Ranked Choice Voting on Smerconish Today

[Oddball]

Maybe giving elections back to the people instead of evil corporations would be a good idea.

Maybe the idea that you can become more free by choosing who your prison warden will be needs a second look.

 

[dblack]

So we then get the lesser of eighteen evils!

Exactly. We get the least evil of all the candidates. Which is way better than the second-most evil candidate. Your partisan fear is blinding you to this obvious logic.

 

[Oddball]

View attachment 696922

Exactly. We get the least evil of all the candidates. Which is way better than the second-most evil candidate. Your partisan fear is blinding you to this obvious logic.

The real-world results don't show that....They show that you get just another mediocre despot.

 

[candycorn]

Partisans defending their idiots is pretty much the best advertisement there is for RCV.

Idiots calling everyone else idiots is the best indicator that they have nothing to offer.

Yep. If we're too goddamn short-sighted and stupid as a nation to change a system that is clearly broken, we deserve the shitshow.

We need better candidates....no issue with that. We need to get the money out of politics the best we can.... But the voting process...you vote, the votes get counted, the winners take office... isn't broken at all.

Anyone who says that it is broken is simply wrong.

 

[candycorn]

Yes - if you only count the first choice votes, it's no better than a regular election. But in RCV, if your first choice doesn't win, your vote goes to your second choice, or third, on down the list. Ultimately, no candidate can win unless they get a majority of the votes. When it comes down to that lest two standing, the winner will be the candidate that the majority of voters preferred.

And you end up with someone who wasn't the plurality's first choice?

No thanks.

If some voters don't rank other candidates, the system is less effective at diminishing the spoiler effect, but unless no one ranks at all, it's never as bad as our current system. In that worst case scenario, where every single voter is as stupid as Sarah Palin and refuses to rank other candidates, the election goes down exactly as it would under plurality voting. It can only be better when it comes to getting rid of lesser-of-two-evils.

Pfft...

Okay...

Lets say that Trump runs as an independent, DeSantis wins the GOP nomination and Biden is the DNC nominee.

Please oh please explain to us how we will get a (and this always tickles me to hear grown people talk about "evil") "non-evil" winner?

 

[dblack]

The real-world results don't show that....They show that you get just another mediocre despot.

Ok, let's see your evidence!

I think the problem is in your assessment of "mediocre". I suspect you're interpreting "least offensive" as mediocre. Because Trumpsters loves them some "offensive".

 

[candycorn]

And you end up with someone who wasn't the plurality's first choice?

No thanks.


Pfft...

Okay...

Lets say that Trump runs as an independent, DeSantis wins the GOP nomination and Biden is the DNC nominee.

Please oh please explain to us how we will get a (and this always tickles me to hear grown people talk about "evil") "non-evil" winner?

Well? dblack . Who in the above 3 is "not evil"?

 

[dblack]

And you end up with someone who wasn't the plurality's first choice?

Exactly. The idea is to produce leaders that the majority can get behind - not just a plurality. We need a stable consensus government, not one that isn't pointlessly thrashing back and forth between the ambitions of radicals.

Lets say that Trump runs as an independent, DeSantis wins the GOP nomination and Biden is the DNC nominee.

Please oh please explain to us how we will get a (and this always tickles me to hear grown people talk about "evil") "non-evil" winner?

If those are only three candidates, we're fucked six ways to Sunday. But RCV punishes candidates who are divisive and offensive. Or rather it allows voters to punish them. Once RCV is the norm, these kind of candidates will be weeded out before they ever get to the general.

The thing with RCV is that it gives voters (finally!) the chance to actually vote against candidates they find unacceptable. We talk about that a lot. We roll it out as a defense when others point out that we're voting for a shitty candidate. "I know Trump is a douche, but I hate Biden, so I'm actually voting against him", or "Biden is an establishment goon, but in reality I'm voting against Trump."

But that's not reality. The reality is that, under plurality voting, you can only vote FOR one candidate. That's all that is recorded and counted.

With RCV you can vote against a given candidate, by ranking them dead last. With RCV you literally can vote "anybody but xxx".

 

[candycorn]

Exactly. The idea is to produce leaders that the majority can get behind - not just a plurality. We need a stable consensus government, not one that isn't pointlessly thrashing back and forth between the ambitions of radicals.

If those are only three candidates, we're fucked six ways to Sunday. But RCV punishes candidates who are divisive and offensive. Or rather it allows voters to punish them.

The thing with RCV is that it gives voters (finally!) the chance to actually vote against candidates they find unacceptable. We talk about that a lot. We roll it out as a defense when others point out that we're voting for a shitty candidate. "I know Trump is a douche, but I hate Biden, so I'm actually voting against him", or "Biden is an establishment goon, but in reality I'm voting against Trump."

But that's not reality. The reality is that you can only vote FOR one candidate. That's all that is recorded and counted.

With RCV you can vote against a given candidate, by ranking them dead last. With RCV you literally can vote "anybody but xxx".

So RCV doesn't solve anything.

I'll demonstrate:

Here is a graphic from the 2016 Republican Primaries:

Lets say you get what you're telling us is a superior system--ranked choice voting wall to wall...floor to ceiling....

