Most of them don't even make sense because they don't understand how RCV works. They just know it will get rid of the lesser-of-two-evils fearmongering - and that's all they know.

I am OK with this

 

[para bellum]

So, if a candidate gets 40% of the vote, and 60% of the voters don't support them - you think they should win? Why?

Because the other 60% is split between other parties, so the party with the most votes won. Election over, try again next time...

 

[Independent thinker]

That's not what RCV is.

Sure it is.