Ranked Choice Voting - FTW

[BluesLegend]

If Dem's were not convinced they could cheat using this, it would not exist.

 

[dblack]

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?

What did you mean by "Your initial ballot doesn't get thrown out if you have only one choice"

Did you mean if their first choice loses and they haven't ranked other candidates? Because that's the only time you could say that a vote is "thrown out". But in that case, they're no worse of off than under the current system.

 

[dblack]

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

They'll fight it, no doubt. But there are good people on both sides.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

This is a bullshit idea. Just get rid of the majority requirement.

 

[dblack]

Really good article in USA today:

As Maine goes with ranked-choice voting, so should New Hampshire  —  and everywhere else

 

[dblack]

Another. It's happening!

Maine’s pioneering ranked-choice election likely to catch on nationally

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Under plurality voting, their votes would have been thrown away, and their preferences ignored.”

Wrong.

Votes are not ‘thrown away,’ nor are they ‘ignored’ – the votes are lawfully counted and recorded in favor of the selected candidate.

That a candidate failed to win the election, or was a ‘third party’ candidate, doesn’t mean the votes for that candidate were ‘thrown away’ or ‘ignored.’

“But under ranked choice, when it's obvious that their favorite can't when, their vote goes to their second choice.”

Which is nonsense.

The notion of affording a voter a ‘second choice’ because he voted for a ‘third party’ candidate is ridiculous.

The democratic process isn’t difficult to understand: one man, one vote.

The people of Maine are at liberty to enact whatever voting scheme they so desire, provided it’s consistent with the Constitution.

But contrivances such as ‘RCV’ is a ‘solution’ in search of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist; or more precisely, where the problem isn’t the two-party system or a ‘lesser of two evils’ – rather, the problem is the ignorance, stupidity, apathy, and laziness of the American voter, which cannot be fixed with ‘RCV.’

 

[dblack]

“Under plurality voting, their votes would have been thrown away, and their preferences ignored.”

Wrong.

Votes are not ‘thrown away,’ nor are they ‘ignored’ – the votes are lawfully counted and recorded in favor of the selected candidate.

That a candidate failed to win the election, or was a ‘third party’ candidate, doesn’t mean the votes for that candidate were ‘thrown away’ or ‘ignored.’

“But under ranked choice, when it's obvious that their favorite can't when, their vote goes to their second choice.”

Which is nonsense.

The notion of affording a voter a ‘second choice’ because he voted for a ‘third party’ candidate is ridiculous.

The democratic process isn’t difficult to understand: one man, one vote.

The people of Maine are at liberty to enact whatever voting scheme they so desire, provided it’s consistent with the Constitution.

But contrivances such as ‘RCV’ is a ‘solution’ in search of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist; or more precisely, where the problem isn’t the two-party system or a ‘lesser of two evils’ – rather, the problem is the ignorance, stupidity, apathy, and laziness of the American voter, which cannot be fixed with ‘RCV.’

LOL...

Partisans will fight this tooth and nail. Fuck 'em.

 

[dblack]

If you're a RadioLab fan, or even if you're not, check this out. I happened to catch it driving across rural Kansas. Nice to hear momentum is building.

Tweak the Vote | Radiolab | WNYC Studios

 

[Skylar]

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 find the idea intriguing. I'd be open to exploring it more.

 

[Dana7360]

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 think it's a great idea. More states need to do that.

 

[my2¢]

Loser Bruce Poliquin sues, wants to be declared winner or else a new election. With the election rules being set 2 years ago, the demand to change them after the fact seems like being a cry-baby to me.

Congressman seeks new election if outcome is not overturned | My Connection from Cox

 

[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.

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 think it's a great idea. More states need to do that.

I think they will. Massachusetts is next on the list. They're looking at a ballot referendum for 2020.