Ranked Choice Voting Changes 'One Person One Vote' to "One Person One Ballot"

[excalibur]

It has long been the principle in America of 'one person one vote'.

Now, with Ranked Choice Voting, 'RCV', what we have is one person with multiple votes for the same office on one ballot. Or one person one ballot.

How this is Constitutional is amazing as it alters the time-honored 'one person one vote'.

'RCV' needs to be tested all the way to SCOTUS. How one person gets multiple votes on one ballot for the same office seems entirely unconstitutional.

 

[B. Kidd]

This election Nevada had 3 referendums.
One of the three referendums was a bait n' switch referendum that posited to voters in 2 parts, 1 referendum.
The 1st part allowed independent voters the opportunity to vote in primary elections as up to now this wasn't allowed.
The 2nd part, in this order allowed for RCV, as part of the same referendum!
It passed!
It should have been two separate referendums.
State run Dimm's got away with this 2 in 1 referendum, as RCV has to be voted on again for a 2nd time in 2024 before it becomes law.
Now, keep in mind NV. voters are dumber than dog shit, but NV. Dimms are more corrupt than your average criminal.

 

[MarcATL]

It has long been the principle in America of 'one person one vote'.

Now, with Ranked Choice Voting, 'RCV', what we have is one person with multiple votes for the same office on one ballot. Or one person one ballot.

How this is Constitutional is amazing as it alters the time-honored 'one person one vote'.

'RCV' needs to be tested all the way to SCOTUS. How one person gets multiple votes on one ballot for the same office seems entirely unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it say "one person, one vote?"

 

[B. Kidd]

This election Nevada had 3 referendums.
One of the three referendums was a bait n' switch referendum that posited to voters in 2 parts, 1 referendum.
The 1st part allowed independent voters the opportunity to vote in primary elections as up to now this wasn't allowed.
The 2nd part, in this order allowed for RCV, as part of the same referendum!
It passed!
It should have been two separate referendums.
State run Dimm's got away with this 2 in 1 referendum, as RCV has to be voted on again for a 2nd time in 2024 before it becomes law.
Now, keep in mind NV. voters are dumber than dog shit, but NV. Dimms are more corrupt than your average criminal.

The above is a perfect example how Democrat run states tilt the electoral process playing field in their favor.
Add pushing back early voting dates, even before candidates can debate, combined with retaining mass mail-in balloting.
Then add in nefarious deeds concerning those mail-in ballots!

 

[excalibur]

Where in the Constitution does it say "one person, one vote?"

It is what SCOTUS has ruled multiple times.

Here is a recent one:

Supreme Court Upholds “One Person, One Vote”

The decision ensures districts will continue to be based on total population — a big win for fair representation.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[excalibur]

The above is a perfect example how Democrat run states tilt the electoral process playing field in their favor.
Add pushing back early voting dates, even before candidates can debate, combined with retaining mass mail-in balloting.
Then add in nefarious deeds concerning those mail-in ballots!

Yep.

 

[B. Kidd]

Yep.

This is how one Party perpetual power eventually occurs.
Not in one felt swoop, but in sure and steady increments.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Where in the Constitution does it say "one person, one vote?"

The right’s unwarranted opposition to RCV likely has more to do with this:

Peltola Wins Alaska House Seat, Defeating Palin and Begich

Peltola, a Democrat and the first Alaska Native woman to serve in Congress, won a full term in the House, defeating a pair of conservative Republican challengers: former Gov. Sarah Palin and Nick Begich III. On Wednesday evening, Alaska Division of Elections employees tabulated votes in its new...

news.yahoo.com

… as opposed to any concern about ‘one man, one vote.’

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

'RCV' needs to be tested all the way to SCOTUS.

Actually not.

The Constitution grants the states full authority to determine their method of voting.

 

[lantern2814]

It is what SCOTUS has ruled multiple times.

Here is a recent one:

Supreme Court Upholds “One Person, One Vote”

The decision ensures districts will continue to be based on total population — a big win for fair representation.

www.brennancenter.org

Ranked choice garbage actually gives the loser a better chance to win. If 2 candidates split the “first place” votes and one other candidate gains all the “second place” votes, then the loser who got NO votes to win, now wins the election. Against the wishes of the people.

