What's new

Ranked Choice Voting - FTW

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,593
Reaction score
3,067
Points
1,130
Maine just finished the first ever federal election conducted via ranked choice voting. And it turned out to be a great display of the strengths of RCV. Eight percent of voters chose independent candidates as their favorite. Under plurality voting, their votes would have been thrown away, and their preferences ignored. But under ranked choice, when it's obvious that their favorite can't when, their vote goes to their second choice.

Before some of you go there, this isn't partisan in any way. In this case, a Democrat came out on top. But experts agree that the '92 presidential election would gone to Bush, rather than Clinton, if RCV had been used. Most of Perot's voters favored Bush over Clinton. If their preference hadn't been counted, rather than thrown away, Clinton would have lost.

There are many appealing aspects to Ranked Choice Voting. But for me its biggest selling point is the way it does away with the 'lesser-of-two-evils' approach to voting. You can vote for your favorite candidate, even they are unlikely to win, without throwing your vote away.

www.fairvote.org
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,593
Reaction score
3,067
Points
1,130
pffft....It's a great way for the outright winner to get screwed, and the losers to get their vote counted twice....Just like what happened in this case.
Somehow, I suspect you'd be in favor of this if not for the specifics of this vote. Partisanship is clouding your thinking.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
60,253
Reaction score
13,413
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
pffft....It's a great way for the outright winner to get screwed, and the losers to get their vote counted twice....Just like what happened in this case.
Somehow, I suspect you'd be in favor of this if not for the specifics of this vote. Partisanship is clouding your thinking.
Not partisanship, practical application....What sounds great on paper is just a way to muddy the waters.

There's an old saying; "second place is first loser"...What happened here is that the first loser won the election, because all the 2nd place votes basically became a second vote for the "winner", when the guy who won the most votes got no such boost.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
19,893
Reaction score
2,848
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Maine just finished the first ever federal election conducted via ranked choice voting. And it turned out to be a great display of the strengths of RCV. Eight percent of voters chose independent candidates as their favorite. Under plurality voting, their votes would have been thrown away, and their preferences ignored. But under ranked choice, when it's obvious that their favorite can't when, their vote goes to their second choice.
This is very, VERY interesting. I find myself facing this dilemma EVERY SINGLE TIME I VOTE!!!!

There is no fucking way the duopoly will allow this to spread. No way!!!
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,593
Reaction score
3,067
Points
1,130
pffft....It's a great way for the outright winner to get screwed, and the losers to get their vote counted twice....Just like what happened in this case.
Somehow, I suspect you'd be in favor of this if not for the specifics of this vote. Partisanship is clouding your thinking.
Not partisanship, practical application....What sounds great on paper is just a way to muddy the waters.

There's an old saying; "second place is first loser"...What happened here is that the first loser won the election, because all the 2nd place votes basically became a second vote for the "winner", when the guy who won the most votes got no such boost.
No, what happened here is that more voters preferred Golden to Poliquin. Under ranked choice voting, parties can't rely on lesser-of-two-evils. They can't ignore third party voters. It means we can vote Libertarian without throwing our votes away. That's huge. I'm not sure why you're so eager to dismiss it.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,593
Reaction score
3,067
Points
1,130
Maine just finished the first ever federal election conducted via ranked choice voting. And it turned out to be a great display of the strengths of RCV. Eight percent of voters chose independent candidates as their favorite. Under plurality voting, their votes would have been thrown away, and their preferences ignored. But under ranked choice, when it's obvious that their favorite can't when, their vote goes to their second choice.
This is very, VERY interesting. I find myself facing this dilemma EVERY SINGLE TIME I VOTE!!!!

There is no fucking way the duopoly will allow this to spread. No way!!!
It will have to be grassroots, which is why we're starting at the local and state level. Once people get used to it, and see it's benefits, pushing for it at the national level will become more feasible.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
19,893
Reaction score
2,848
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Not partisanship, practical application....What sounds great on paper is just a way to muddy the waters.

There's an old saying; "second place is first loser"...What happened here is that the first loser won the election, because all the 2nd place votes basically became a second vote for the "winner", when the guy who won the most votes got no such boost.
You mean like the Heisman vote? That's usually what happens.

But, that gives a clear voice to those who are being ignored.

When left with only a binary choice, the wants of the voter are never clear. To me, THAT method muddies the water.

