Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
No. Each choice would count until the chosen candidate was eliminated. If the chosen candidate received the fewest votes in the first round and was eliminated none of the other votes would count.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.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?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?
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.
You're plainly, factually wrong. I know that doesn't hold much water with a Trumpster, but I have faith that most people are not so stupid.No. Each choice would count until the chosen candidate was eliminated. If the chosen candidate received the fewest votes in the first round and was eliminated none of the other votes would count.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.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?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?
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.
Ranked choice voting looks designed to elect the most objectionable and least qualified. Votes aren't counted so much as herded.
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.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.
Bingo.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".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 really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.Its spreading.
Good
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.
Meh, life in the US is pretty damn good and our political system is quite stable. The nature of media in the modern world has managed to paint this hair on fire end of the world picture and many people buy into this garbage but overall it is nothing but a mirage to sell ad space.I really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.Its spreading.
Good
No. Each choice would count until the chosen candidate was eliminated. If the chosen candidate received the fewest votes in the first round and was eliminated none of the other votes would count.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.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?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?
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.
Ranked choice voting looks designed to elect the most objectionable and least qualified. Votes aren't counted so much as herded.
I read about it. You just don't like the way it really works.You're plainly, factually wrong. I know that doesn't hold much water with a Trumpster, but I have faith that most people are not so stupid.No. Each choice would count until the chosen candidate was eliminated. If the chosen candidate received the fewest votes in the first round and was eliminated none of the other votes would count.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.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?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?
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.
Ranked choice voting looks designed to elect the most objectionable and least qualified. Votes aren't counted so much as herded.
No, I am quite sure he and others (such as myself) like how it actually works quite well.I read about it. You just don't like the way it really works.You're plainly, factually wrong. I know that doesn't hold much water with a Trumpster, but I have faith that most people are not so stupid.No. Each choice would count until the chosen candidate was eliminated. If the chosen candidate received the fewest votes in the first round and was eliminated none of the other votes would count.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.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?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?
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.
Ranked choice voting looks designed to elect the most objectionable and least qualified. Votes aren't counted so much as herded.
If all you get is one vote there is no ranked choice voting. The sample ballot shows that well. This has been used in corporate law for years. Ranked choice voting is a derivative of corporate cumulative voting.No, I am quite sure he and others (such as myself) like how it actually works quite well.I read about it. You just don't like the way it really works.You're plainly, factually wrong. I know that doesn't hold much water with a Trumpster, but I have faith that most people are not so stupid.No. Each choice would count until the chosen candidate was eliminated. If the chosen candidate received the fewest votes in the first round and was eliminated none of the other votes would count.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.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?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?
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.
Ranked choice voting looks designed to elect the most objectionable and least qualified. Votes aren't counted so much as herded.
We also understand that you have no idea what you are talking about when you make asinine claims like it allows you more than one vote.
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
That is not how it works, ranks are not weighted nor should they be.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.”
Is "NONE OF THE ABOVE" a choice? To rank candidates properly, it has to be more than the number of votes, each ranking (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) must itself each carry its own weighting.
In other words, 50 1st place rankings is better than 200 3rd place rankings.
We've had it on statewide elections before this election, which was fine, I liked it!This isn't what will help them steal the electors in Maine. State polls on the 25th in Maine had Biden up anywhere from 8 to 18 points.No rigging.What the election rigging fuck??
It's a standard voting method around The World.
Single transferable vote - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Please don't be an ass. You KNOW this has not been used in the USA.
This is a new Democrat initiative to put themselves in position to steal the election.
Of course, anything that helps them win will be just fine with you....no matter what.
Not sure would choose Ranked-Choice for my state, but it is a Maine thing and apparently legal, so more power to them.
We've had it on statewide elections before this election, which was fine, I liked it!This isn't what will help them steal the electors in Maine. State polls on the 25th in Maine had Biden up anywhere from 8 to 18 points.No rigging.What the election rigging fuck??
It's a standard voting method around The World.
Single transferable vote - Wikipedia
Please don't be an ass. You KNOW this has not been used in the USA.
This is a new Democrat initiative to put themselves in position to steal the election.
Of course, anything that helps them win will be just fine with you....no matter what.
Not sure would choose Ranked-Choice for my state, but it is a Maine thing and apparently legal, so more power to them.
