Maine Becomes First State To Try Ranked-Choice Voting for President

[OldLady]

I'm not sure why people are assuming this is going to be bad for Republicans. Clinton only won by 3% of the votes in 2016 and the Second district went for Trump, giving him one electoral vote. If we had ranked choice voting in 2016, Trump may well have won the whole state.

Ranked choice voting is used for making selections in many contests with multiple candidates, such as the Heisman Trophy. It's used widely. 51% is fair when you have two candidates. When there are multiple candidates, ranked choice voting gives a fairer outcome.

 

[OldLady]

Nearly 40% of Maine voters are independents and we actually elect independent governors, senators, etc. There is often a strong independent in the race. With the plurality voting we used to have, that you still all have, that meant that a candidate would win with about 40% of the vote--MEANING THAT 60% of THE VOTERS DIDN'T CHOOSE HIM/HER.

Explain how that sounds right to you.

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure why people are assuming this is going to be bad for Republicans. Clinton only won by 3% of the votes in 2016 and the Second district went for Trump, giving him one electoral vote. If we had ranked choice voting in 2016, Trump may well have won the whole state.

Yep. I don't quite understand their opposition either. If we'd had ranked-choice voting in '92, Bush would almost certainly have won, rather than Bill Clinton. That's right, no Clintons. No Hillary. You'd think they'd be all over that.

 

[FA_Q2]

Did FOX support voting changes? Did you see Trump's response to the final debate question?

There is your answer dblack/OldLady.

 

[dblack]

Did FOX support voting changes? Did you see Trump's response to the final debate question?

There is your answer dblack/OldLady.

Can you paraphrase? I don't have the stomach to listen to that son-of-a-bitch blathering.

 

[busybee01]

Only thing they're throwing out is the principle of one person one vote. I seriously doubt it would withstand a federal court challenge.

That's simply a lie, promulgated by Ds and Rs who worry ranked-choice voting will undermine two-party dominance. Ranked-choice voting is still one person, one vote.

Oh bullshit, it's an unfettered mulligan system, multiple chances to pick a winner. Try ranked choice betting at your local horse track and watch the guy at the counter laugh when you try to pick 3 different winners with the same 2 dollar bet.

.

No it does not. It ensures every voter has a say. It also prevents voters to be disenfranchised.

If you vote, even if it's for a loser, you're not disenfranchised and have had your say. But hey, feel free to keep trying to put lipstick on that pig. LMAO

.

You are disenfranchised if a candidate drops out before the election. How many people voted for Jeb Bush in the early voting period only for him to drop out before the primary. I can see why you don't like it. It makes it less likely that a fringe candidate like Trump gets elected.

 

[OKTexas]

Only thing they're throwing out is the principle of one person one vote. I seriously doubt it would withstand a federal court challenge.

That's simply a lie, promulgated by Ds and Rs who worry ranked-choice voting will undermine two-party dominance. Ranked-choice voting is still one person, one vote.

Oh bullshit, it's an unfettered mulligan system, multiple chances to pick a winner. Try ranked choice betting at your local horse track and watch the guy at the counter laugh when you try to pick 3 different winners with the same 2 dollar bet.

.

No it does not. It ensures every voter has a say. It also prevents voters to be disenfranchised.

If you vote, even if it's for a loser, you're not disenfranchised and have had your say. But hey, feel free to keep trying to put lipstick on that pig. LMAO

.

You are disenfranchised if a candidate drops out before the election. How many people voted for Jeb Bush in the early voting period only for him to drop out before the primary. I can see why you don't like it. It makes it less likely that a fringe candidate like Trump gets elected.

What is it about this sentence that you didn't understand?

" If you vote, even if it's for a loser, you're not disenfranchised and have had your say."

.

 

[L.K.Eder]

anyone who is fed up with your ridiculous duopoly should welcome this.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

What the election rigging fuck??

No rigging.
It's a standard voting method around The World.

Single transferable vote - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What idiots in shithole countries do is not the American way.

Somebody tell the unAmerican Heisman Foundation to knock it off and go one media twat = one vote.

 

[FA_Q2]

Did FOX support voting changes? Did you see Trump's response to the final debate question?

There is your answer dblack/OldLady.

Can you paraphrase? I don't have the stomach to listen to that son-of-a-bitch blathering.

Not really, a paraphrase will not properly frame how shitty his statements were. Take some Pepto, it is worth while to actually see and is only 2 min of Trump:

 

[OldLady]

Did FOX support voting changes? Did you see Trump's response to the final debate question?