If left with a real choice, most people would probably vote for more liberty. Neither of the duopoly parties want liberty.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
60,253
Reaction score
13,413
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Maine just finished the first ever federal election conducted via ranked choice voting. And it turned out to be a great display of the strengths of RCV. Eight percent of voters chose independent candidates as their favorite. Under plurality voting, their votes would have been thrown away, and their preferences ignored. But under ranked choice, when it's obvious that their favorite can't when, their vote goes to their second choice.
This is very, VERY interesting. I find myself facing this dilemma EVERY SINGLE TIME I VOTE!!!!

There is no fucking way the duopoly will allow this to spread. No way!!!
It's a way for the party in power in any district to consolidate that power and make it permanent.

Let's flip what happened n Maine on its head....There's a strongly (R) district with a couple republicans (one a neocon and the other a RINO squish), a strong libertarian, and a democrat running...Who is the second choice for the democrat going to be?.....They essentially have one vote, while there's a runoff between the other three guys, where the 2nd & 3rd place guys get their votes counted twice....And there's about zero chance the libertarian will get enough 2nd place votes to matter, against all those varying shades of statists....Great if you're a partisan hack who wants to keep your party in power, but not so much a win for anyone else.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
19,893
Reaction score
2,848
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Under ranked choice voting, parties can't rely on lesser-of-two-evils.
Which is how the two main parties have maintained control for nearly 2 centuries.

I HATE being forced to hold my nose and vote for a shithead simply to defend myself against the more shitty shithead.

This could be very good.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
60,253
Reaction score
13,413
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Not partisanship, practical application....What sounds great on paper is just a way to muddy the waters.

There's an old saying; "second place is first loser"...What happened here is that the first loser won the election, because all the 2nd place votes basically became a second vote for the "winner", when the guy who won the most votes got no such boost.
You mean like the Heisman vote? That's usually what happens.

But, that gives a clear voice to those who are being ignored.

When left with only a binary choice, the wants of the voter are never clear. To me, THAT method muddies the water.

If left with a real choice, most people would probably vote for more liberty. Neither of the duopoly parties want liberty.
Sounds great in theory, but there are too many people for whom real freedom scares the hell out of them.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
19,893
Reaction score
2,848
Points
290
Location
Tejas
It's a way for the party in power in any district to consolidate that power and make it permanent.

Let's flip what happened n Maine on its head....There's a strongly (R) district with a couple republicans (one a neocon and the other a RINO squish), a strong libertarian, and a democrat running...Who is the second choice for the democrat going to be?.....They essentially have one vote, while there's a runoff between the other three guys, where the 2nd & 3rd place guys get their votes counted twice....And there's about zero chance the libertarian will get enough 2nd place votes to matter, against all those varying shades of statists....Great if you're a partisan hack who wants to keep your party in power, but not so much a win for anyone else.
Let me give you a scenario.

Under Ranked Choice Voting, my Senate vote would have looked like this:

1. Neal Dikeman
2. Ted Cruz
3. A dead goat
4. Beto O'Rourke

In stead, Neal Dikeman got my vote. That is one more vote that could have helped Cruz. Instead, it went solely to Dikeman, and I had to worry about my vote being the last one that could have saved me from Beto. Under the current system, making the best choice could have landed me with the shittiest.

:dunno:
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,593
Reaction score
3,067
Points
1,130
Maine just finished the first ever federal election conducted via ranked choice voting. And it turned out to be a great display of the strengths of RCV. Eight percent of voters chose independent candidates as their favorite. Under plurality voting, their votes would have been thrown away, and their preferences ignored. But under ranked choice, when it's obvious that their favorite can't when, their vote goes to their second choice.
This is very, VERY interesting. I find myself facing this dilemma EVERY SINGLE TIME I VOTE!!!!

There is no fucking way the duopoly will allow this to spread. No way!!!
It's a way for the party in power in any district to consolidate that power and make it permanent.

Let's flip what happened n Maine on its head....There's a strongly (R) district with a couple republicans (one a neocon and the other a RINO squish), a strong libertarian, and a democrat running...Who is the second choice for the democrat going to be?.....They essentially have one vote, while there's a runoff between the other three guys, where the 2nd & 3rd place guys get their votes counted twice...
Nope. In each round, everyone's vote is counted only once. This is no different that what many states do now when no one gets a majority. They eliminate losing candidates and run the election again. RCV just allows you to specify your second round votes without going back to the polls.

