Ranked Choice Voting on Smerconish Today

[candycorn]

Smerconish had a good discussion today about Ranked Choice Voting. I encourage you all to check out the on-demand section of xmradio.com and seek it out. Unlike the normal discussions, there were some new wrinkles introduced. I'm still a "no" on RCV but these latest wrinkles do give me a bit of pause on how it works on the ground vs. the letter of the law.

For those who don't know what it is, essentially, it is a way to eliminate runoff elections by having you vote for your candidate during a general election or a primary contest. Here is a diagram:

To me, it gives the 2nd and 3rd choice candidates too much pull. I like what we have. In Australia, however, they have a system to where the voters have to fill out preferences for all candidates on the ballot. Meaning that you have to rank everyone or your ballot gets tossed out. This changes the dynamic a bit because it speaks to the appeal of the candidate and forces the voter to actually consider the consequences of making your 2nd or 3rd choice a spoiler.

 

[Oddball]

The surest way to get the most mediocre and unimpressive schmucks elected to office.

 

[theHawk]

Smerconish had a good discussion today about Ranked Choice Voting. I encourage you all to check out the on-demand section of xmradio.com and seek it out. Unlike the normal discussions, there were some new wrinkles introduced. I'm still a "no" on RCV but these latest wrinkles do give me a bit of pause on how it works on the ground vs. the letter of the law.

For those who don't know what it is, essentially, it is a way to eliminate runoff elections by having you vote for your candidate during a general election or a primary contest. Here is a diagram:
View attachment 692763

To me, it gives the 2nd and 3rd choice candidates too much pull. I like what we have. In Australia, however, they have a system to where the voters have to fill out preferences for all candidates on the ballot. Meaning that you have to rank everyone or your ballot gets tossed out. This changes the dynamic a bit because it speaks to the appeal of the candidate and forces the voter to actually consider the consequences of making your 2nd or 3rd choice a spoiler.

Total nonsense. Maybe with a field of 12 in primary, but not in general elections.

 

[MisterBeale]

I studied this form of electioneering a long time ago in my polisci classes. It is definitely a way to break the corporate/government monopoly over the electoral arena, that big funded candidates have over the system. It is also a way around such decisions like the Citizens United Decision.

I personally am in favor of it. I understand that most folks that are unfamiliar with it, how it really works, and how it equalizes the playing field, don't understand the power it gives to candidates with more integrity. If we had always had a system like this, folks like Ron Paul and Ross Perot might have been good third party alternatives to the common corruption that has plagued the system, which would have been, "compromise candidates," and the money men and war profiteers might have long ago been kicked out of controlling American foreign policy and economic affairs.

 

[candycorn]

I studied this form of electioneering a long time ago in my polisci classes. It is definitely a way to break the corporate/government monopoly over the electoral arena, that big funded candidates have over the system. It is also a way around such decisions like the Citizens United Decision.

I personally am in favor of it. I understand that most folks that are unfamiliar with it, how it really works, and how it equalizes the playing field, don't understand the power it gives to candidates with more integrity. If we had always had a system like this, folks like Ron Paul and Ross Perot might have been good third party alternatives to the common corruption that has plagued the system, which would have been, "compromise candidates," and the money men and war profiteers might have long ago been kicked out of controlling American foreign policy and economic affairs.

I'm not in favor of it. What we have now has worked fine for centuries. No need to change it. We need to overhaul the influence of money in the system, get parties out of the primary process (just have a primary run by the State--if 2 democrats are the top 2; great...if 2 republicans are the top 2, great, if you have one from each party...even better), and we desperately need better candidates. My thing is this (and this is my own shortcoming): The important governing happens a few miles from your home and not in Congress or the White House. Yet these are the contests that get almost no coverage. If you end up with multiple candidates--6 or so--and they are running for school board...do you really know the ins and outs of the person you rank 4th? I probably wouldn't know myself. That casual selection of Jane Doe for 4th may end up turning the election moving her up to #1.

There is a lot of 3 dimensional chess going on with it in Australia to where (and this is described on the show by an Australian ex-pat) parties will negotiate with one another and form pre-election coalitions as to where you'll be approached either in person or electronically prior to casting your ballot with the precise order in which you're supposed to rank the candidates in an election.

 

[Oddball]

I studied this form of electioneering a long time ago in my polisci classes. It is definitely a way to break the corporate/government monopoly over the electoral arena, that big funded candidates have over the system. It is also a way around such decisions like the Citizens United Decision.

I personally am in favor of it. I understand that most folks that are unfamiliar with it, how it really works, and how it equalizes the playing field, don't understand the power it gives to candidates with more integrity. If we had always had a system like this, folks like Ron Paul and Ross Perot might have been good third party alternatives to the common corruption that has plagued the system, which would have been, "compromise candidates," and the money men and war profiteers might have long ago been kicked out of controlling American foreign policy and economic affairs.

