Ranked Choice Voting Benefits The Uber Rich

[Independent thinker]

Interesting article on ranked choice voting makes the case that RCV only benefits the uber rich. I guess this is why those on the left favor it, because there are more gazillionaire candidates on the left than there are on the right.

The only beneficiaries of this changeover would appear to be very wealthy individuals or celebrities with indistinct or concealed political profiles that would keep them from winning party primaries. In fact, it’s just such gazillionaires who’ve been funding these campaigns.

Ranked-Choice Disaster

Today on TAP: Coloradans and Nevadans will decide this fall on switching to a form of voting that will chiefly benefit gazillionaire candidates.

prospect.org

 

[Oddball]

Rigged choice voting supports and empowers the permanent ruling class...Why the hell do you think that they're so hot to foist it on the rubes gullible enough to fall for it?

One needs no more evidence of this than look at those who've been "elected" via that electoral 3-card Monte game.

 

[jwoodie]

Interesting article on ranked choice voting makes the case that RCV only benefits the uber rich. I guess this is why those on the left favor it, because there are more gazillionaire candidates on the left than there are on the right.

The only beneficiaries of this changeover would appear to be very wealthy individuals or celebrities with indistinct or concealed political profiles that would keep them from winning party primaries. In fact, it’s just such gazillionaires who’ve been funding these campaigns.

Ranked-Choice Disaster

Today on TAP: Coloradans and Nevadans will decide this fall on switching to a form of voting that will chiefly benefit gazillionaire candidates.

prospect.org

This is a ploy to allow negative voting, especially in open primary elections (i.e., picking the weakest opposition candidate).

 

[candycorn]

Interesting article on ranked choice voting makes the case that RCV only benefits the uber rich. I guess this is why those on the left favor it, because there are more gazillionaire candidates on the left than there are on the right.

The only beneficiaries of this changeover would appear to be very wealthy individuals or celebrities with indistinct or concealed political profiles that would keep them from winning party primaries. In fact, it’s just such gazillionaires who’ve been funding these campaigns.

Ranked-Choice Disaster

Today on TAP: Coloradans and Nevadans will decide this fall on switching to a form of voting that will chiefly benefit gazillionaire candidates.

prospect.org

It was an interesting article and I thank you for that. Shockingly.

Lets look at it. I disagree with the premise that “gazillionaires” (use of this phrase repeatedly undermines what was an informative article) benefit from RCV. The narrator even, in fact, cites that in a primary, RCV will not favor the incumbent; he used Eric Adams as an example of how it would likely result in his losing the mayor’s office. Adams, presumably, would be the most wealthy of the challengers. And also, the current winner-take-all seems to benefit Trump who supposedly is the most wealthy guy in the race.

My take on RCV is this. I’m a “no” on it.

To me, everyone’s 2nd choice can become the nominee...the guy nobody wanted to get the job. No way.

If you’re going to have RCV, there has to be a rule to where if you don’t list a second or third choice, your ballot is invalidated. Because 0.0% of Trump supporters would bother picking a 2nd or 3rd choice because, theoretically they could become the nominee in the primary or the President in the general. The same for Harris supporters in the general.

 

[Independent thinker]

It was an interesting article and I thank you for that. Shockingly.

Lets look at it. I disagree with the premise that “gazillionaires” (use of this phrase repeatedly undermines what was an informative article) benefit from RCV. The narrator even, in fact, cites that in a primary, RCV will not favor the incumbent; he used Eric Adams as an example of how it would likely result in his losing the mayor’s office. Adams, presumably, would be the most wealthy of the challengers. And also, the current winner-take-all seems to benefit Trump who supposedly is the most wealthy guy in the race.

My take on RCV is this. I’m a “no” on it.

To me, everyone’s 2nd choice can become the nominee...the guy nobody wanted to get the job. No way.

If you’re going to have RCV, there has to be a rule to where if you don’t list a second or third choice, your ballot is invalidated. Because 0.0% of Trump supporters would bother picking a 2nd or 3rd choice because, theoretically they could become the nominee in the primary or the President in the general. The same for Harris supporters in the general.

Shockingly, I agree with you.

 

[candycorn]

It was an interesting article and I thank you for that. Shockingly.

Lets look at it. I disagree with the premise that “gazillionaires” (use of this phrase repeatedly undermines what was an informative article) benefit from RCV. The narrator even, in fact, cites that in a primary, RCV will not favor the incumbent; he used Eric Adams as an example of how it would likely result in his losing the mayor’s office. Adams, presumably, would be the most wealthy of the challengers. And also, the current winner-take-all seems to benefit Trump who supposedly is the most wealthy guy in the race.

My take on RCV is this. I’m a “no” on it.

To me, everyone’s 2nd choice can become the nominee...the guy nobody wanted to get the job. No way.

If you’re going to have RCV, there has to be a rule to where if you don’t list a second or third choice, your ballot is invalidated. Because 0.0% of Trump supporters would bother picking a 2nd or 3rd choice because, theoretically they could become the nominee in the primary or the President in the general. The same for Harris supporters in the general.

I think that Australia has that stipulation in--you have to rank every candidate. Meaning that if 16 people are running for an office, you have to rank the people you didn’t vote for 1-15. If you don’t, your ballot is returned to you or discarded.