Ranked Choice Voting - FTW

[Oddball]

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.

You mean like Fornicalia, where the Senate run-off was between two democrats?...Yeah, that worked out well in practice too.

 

[Oddball]

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.

It's because I'm not an idiot that I reject the whole mess....Ranked choice is just some lipstick and eye shadow on the same old statist pig.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You mean like Fornicalia, where the Senate run-off was between two democrats?...Yeah, that worked out well in practice too.

No. Not like that at all. California has a system where a party can have more than one candidate from the same party and eliminate the other party. That's bullshit.

When there is a third-party candidate, or more than 2 candidates on the ballot, those who voted for the 3rd candidate should get to choose between the two bullshit duopoly candidates.

3 candidates on the ballot. The top 2 receiving votes MUST have a runoff, regardless of the percentages.

That is fair. That is scary to the two bullshit duopoly parties.

That's why they will fight it.

 

[boedicca]

We've had ranked choice voting for city elections for awhile. The result is solidify far left control and to enable the blacks and asians to keep hispanics out of office. I don't care for the practice - seems very undemocratic to me.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's because I'm not an idiot that I reject the whole mess....Ranked choice is just some lipstick and eye shadow on the same old statist pig.

How many people are afraid to vote for a third party because they are afraid to be stuck with a communist democrat? I know that there are THOUSANDS of Texas like me with that very fear. The GOP will ride that fear train all the way to the bank and continue to give us shitty results. It is bullshit and we're tired of it.

You are being a mouthpiece for the GOP political machine and you don't even know it.

.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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?

Nobody voted for Golden twice. It's basically an instant run off election without the expense of having a second election. It only kicks in if nobody gets 50% of the vote.

I understand the logic behind it, but I have my reservations as well and I'm not entirely sure it's Constitutional

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Nobody voted for Golden twice. It's basically an instant run off election without the expense of having a second election. It only kicks in if nobody gets 50% of the vote.

Exactly, and voters got to make a real choice.

 

[Hellokitty]

Yeah not in favor of ranked choice voting. It gives people who want to vote for a second choice 2 votes. If their first choice doesn't win they get a second vote. What about the people who don't want to pick a second person, their vote could be canceled out by someone who couldn't make a decision with 1 vote.

 

[Oddball]

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?

Nobody voted for Golden twice. It's basically an instant run off election without the expense of having a second election. It only kicks in if nobody gets 50% of the vote.

I understand the logic behind it, but I have my reservations as well and I'm not entirely sure it's Constitutional

The runoff is the defacto 2nd vote.

 

[Oddball]

It's because I'm not an idiot that I reject the whole mess....Ranked choice is just some lipstick and eye shadow on the same old statist pig.

How many people are afraid to vote for a third party because they are afraid to be stuck with a communist democrat? I know that there are THOUSANDS of Texas like me with that very fear. The GOP will ride that fear train all the way to the bank and continue to give us shitty results. It is bullshit and we're tired of it.

You are being a mouthpiece for the GOP political machine and you don't even know it.

.

What if there was a super-commie pied piper like Bernie in Texas, who mobilizes the hard core pinko vote?....Then you have Beta & the commie vs. Cruz...In that scenario, Cruz loses.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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?

Nobody voted for Golden twice. It's basically an instant run off election without the expense of having a second election. It only kicks in if nobody gets 50% of the vote.

I understand the logic behind it, but I have my reservations as well and I'm not entirely sure it's Constitutional

The runoff is the defacto 2nd vote.

But how is that any different than having a separate run off election like most southern states have?

 

[dblack]

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.

??? That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Oddball]

But how is that any different than having a separate run off election like most southern states have?

Because:

1) There's an actual election to show up for, where you cast a vote for one candidate.

2) Your initial ballot doesn't get thrown out if you have only one choice....If you're a voter for one party, do you think it's really legit to be forced into ranking candidates you want absolutely no part of, or your vote gets disqualified, like happens in Maine?

 

[dblack]

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?

Nobody voted for Golden twice. It's basically an instant run off election without the expense of having a second election. It only kicks in if nobody gets 50% of the vote.

I understand the logic behind it, but I have my reservations as well and I'm not entirely sure it's Constitutional

The runoff is the defacto 2nd vote.

It's a second (and subsequent) rounds count everyone's votes. It's a runoff election, and if your favorite is no longer in the race, your vote goes to your second place choice. The idea that some people will more votes than others is a lie. It's demagoguery for dummies.

 

[dblack]

I like the concept, although members of a minority might feel it would further reduce their chance of representation.

How so??? This actually gives minority and third parties a larger voice.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I understand the logic behind it, but I have my reservations as well and I'm not entirely sure it's Constitutional

What would be the Constitutionality Challenge?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because:

1) There's an actual election to show up for, where you cast a vote for one candidate.

So, you just want it to suppress voter turnout?

2) Your initial ballot doesn't get thrown out if you have only one choice....If you're a voter for one party, do you think it's really legit to be forced into ranking candidates you want absolutely no part of, or your vote gets disqualified, like happens in Maine?

You don't have to rank them all. You can choose to only vote for one and give nobody a second or third ranking.

 

[longknife]

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

I really don't know if I like this at all. It seems to clearly ignore any party affiliation - which may not be that bad in the end. Here's a definition [which the OP omitted]:

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority. This system is sometimes referred to as an instant runoff voting system.[1][2]

BallotPedia @ Ranked-choice voting (RCV) - Ballotpedia gives a detailed analysis. There is also a listing of states where it's used and that, in itself, makes it questionable to me.

 

[Oddball]

Because:

1) There's an actual election to show up for, where you cast a vote for one candidate.

So, you just want it to suppress voter turnout?

I don't really GAF about voting myself...My only reason for discussing this is that the raked choice crap is just another convoluted illusion of "choice", which starts with the presumption that there are people better or worse suited to tell us all how to live....What if they held a vote and nobody showed?...How would they get away with claiming that they have the consent of the governed?

2) Your initial ballot doesn't get thrown out if you have only one choice....If you're a voter for one party, do you think it's really legit to be forced into ranking candidates you want absolutely no part of, or your vote gets disqualified, like happens in Maine?

You don't have to rank them all. You can choose to only vote for one and give nobody a second or third ranking.

That's not what people from Maine have been saying.

 

[my2¢]

I like the concept, although members of a minority might feel it would further reduce their chance of representation.

How so??? This actually gives minority and third parties a larger voice.

Just my assumption. Here's my thought to give idea where I'm coming from. Let's say a minority represents a solid voting block of say 40% of the voters but has absolutely no support outside that 40%. In a 3-way race lets say the other 2 evenly splits the remaining 60%. While the 40% was good enough to garner a plurality and victory under a most-votes-wins system, that 40% would never be enough to carry an election.