But on presidential...I dunno....it was kind of awkward....there were 5 candidates, I picked Biden, then the other 3 candidates, then Trump in 5th, but I think I probably should have left the 5th spot blank? It was like, I felt compelled to put any other candidate, before Trump, even without knowing much about a couple of them....but still deep inside truly believed anyone, would be better than Trump....
But on the State elections, I really did, have a second choice of want.... it was less complicated and less strategic.
It was like, I felt compelled to put any other candidate, before Trump, even without knowing much about a couple of them....but still deep inside truly believed anyone, would be better than Trump....
That is not how it works, ranks are not weighted nor should they be.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.”
Is "NONE OF THE ABOVE" a choice? To rank candidates properly, it has to be more than the number of votes, each ranking (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) must itself each carry its own weighting.
In other words, 50 1st place rankings is better than 200 3rd place rankings.
It is essentially allowing you to actually cast a ballot for a third party without such a vote throwing the election. No more piss poor excuses that my candidate would have won if X candidate did not jump in the race and split the vote.
That is not how it works, ranks are not weighted nor should they be.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.”
Is "NONE OF THE ABOVE" a choice? To rank candidates properly, it has to be more than the number of votes, each ranking (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) must itself each carry its own weighting.
In other words, 50 1st place rankings is better than 200 3rd place rankings.
It is essentially allowing you to actually cast a ballot for a third party without such a vote throwing the election. No more piss poor excuses that my candidate would have won if X candidate did not jump in the race and split the vote.
Then there is no point to "ranking" someone. If my 1st choice means no more than my 5th choice, then the entire idea is flawed. Might as well just say give me five choices, no ranking.
The reason we have it in Maine is that we are 40% Independents, and we do have strong Independents run, and win, elections. Three "parties" is fairly typical. The winner, if it is a plurality, could have only 40% of the vote, meaning 60% of the state didn't vote for the winner. That's not acceptable to us.Bingo.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".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 really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.Its spreading.
Good
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.
It will do very little to wrest the control from the major parties BUT I think it will do a lot to illustrate where people are, what they are supporting and force the major parties to actually stand for something rather than simply standing against the other major party.
Our system works just fine, has for 240 years. Now progs and fools want to change it because they don't always get their way. Sad.Th
The reason we have it in Maine is that we are 40% Independents, and we do have strong Independents run, and win, elections. Three "parties" is fairly typical. The winner, if it is a plurality, could have only 40% of the vote, meaning 60% of the state didn't vote for the winner. That's not acceptable to us.Bingo.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".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 really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.Its spreading.
Good
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.
It will do very little to wrest the control from the major parties BUT I think it will do a lot to illustrate where people are, what they are supporting and force the major parties to actually stand for something rather than simply standing against the other major party.
That's simply not true. It's a shame you can't see outside your partisan bubble.Our system works just fine, has for 240 years. Now progs and fools want to change it because they don't always get their way. Sad.Th
The reason we have it in Maine is that we are 40% Independents, and we do have strong Independents run, and win, elections. Three "parties" is fairly typical. The winner, if it is a plurality, could have only 40% of the vote, meaning 60% of the state didn't vote for the winner. That's not acceptable to us.Bingo.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".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 really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.Its spreading.
Good
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.
It will do very little to wrest the control from the major parties BUT I think it will do a lot to illustrate where people are, what they are supporting and force the major parties to actually stand for something rather than simply standing against the other major party.
It is true, too bad you just can't accept responsibility for your vote and require a do over when you choose a crap candidate.That's simply not true. It's a shame you can't see outside your partisan bubble.Our system works just fine, has for 240 years. Now progs and fools want to change it because they don't always get their way. Sad.Th
The reason we have it in Maine is that we are 40% Independents, and we do have strong Independents run, and win, elections. Three "parties" is fairly typical. The winner, if it is a plurality, could have only 40% of the vote, meaning 60% of the state didn't vote for the winner. That's not acceptable to us.Bingo.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".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 really think it will help. Just hope it's not too little, too late.Its spreading.
Good
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.
It will do very little to wrest the control from the major parties BUT I think it will do a lot to illustrate where people are, what they are supporting and force the major parties to actually stand for something rather than simply standing against the other major party.