There is your answer dblack/OldLady.

My guess is, because Maine used ranked choice voting in 2018, and the incumbent Republican House Representative Bruce Poliquin won a plurality in District Two, but not a majority, so the ranked choice tabulation was used and he lost by 3,000 votes. He took it to court, but lost.

We'll be using it for Susan Collins' seat, too, and that is probably more interesting to a lot of people than the four measly electoral votes we can bring to the Presidential election. The two independents running in that race though are pretty evenly split--one is far left, the other far right, and as far as I can tell, neither is exactly setting the world on fire. We can predict what the second choices will be. I imagine either Collins or Gideon will win a majority in the first round, but if it is neck and neck, those independent votes could throw it into ranked choice territory.

 

[FA_Q2]

Did FOX support voting changes? Did you see Trump's response to the final debate question?

There is your answer dblack/OldLady.

My guess is, because Maine used ranked choice voting in 2018, and the incumbent Republican House Representative Bruce Poliquin won a plurality in District Two, but not a majority, so the ranked choice tabulation was used and he lost by 3,000 votes. He took it to court, but lost.

We'll be using it for Susan Collins' seat, too, and that is probably more interesting to a lot of people than the four measly electoral votes we can bring to the Presidential election. The two independents running in that race though are pretty evenly split--one is far left, the other far right, and as far as I can tell, neither is exactly setting the world on fire. We can predict what the second choices will be. I imagine either Collins or Gideon will win a majority in the first round, but if it is neck and neck, those independent votes could throw it into ranked choice territory.

To be honest, no one bemoaning this here has done any of that calculation or is even aware of the details around this coming election on Maine. The ditto head are likely aware but again, I do not think that they care either.

It comes down to the way Trump answered that last question - they are only focused on building the excuse on why they lost the coming election and gaming the base to drive them out in the hope that may pull off a miracle.

 

[Montrovant]

It turns out Alaska also wants to try ranked-choice voting:

Alaska shows independent streak, adopts ranked-choice voting

Alaskans approved an election reform measure earlier this month that will make the state just the second in America to adopt ranked-choice voting.

www.foxnews.com

 

[FA_Q2]

Its spreading.

Good

 

[dblack]

Its spreading.

Good

I really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.

 

[Montrovant]

Its spreading.

Good

I really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.

Even if it does no good, the fact that people are voting for it provides a glimmer of hope that not everyone is happy with the two party control we have now.

 

[dblack]

Its spreading.

Good

I really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.

Even if it does no good, the fact that people are voting for it provides a glimmer of hope that not everyone is happy with the two party control we have now.

I got interested in ranked choice voting for that reason, but I've come to view it differently. It mostly likely would still result in two dominant parties - that's what happened in Australia at least. But it would give an honest reflection of actual voter preference (we could actually see how many voters preferred third party campaigns), which we don't get now because so many people vote "lesser-of-two-evils".

The biggest virtue of ranked choice voting, in my view, is that it gives candidates a strong incentive to work for broad consensus. Candidates who alienate large chunks of voters will get a lot of last place votes - and are more likely to lose, whereas candidates that have broader appeal will benefit from lots of second place votes. It will buffer this radicalized divide we're seeing now and promote government that represents everyone, rather than a slim partisan majority.

 

[Rogue AI]

The inability to understand something so simple is a perfect reflection of why our political system is so fucked in the first place.

Ranked choice voting is a far superiors system to what we have now. It would be amazing to see it spread to every state.

More like the pathetic notion of 'everyone's a winner'. No matter how many losers you pick you eventually win! This is a system designed to give extraordinary power to people too stupid to make informed decisions with one vote.

 

[dblack]

The inability to understand something so simple is a perfect reflection of why our political system is so fucked in the first place.

Ranked choice voting is a far superiors system to what we have now. It would be amazing to see it spread to every state.

More like the pathetic notion of 'everyone's a winner'. No matter how many losers you pick you eventually win! This is a system designed to give extraordinary power to people too stupid to make informed decisions with one vote.

It doesn't sound like you've really read about it. Where are you getting this "everyone's a winner" nonsense?

 

[Anathema]

We just voted this shit down here in Massachusetts. It wouldn’t have been used in Federal election it would have in primaries and certain other elections.

I do not see how it could EVER benefit a Conservative or Republican candidate, so I voted against it.