Who up there in that photo is "not evil"? Remember--"evil" is your word, not mine. Tell us how your system gets us a great candidate for the general election out of that?

 

[dblack]

So RCV doesn't solve anything.

I'll demonstrate:

Here is a graphic from the 2016 Republican Primaries:

View attachment 696957
Lets say you get what you're telling us is a superior system--ranked choice voting wall to wall...floor to ceiling....

Who up there in that photo is "not evil"? Remember--"evil" is your word, not mine.

Evil is not my word. It's the lame excuse offered up by nearly every partisan trying to scare you into voting for their douchebag.

But you're missing, or rather, steering widely around, the point. The current system rewards the most polarizing candidate of the lot.

Tell us how your system gets us a great candidate for the general election out of that?

I've told you already. But candy, you're just not bright enough to discuss it coherently. Either that, you're just lying to protect that status quo. In any case, if you want to know more, there are plenty of resources out there if you actually want to understand how RCV. I'm not interested in educating you.

 

[candycorn]

Evil is not my word. It's the lame excuse offered up by nearly every partisan trying to scare you into voting for their douchebag.

But you're missing, or rather, steering widely around, the point. The current system rewards the most polarizing candidate of the lot.

I've told you already. But candy, you're just not bright enough to discuss it coherently. Either that, you're just lying to protect that status quo. In any case, if you want to know more, there are plenty of resources out there if you actually want to understand how RCV. I'm not interested in educating you.

Translation: RCV does nothing except eliminate a runoff. Your surrender is accepted

 

[dblack]

We need better candidates....no issue with that. We need to get the money out of politics the best we can.... But the voting process...you vote, the votes get counted, the winners take office... isn't broken at all.

Anyone who says that it is broken is simply wrong.

No, it's quite broken. Dishonest voting breaks it. Lesser-of-two-evils (strategic) voting breaks it. Granted, lesser-of-two-evils is a delusion - a psyche-out con that the major parties point at your head like a loaded gun. But I've been trying to explain this to people for years (decades) and they'll have none of it. They're mired in it.

RCV breaks thats that cycle. It lets you vote for the candidates you actually want, without worry that you will "help" a candidate you definitely don't want. You don't have to guess which candidate is mostly likely to beat Trump (or whoever). You just rank all the other candidates above him and your vote will go to the one who is mostly to beat him.

 

[dblack]

Translation: RCV does nothing except eliminate a runoff. Your surrender is accepted

You forgot to strut around and crap on the board!

 

[candycorn]

You forgot to strut around and crap on the board!

Essentially you're describing RCV, no?

 

[candycorn]

No, it's quite broken. Dishonest voting breaks it. Lesser-of-two-evils (strategic) voting breaks it. Granted, lesser-of-two-evils is a delusion - a psyche-out con that the major parties point at your head like a loaded gun. But I've been trying to explain this to people for years (decades) and they'll have none of it. They're mired in it.

Yeah...everyone else is wrong and you're right.

RCV breaks thats that cycle. It lets you vote for the candidates you actually want, without worry that you will "help" a candidate you definitely don't want. You don't have to guess which candidate is mostly likely to beat Trump (or whoever). You just rank all the other candidates above him and your vote will go to the one who is mostly to beat him.

In our current system, the vote for Biden or DeSantis (in the example I gave above that you ran from) does the same thing.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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.

The current system doesn't "work fine".

 

[candycorn]

The current system doesn't "work fine".

Sure it does.

In the general election....
You have candidates and people vote for them.

In the primary election...
You have candidates and people vote for them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sure it does.

In the general election....
You have candidates and people vote for them.

In the primary election...
You have candidates and people vote for them.

So, the Hong Kong's "democracy" works then? China's "democracy" works then.

People go and vote, voting leads to a winner, everyone's happy??????

You know which state had the most votes for Trump in 2020? California. All the Trump voters in California were essentially disenfranchised by the system. All EC votes went to Biden.

 

[candycorn]

So, the Hong Kong's "democracy" works then? China's "democracy" works then.

Not sure. I have never studied their elections.

People go and vote, voting leads to a winner, everyone's happy??????

Again, not sure.

You know which state had the most votes for Trump in 2020? California. All the Trump voters in California were essentially disenfranchised by the system. All EC votes went to Biden.

Well, you're talking about the electoral college. That has nothing to do with Ranked Choice Voting. Separate discussion.

RCV is a disaster in a general election. It may have some uses in a primary election though. But the uses it would have would be experienced only if there was a true "jungle" primary where everyone is on the ballot from all parties. Party primaries using RCV are silly for a number of reasons. Chief amongst these is that the goal of a political party is to win the general election. Having a lot of party voter's 2nd choice as your standard bearer in the general is not a good idea.

 

[candycorn]

So, the Hong Kong's "democracy" works then? China's "democracy" works then.

People go and vote, voting leads to a winner, everyone's happy??????

You know which state had the most votes for Trump in 2020? California. All the Trump voters in California were essentially disenfranchised by the system. All EC votes went to Biden.

The Electoral college is likely the best idea we've ever come up with. Direct election of the President would be horrendously bad.