 

[theHawk]

It has long been the principle in America of 'one person one vote'.

Now, with Ranked Choice Voting, 'RCV', what we have is one person with multiple votes for the same office on one ballot. Or one person one ballot.

How this is Constitutional is amazing as it alters the time-honored 'one person one vote'.

'RCV' needs to be tested all the way to SCOTUS. How one person gets multiple votes on one ballot for the same office seems entirely unconstitutional.

It’s a bullshit idea pushed by Democrats to steal elections.

Along with all Democrat ideas, it needs to be thrown out.

 

[theHawk]

Ranked choice garbage actually gives the loser a better chance to win. If 2 candidates split the “first place” votes and one other candidate gains all the “second place” votes, then the loser who got NO votes to win, now wins the election. Against the wishes of the people.

Yea it essentially allows the losing party to pick a spoiler.

Such as in Alaska where Democrats got to vote for the RINO in case their candidate failed.

 

[excalibur]

Actually not.

The Constitution grants the states full authority to determine their method of voting.

Not really. Not against one person one vote they can't.

RCV gives one person multiple votes for the same office. It is bullshit dredged from the sewers by leftoids.

 

[August West]

Ranked choice garbage actually gives the loser a better chance to win. If 2 candidates split the “first place” votes and one other candidate gains all the “second place” votes, then the loser who got NO votes to win, now wins the election. Against the wishes of the people.

Like the Electoral College has put us under minority rule so many times, against the wishes of the people.

 

[busybee01]

It has long been the principle in America of 'one person one vote'.

Now, with Ranked Choice Voting, 'RCV', what we have is one person with multiple votes for the same office on one ballot. Or one person one ballot.

How this is Constitutional is amazing as it alters the time-honored 'one person one vote'.

'RCV' needs to be tested all the way to SCOTUS. How one person gets multiple votes on one ballot for the same office seems entirely unconstitutional.

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. If you have a runoff, you get multiple votes. This saves the time and expense of a runoff.

 

[busybee01]

The above is a perfect example how Democrat run states tilt the electoral process playing field in their favor.
Add pushing back early voting dates, even before candidates can debate, combined with retaining mass mail-in balloting.
Then add in nefarious deeds concerning those mail-in ballots!

Alaska is largely a red state.
Why should you wait if you have already made up your mind. Debates are worthless.
There is nothing nefarious about mail-in ballots.

 

[excalibur]

There is nothing unconstitutional about it. If you have a runoff, you get multiple votes. This saves the time and expense of a runoff.

You get multiple choices on the ballot with RCV. Violating the one person one vote principle.

It is nothing like a runoff where you get one vote in the general and then one vote in the runoff.

 

[busybee01]

It’s a bullshit idea pushed by Democrats to steal elections.

Along with all Democrat ideas, it needs to be thrown out.

It makes it harder for extremists to win. It clearly is a good idea.

 

[Independent thinker]

It has long been the principle in America of 'one person one vote'.

Now, with Ranked Choice Voting, 'RCV', what we have is one person with multiple votes for the same office on one ballot. Or one person one ballot.

How this is Constitutional is amazing as it alters the time-honored 'one person one vote'.

'RCV' needs to be tested all the way to SCOTUS. How one person gets multiple votes on one ballot for the same office seems entirely unconstitutional.

I was always curious about RCV but now that I have seen it in action, it sucks. Just another way to not have election results on election day or very shortly after. We don't need to know election results weeks after the fact. If we aren't going to know election results shortly after the election then why bother voting at all?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Not really. Not against one person one vote they can't.

RCV gives one person multiple votes for the same office. It is bullshit dredged from the sewers by leftoids.

RCV is perfectly lawful and Constitutional, it in no manner violates the right to vote – there’s nothing for the Supreme Court to address.

That you incorrectly perceive RCV as being ‘beneficial’ to Democratic candidates doesn’t change hat fact.