And there's about zero chance the libertarian will get enough 2nd place votes to matter, against all those varying shades of statists....Great if you're a partisan hack who wants to keep your party in power, but not so much a win for anyone else.
Your rationalizations are getting thinner. I still think you'll warm to this after you've seen more. Because I know you're not an idiot. ;)
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
60,253
Reaction score
13,413
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
No, what happened here is that more voters preferred Golden to Poliquin. Under ranked choice voting, parties can't rely on lesser-of-two-evils. They can't ignore third party voters. It means we can vote Libertarian without throwing our votes away. That's huge. I'm not sure why you're so eager to dismiss it.
The most voters preferred Golden only if you give him all those first loser votes, which essentially lets you vote for him twice.....Poliquin had to run against three democrats, who is going to make him the 2nd choice?
 

my2¢

So it goes.
Joined
May 14, 2010
Messages
8,540
Reaction score
1,112
Points
290
Location
State 48
Somebody brought the concept to my attention here many years ago. Probably such system would have cost Bill Clinton the '92 election as I'd guess Bush would have picked up states as most of Ross Perot's votes would have gone Bush's way. As it was in a 3 way contest Clinton won with something like 42% of the vote.

I like the concept, although members of a minority might feel it would further reduce their chance of representation. Likely not an issue in Maine, but in someplace like Michigan.... if implementation was tried there'd be a lawsuit.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
60,253
Reaction score
13,413
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
It's a way for the party in power in any district to consolidate that power and make it permanent.

Let's flip what happened n Maine on its head....There's a strongly (R) district with a couple republicans (one a neocon and the other a RINO squish), a strong libertarian, and a democrat running...Who is the second choice for the democrat going to be?.....They essentially have one vote, while there's a runoff between the other three guys, where the 2nd & 3rd place guys get their votes counted twice....And there's about zero chance the libertarian will get enough 2nd place votes to matter, against all those varying shades of statists....Great if you're a partisan hack who wants to keep your party in power, but not so much a win for anyone else.
Let me give you a scenario.

Under Ranked Choice Voting, my Senate vote would have looked like this:

1. Neal Dikeman
2. Ted Cruz
3. A dead goat
4. Beto O'Rourke

In stead, Neal Dikeman got my vote. That is one more vote that could have helped Cruz. Instead, it went solely to Dikeman, and I had to worry about my vote being the last one that could have saved me from Beto. In this scenario, making the best choice could have landed me with the shittiest.

:dunno:
What I'm really saying here is that it's all a scam...Ranked choice is just a fancier Rube Goldberg machination that still holds you as the serf deciding who your overlord is going to be....The "choice" is illusory.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
19,893
Reaction score
2,848
Points
290
Location
Tejas
The most voters preferred Golden only if you give him all those first loser votes, which essentially lets you vote for him twice.....Poliquin had to run against three democrats, who is going to make him the 2nd choice?
Then there should be a 2-party runoff on ANY election with more than 2 candidates.

This just eliminates the need and expense of such a runoff.
 
OP
D

dblack

Platinum Member
Joined
May 21, 2011
Messages
33,593
Reaction score
3,067
Points
1,130
No, what happened here is that more voters preferred Golden to Poliquin. Under ranked choice voting, parties can't rely on lesser-of-two-evils. They can't ignore third party voters. It means we can vote Libertarian without throwing our votes away. That's huge. I'm not sure why you're so eager to dismiss it.
The most voters preferred Golden only if you give him all those first loser votes, which essentially lets you vote for him twice.....Poliquin had to run against three democrats, who is going to make him the 2nd choice?
Not all of the third party votes went to Golden. Regardless, the multiple votes thing is a canard. What RCV changes is that major party candidates can't ignore third party voters - they'll have incentive to appeal them for their second place votes.
 

Oddball

Unobtanium Member
Supporting Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2009
Messages
60,253
Reaction score
13,413
Points
2,190
Location
Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
Somebody brought the concept to my attention here a many years ago. Probably such system would have cost Bill Clinton the '92 election as I'd guess Bush would have picked up states as most of Ross Perot's votes would have gone Bush's way. As it was in a 3 way contest Clinton won with something like 42% of the vote.

I like the concept, although members of a minority might feel it would further reduce their chance of representation.
Likely not an issue in Maine, but in someplace like Michigan.... if implementation was tried there'd be a lawsuit.
Exactly...Like I said, it muddies the waters.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
19,893
Reaction score
2,848
Points
290
Location
Tejas
What I'm really saying here is that it's all a scam...Ranked choice is just a fancier Rube Goldberg machination that still holds you as the serf deciding who your overlord is going to be....The "choice" is illusory.
Then no race with more than 2 candidates should ever be decisive without a 2-party runoff.

No candidate can win unless he wins a final head-to-head.

They can't keep forcing us to accept the lesser of two evils out of fear of wasting our votes.
 

Active Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Top