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

[dblack]

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.

If we'd had ranked choice voting for the Presidential election in '92, Bush senior would have won a second term, and the Clintons would be a foot note in history. You might wanna rethink that.

 

[Anathema]

If we'd had ranked choice voting for the Presidential election in '92, Bush senior would have won a second term, and the Clinton's would be a foot note in history. You might wanna rethink that.

Not necessarily...

1992 was the first year I was eligible to vote. I voted for Perot. (Here comes the reason I don’t believe ranked choice will help Conservative candidates or Republicans)... I would not have placed a two next to Bush’s name. I (and I believe many other Conservatives) don’t rank our voting choices. We choose one and one only.

 

[dblack]

If we'd had ranked choice voting for the Presidential election in '92, Bush senior would have won a second term, and the Clinton's would be a foot note in history. You might wanna rethink that.

Not necessarily...

Under ranked choice voting, Perot would have been knocked out of the race and his voter's votes would go to their second place choice. It's fairly obvious that most of those second place votes would have gone to Bush. Would it have been enough for him to win? I think so, but you're right - not necessarily. In any case, there's no denying ranked choice voting would have helped Bush in that election. You seem determined to spin this into a partisan issue. It's really not.

1992 was the first year I was eligible to vote. I voted for Perot. (Here comes the reason I don’t believe ranked choice will help Conservative candidates or Republicans)... I would not have placed a two next to Bush’s name. I (and I believe many other Conservatives) don’t rank our voting choices. We choose one and one only.

Sure, that's your prerogative I suppose. Ranked choice voting doesn't force you to rank. You can vote exactly as you do now, and the results will be the same. But at least you'd have the option to choose between Bush and Clinton if Perot didn't have enough votes to win. At least then your vote isn't "wasted". I don't know why you wouldn't want that.

 

[OldLady]

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.

If we'd had ranked choice voting for the Presidential election in '92, Bush senior would have won a second term, and the Clinton's would be a foot note in history. You might wanna rethink that.

I can't think of any reason why it couldn't help a conservative candidate. We didn't need it this time around. Biden got 53% and Susan Collins got 51%

 

[XponentialChaos]

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.

Well said.

 

[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.

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

You fools whined about Russia influencing voters because they were too stupid to inform themselves on the candidates. Now you want the same idiots to rank how stupid they are? This sort of commie nonsense will not produce better candidates, it allow even worse candidates to slip through with even less scrutiny.

 

[Montrovant]

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?

You fools whined about Russia influencing voters because they were too stupid to inform themselves on the candidates. Now you want the same idiots to rank how stupid they are? This sort of commie nonsense will not produce better candidates, it allow even worse candidates to slip through with even less scrutiny.

More choice? What commie nonsense!

 

[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.

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

You fools whined about Russia influencing voters because they were too stupid to inform themselves on the candidates. Now you want the same idiots to rank how stupid they are? This sort of commie nonsense will not produce better candidates, it allow even worse candidates to slip through with even less scrutiny.

More choice? What commie nonsense!

More choices sounds like more than one vote. Make one informed decision, problem solved.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Voting for Libertarian, Green, or independent candidates will not mean “throwing your vote away.”



On Monday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld the use of ranked-choice voting for its presidential and congressional races, resisting efforts by the state's Republican Party to force a stop to its use.

In ranked-choice voting, citizens aren't asked to just choose a single candidate. They are permitted to rank the candidates from most to least favorite. In order to win a ranked-choice vote, a candidate is required to earn a majority of the votes (more than 50 percent), not just a plurality. In the event no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is tossed out of the running. Then the votes are tallied again, but for voters whose favorite was just tossed out, their second choice now counts as their vote. This continues until one candidate has earned at least 50 percent of the votes.

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

Voting for Libertarian, Green, or independent candidates will not mean “throwing your vote away.”

reason.com

What about the person who votes for the same person five times?

 

[Montrovant]

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?

You fools whined about Russia influencing voters because they were too stupid to inform themselves on the candidates. Now you want the same idiots to rank how stupid they are? This sort of commie nonsense will not produce better candidates, it allow even worse candidates to slip through with even less scrutiny.

More choice? What commie nonsense!

More choices sounds like more than one vote. Make one informed decision, problem solved.

I'm still trying to figure out how it's "commie nonsense." I can only assume you consider anything you disagree with to be "commie nonsense."

 

[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?

You fools whined about Russia influencing voters because they were too stupid to inform themselves on the candidates. Now you want the same idiots to rank how stupid they are? This sort of commie nonsense will not produce better candidates, it allow even worse candidates to slip through with even less scrutiny.

