Election Reform and the Spoiler Effect

[dblack]

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?

No. You don't seem to understand the lesser-of-two-evils concept.

 

[Independent thinker]

You simply can't post without snide insults. Go fuck yourself.

LOL. Is that not a snide insult?

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I care about Electios being effective and fair.

Not this kind of dogshit clusterfuck that Alaskans are going to trash at the first opportunity.

Then you’re pro voter ID and anti mail in ballots?

 

[dblack]

LOL. Is that not a snide insult?

Indeed it is. Eventually, I respond in kind.

 

[Independent thinker]

That's not a coincidence. Both parties care more about their own success than the preferences of voters.

You're problem is in thinking that Cornell West, Jill Stein, Chase Oliver, or RFK Jr. would be better. They are all getting less than 2% of the vote because 98% of the country know that they would NOT be better.

 

[Independent thinker]

Meh. RCV is too complicated.

Runoffs are simple. Voters understand them.

I'm in favor or runoffs and I would also be in favor of keeping the electoral college but changing the 270 to win thing if there was a relevant challenger. Rules would also have to be changed so that the House and the Senate never determine the President and VP as the result of an election, which is basically allowing for runoff elections. You continue letting the voters decide until there is a winner, not the duopoly.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I explain it in post #32

Thank you.

“I read an article that the wealthy sell us on RCV because it favors them. It's also a way to establish one party rule, which is why mostly the left favor it.”

1) Can you please explain in your own words how ranked-choice voting favors the wealthy.

2) Can you please explain in your own words how it establishes one-party rule.

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.

That seems to be what this is about.

I don’t know how anyone can be this adamantly against ranked-choice voting considering it’s not even a partisan issue.

Hopefully someone will be able to articulate their opposition to this because I’m honestly baffled by it.

 

[para bellum]

I'm in favor or runoffs and I would also be in favor of keeping the electoral college but changing the 270 to win thing if there was a relevant challenger. Rules would also have to be changed so that the House and the Senate never determine the President and VP as the result of an election, which is basically allowing for runoff elections. You continue letting the voters decide until there is a winner, not the duopoly.

Runoffs are fine in States because States have direct elections and popular vote is the only thing that matters. Some States want the winner to have a majority, so they have runoffs when no one has more than 50%.

The Presidential election is a different animal and the EC serves to protect the interests of less populous States. If you have a better system, put forth your Amendment I guess, because that's what it will take.

I wouldn't mind allocating electors by Congressional District, but that's not a change to the EC, it's just telling States to better reflect the will of their electorate.

 

[XponentialChaos]

At first I thought my computer was broke, JoeB131 and me agree on something, lol.

Alaskans are experiencing buyer's remorse. RCV will fall.

Why would there be buyer’s remorse if that’s how they ranked their candidates?

 

[para bellum]

Why would there be buyer’s remorse if that’s how they ranked their candidates?

Are you showing up late to the game?

 

[BrokeLoser]

RCV is bad, mkay?

Democrats beg ignorant people to vote, lots of ignorant people vote, RCV is too complicated for ignorant voters. Ignorant people don’t conduct research of their primary ‘choice’, do you really see them digging-down on secondary choices?

 

[dblack]

Democrats beg ignorant people to vote, lots of ignorant people vote, RCV is too complicated for ignorant voters. Ignorant people don’t conduct research of their primary ‘choice’, do you really see them digging-down on secondary choices?

The concern over people failing to rank all the candidates is completely specious. If a voter does that, their vote counts exactly as it does now. Our current system only allows us to pick one candidate. So they are no worse off.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

The concern over people failing to rank all the candidates is completely specious. If a voter does that, their vote counts exactly as it does now. Our current system only allows us to pick one candidate. So they are no worse off.

I think it makes sense but unlikely it will ever be implemented

 

[dblack]

I think it makes sense but unlikely it will ever be implemented

It's already happening. There's been a lot of success at the state and local level. But now that entrenched two parties are starting to notice, they're combining forces to squash it. We'll see how it goes.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It's already happening. There's been a lot of success at the state and local level. But now that the two parties are starting to notice, they're combining forces to squash it. We'll see how it goes.

I think our bigger problem is the media. We no longer have news but instead we have news entertainment. The only close to a fair source is the WSJ as they voice both opinions. If that isn’t fixed then the elections will forever be flawed as many voters aren’t as informed as they need to be.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Are you showing up late to the game?

How so?

The way they ranked their candidates is how the vote was carried out. If the Democrat winning was their least preferred option, then they would have been indicated in their ranking .

 

[Independent thinker]

Thank you.

“I read an article that the wealthy sell us on RCV because it favors them. It's also a way to establish one party rule, which is why mostly the left favor it.”

1) Can you please explain in your own words how ranked-choice voting favors the wealthy.

2) Can you please explain in your own words how it establishes one-party rule.

1. I gave you a link to explain why RCV favors the wealthy. They can explain it far better than I can.

I'll give you a break on question 2 since I'm not sure if any of my links addressed that. National RCV probably doesn't affect national elections in a direct way. However, in an indirect way, if a state (I'll pick on California) has RCV then one party (democrats) can put two candidates up against one for the other party (Republicans) and then in the general election California could then have an election to see which of the two democrats California would vote for for either House and Senate seats, which indirectly and unfairly affects federal elections and could turn a state such as California into a completely blue state, including governorships where the choice is a democrat up against a democrat with no Republicans to even choose from. This could happen in any states, red or blue, which comes back to where I said RCV is just a con to put forth one party rule.

 

[para bellum]

How so?

The way they ranked their candidates is how the vote was carried out. If the Democrat winning was their least preferred option, then they would have been indicated in their ranking .

They had never voted with that system before. A lot of people only voted for one candidate. They didn't rank their ballot at all.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'll give you a break on question 2 since I'm not sure if any of my links addressed that. National RCV probably doesn't affect national elections in a direct way. However, in an indirect way, if a state (I'll pick on California) has RCV then one party (democrats) can put two candidates up against one for the other party (Republicans) and then in the general election California could then have an election to see which of the two democrats California would vote for for either House and Senate seats, which indirectly and unfairly affects federal elections and could turn a state such as California into a completely blue state, including governorships where the choice is a democrat up against a democrat with no Republicans to even choose from. This could happen in any states, red or blue, which comes back to where I said RCV is just a con to put forth one party rule.

Ok. So what if Republicans put up two candidates as well then? “Problem” solved, right?

Your issue seems to stem from having only two candidates in the general election. Put 3 of them in then. Hell, put 5 of them on the ballot. The top 5 are ranked and voted on. Winner earns the Senate seat.

What’s the issue? How is this one-party rule?