The early results speak....The mediocre staus quo statists remain in power.

 

[MisterBeale]

The early results speak....The mediocre staus quo statists remain in power.

All the politicians that run now are mediocre.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The surest way to get the most mediocre and unimpressive schmucks elected to office.

Have you not been paying attention for the last 30 or 40 years?

Mediocre and unimpressive schmucks is all that is elected at the national level for the past couple decades.

 

[dblack]

To me, it gives the 2nd and 3rd choice candidates too much pull. I like what we have. .

Of course you do. Partisans love lesser-of-two-evils. All they have to to is scare people to win. That's a lot easier than real leadership.

 

[dblack]

All the politicians that run now are mediocre.

Mediocre doesn't cut it. They want full retard.

 

[MisterBeale]

Mediocre doesn't cut it. They want full retard.

I saw some of that video of that Fetterman guy they are running against Oz, and? I can't say you are wrong.

Folks don't actually vote for candidates, they vote for names and parties.

It would not, in the least surprise me if we had them re-match Trump and Biden or Trump and Hillary. Thankfully, I think in an interview, Hillary PROMISED she wouldn't do that to us. . . so?

. . . but yeah, full retard, seems to be the rule of the day.

 

[candycorn]

Of course you do. Partisans love lesser-of-two-evils. All they have to to is scare people to win. That's a lot easier than real leadership.

Well, if you say so.

The system we've had in place for centuries built the greatest civilization in the universe...bar none.

You could accept that fact or just state that we should change for the sake of change--that is a lot easier than actually thinking it through.

I will say that for the primaries, I think that ranked choice voting has some appeal but only if it is a true "jungle" primary. Throw all the names into a hat and let the people vote. Get the parties out of the election business all together. That sounds weird because people so closely identify political parties with elections when they are two different things. Elections are (or should be) held by the municipalities or the states. Political parties offer up their candidates and qualify them to be in the general election. During a primary, it is closed off to non party members. We need to change that to where whomever the top two vote-getters are, they are on the ballot in November instead of this rather silly system of primaries followed by primary run offs then general elections which are followed by general election run offs. Should a representative really have to win up to 4 elections to get the office? Nope. So I think RCV has some appeal there--but having RCV mixed with closed primaries is just a waste of time.

 

[candycorn]

One thing about Ranked Choice Voting is that it is cost effective. Only one election...no run offs. So there is that.

Keep in mind, whatever system we have has to work regardless of the political landscape. Most only know a 2 party system. It is possible to have more than two strong parties.

This is why the direct election of Presidents is such a non-starter--having 4 or 5 major candidates could deliver a winner with 24% of the vote or something like that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Elections are (or should be) held by the municipalities or the states.

Which are controlled by one of the two major parties – that’s the proverbial rub.

 

[candycorn]

Which are controlled by one of the two major parties – that’s the proverbial rub.

Primaries are literally party constructs these days.

General elections are, at least on paper, run by the county clerks and state election officials.

 

[dblack]

This is why the direct election of Presidents is such a non-starter--having 4 or 5 major candidates could deliver a winner with 24% of the vote or something like that.

No, it couldn't. That's the entire point of RCV.

 

[dblack]

No, it couldn't. That's the entire point of RCV.

Seriously - those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (politicians who have built careers on the lesser-of-two-evils scam) are lying to you. Do some research. Here's a place to start, but feel free to find your own. Just avoid the 2-party fear machine. You won't get the truth from them.

 

[TNHarley]

People like candy might not realize the system we have now is fucked. People like her dont realize that biden and trump are the bottom of the barrel. Hell, she is proud of the senile pants shitter. She will get on here and defend, deflect and gas light for him at the cost of her own dignity and integrity.
IDK if RCV is the answer, but the system we have now is complete shit. The duopoly owns our elections and their cultists are happy to keep it going that way.
Of course, the voters are the biggest problem. Not the people taking advantage of them dumbfucks. They are simply a consequence.

 

[dblack]

IDK if RCV is the answer, but the system we have now is complete shit. The duopoly owns our elections and their cultists are happy to keep it going that way.

RCV might have been the answer forty years ago. As it is, I fear it's too late. It's possible we've already jumped the shark in a way that can't be undone.

Of course, the voters are the biggest problem. Not the people taking advantage of them dumbfucks. They are simply a consequence.

Yeah. Democracy can't really withstand stupid, selfish voters.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Of course, the voters are the biggest problem. Not the people taking advantage of them dumbfucks. They are simply a consequence.

^^^ This ^^^

Post of the year right there.