More choice? What commie nonsense!

More choices sounds like more than one vote. Make one informed decision, problem solved.

I'm still trying to figure out how it's "commie nonsense." I can only assume you consider anything you disagree with to be "commie nonsense."

Just reactionary idiocy.

 

[dblack]

Voting for Libertarian, Green, or independent candidates will not mean “throwing your vote away.”



On Monday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld the use of ranked-choice voting for its presidential and congressional races, resisting efforts by the state's Republican Party to force a stop to its use.

In ranked-choice voting, citizens aren't asked to just choose a single candidate. They are permitted to rank the candidates from most to least favorite. In order to win a ranked-choice vote, a candidate is required to earn a majority of the votes (more than 50 percent), not just a plurality. In the event no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is tossed out of the running. Then the votes are tallied again, but for voters whose favorite was just tossed out, their second choice now counts as their vote. This continues until one candidate has earned at least 50 percent of the votes.

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

Voting for Libertarian, Green, or independent candidates will not mean “throwing your vote away.”

reason.com

What about the person who votes for the same person five times?

That's not possible. Read up on it

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Voting for Libertarian, Green, or independent candidates will not mean “throwing your vote away.”



On Monday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld the use of ranked-choice voting for its presidential and congressional races, resisting efforts by the state's Republican Party to force a stop to its use.

In ranked-choice voting, citizens aren't asked to just choose a single candidate. They are permitted to rank the candidates from most to least favorite. In order to win a ranked-choice vote, a candidate is required to earn a majority of the votes (more than 50 percent), not just a plurality. In the event no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is tossed out of the running. Then the votes are tallied again, but for voters whose favorite was just tossed out, their second choice now counts as their vote. This continues until one candidate has earned at least 50 percent of the votes.

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

Voting for Libertarian, Green, or independent candidates will not mean “throwing your vote away.”

reason.com

What about the person who votes for the same person five times?

That's not possible. Read up on it

I read up on it. Yes. It is entirely possible. If your candidate is eliminated then your vote is exhausted, RCV looks to be a herding technique to channel votes to a predetermined outcome.

 

[dblack]

What about the person who votes for the same person five times?

That's not possible. Read up on it

I read up on it. Yes. It is entirely possible. If your candidate is eliminated then your vote is exhausted, RCV looks to be a herding technique to channel votes to a predetermined outcome.

You clearly don't understand it. It's not possible to vote for the same person five times. And there is no predetermined outcome. You're just trying to smear it for some reason. Why?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

What about the person who votes for the same person five times?

That's not possible. Read up on it

I read up on it. Yes. It is entirely possible. If your candidate is eliminated then your vote is exhausted, RCV looks to be a herding technique to channel votes to a predetermined outcome.

You clearly don't understand it. It's not possible to vote for the same person five times. And there is no predetermined outcome. You're just trying to smear it for some reason. Why?

I just read it. Here is a sample ballot. Of course it is possible to vote for the same person five times.

The eventual winner will undoubtedly be the one least expected to fulfill the office.

 

[dblack]

What about the person who votes for the same person five times?

That's not possible. Read up on it

I read up on it. Yes. It is entirely possible. If your candidate is eliminated then your vote is exhausted, RCV looks to be a herding technique to channel votes to a predetermined outcome.

You clearly don't understand it. It's not possible to vote for the same person five times. And there is no predetermined outcome. You're just trying to smear it for some reason. Why?

I just read it. How

It seems like you're just trolling.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How RCV Works - Fairvote

www.fairvote.org

I forgot the link.

 

[dblack]

Of course it is possible to vote for the same person five times.

That's not true. Are you an idiot, or just a liar?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Of course it is possible to vote for the same person five times.

That's not true. Are you an idiot, or just a liar?

Are you not looking at the sample ballot? Can you not see that first, second, third, fourth and fifth and sixth choices can all be the same person?

 

[dblack]

Of course it is possible to vote for the same person five times.

That's not true. Are you an idiot, or just a liar?

Are you not looking at the sample ballot? Can you not see that first, second, third, fourth and fifth and sixth choices can all be the same person?

Is it presumptuous of me to assume you are a Trump supporter? This kind idiocy is the usual mode - it's how they argue. Make a boneheaded claim and just keep repeating it - hoping that other morons believe it.

If a voter was stupid enough to select the same candidate for 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc ... one of two things would happen, depending on the specific implementation of RCV. Either their ballot would be deemed invalid and discarded, or their vote would simply be counted, once, for their first place choice.

As I said, it's hard to say whether you're an idiot or a troll. But your opposition to RCV isn't serious or rational.