CDZ Ranked Voting

[XponentialChaos]

Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea.



In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits that I can see happening:

1) People will get to vote for candidates they actually like.

That's right, like. Instead of just voting for the less terrible candidate, people will get an actual voice in who they want in charge without the consequence of throwing their vote away. I believe this will inevitably get better people voted into office who better represent the values and beliefs of the people in this country.

2) A viable 3rd party will actually happen.

There are a lot of people out there who refuse to vote for one of the two major parties. They choose to vote 3rd party knowing that their candidate won't win, but maybe they will make their voice heard as a protest vote against the two major parties. They hope that their voice will eventually change politics in this country. Well, how long is it going to take for that to happen? We have never really had a viable 3rd party and I don't expect that to change any time soon with our current system. Rather than continuing to shoot spit-balls at a tank waiting for it to get destroyed, we could change to a ranked voting system and a 3rd party would instantly become an actual realistic option.

(For example, I and many other voters weren't happy with the 2016 options. I hated Donald Trump and I hated Hillary Clinton. I would easily go 3rd party if given this option without throwing my vote away.)

3) Disrupt the tribal duopoly.

This is related to the 2nd point, but I want to elaborate on this. In my opinion, many of our current political issues stem from the tribal mentality that we have in our political system. Both sides hate each other. Both sides refuse to work together. Both sides have the intent of screwing over the other tribe rather than doing something good for the country. I believe that more viable options will blur the line that separates one tribe from the other. Politicians will be forced to work together with more political parties at the table.

4) More voters will be engaged in the process.

Like people who choose to vote 3rd party, there are many people who simply choose not to vote. I believe the addition of more viable options will bring more people to the voting booths since their voice matters that much more. Less voter apathy. More voter turnout. Our country's political landscape would better represent the people they're serving.

What's not to love about all that?! That would be awesome!

Now I'm sure there would be a few issues with this. For one, we have had plenty of issues with vote counts. We would need a more automated system that's idiot-proof, which would also raise some concerns about the security of the system. But this can be done and it's well worth it in my opinion.

 

[fncceo]

We can't even manage to rustle up two candidates in each election, where on earth will we find a third?

 

[dblack]

Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea.



In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits that I can see happening:

1) People will get to vote for candidates they actually like.

That's right, like. Instead of just voting for the less terrible candidate, people will get an actual voice in who they want in charge without the consequence of throwing their vote away. I believe this will inevitably get better people voted into office who better represent the values and beliefs of the people in this country.

2) A viable 3rd party will actually happen.

There are a lot of people out there who refuse to vote for one of the two major parties. They choose to vote 3rd party knowing that their candidate won't win, but maybe they will make their voice heard as a protest vote against the two major parties. They hope that their voice will eventually change politics in this country. Well, how long is it going to take for that to happen? We have never had a viable 3rd party and I don't expect that to change any time soon with our current system. Rather than continuing to shoot spit-balls at a tank waiting for it to get destroyed, we could change to a ranked voting system and a 3rd party would instantly become an actual realistic option.

(For example, I and many other voters weren't happy with the 2016 options. I hated Donald Trump and I hated Hillary Clinton. I would easily go 3rd party if given this option without throwing my vote away.)

3) Disrupt the tribal duopoly.

This is related to the 2nd point, but I want to elaborate on this. In my opinion, many of our current political issues stem from the tribal mentality that we have in our political system. Both sides hate each other. Both sides refuse to work together. Both sides have the intent of screwing over the other tribe rather than doing something good for the country. I believe that more viable options will disrupt that line that separates one tribe from the other. Politicians will be forced to work together with more political parties at the table.

4) More voters will be engaged in the process.

Like people who choose to vote 3rd party, there are many people who simply choose not to vote. I believe the addition of more viable options will bring more people to the voting booths since their voice matters that much more. Less voter apathy. More voter turnout. Our country's political landscape would better represent the people they're serving.

What's not to love about all that?! That would be awesome!

Now I'm sure there would be a few issues with this. For one, we have had plenty of issues with vote counts. We would need a more automated system that's idiot-proof, which would also raise some concerns about the security of the system. But this can be done and it's well worth it in my opinion.

This is the most promising reform proposal I've come across in decades. It would significantly improve our political climate and encourage government from consensus, rather than divided partisanship.

Which is why the major parties will fight it tooth and nail. We've been focusing on a ground up approach, convincing state and local governments, even party primaries, to use it. But if there's widespread adoption, the D's and R's will flip out and do everything they can to prevent it.

 

[progressive hunter]

We can't even manage to rustle up two candidates in each election, where on earth will we find a third?

we had 5 in missouri last time,,,

 

[ReinyDays]

You do know you listed the four reasons why we don't use this ... right? ... Rich people pick the President, not the People ...

 

[alang1216]

Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea.



In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits that I can see happening:

1) People will get to vote for candidates they actually like.

That's right, like. Instead of just voting for the less terrible candidate, people will get an actual voice in who they want in charge without the consequence of throwing their vote away. I believe this will inevitably get better people voted into office who better represent the values and beliefs of the people in this country.

2) A viable 3rd party will actually happen.

There are a lot of people out there who refuse to vote for one of the two major parties. They choose to vote 3rd party knowing that their candidate won't win, but maybe they will make their voice heard as a protest vote against the two major parties. They hope that their voice will eventually change politics in this country. Well, how long is it going to take for that to happen? We have never really had a viable 3rd party and I don't expect that to change any time soon with our current system. Rather than continuing to shoot spit-balls at a tank waiting for it to get destroyed, we could change to a ranked voting system and a 3rd party would instantly become an actual realistic option.

(For example, I and many other voters weren't happy with the 2016 options. I hated Donald Trump and I hated Hillary Clinton. I would easily go 3rd party if given this option without throwing my vote away.)

3) Disrupt the tribal duopoly.

This is related to the 2nd point, but I want to elaborate on this. In my opinion, many of our current political issues stem from the tribal mentality that we have in our political system. Both sides hate each other. Both sides refuse to work together. Both sides have the intent of screwing over the other tribe rather than doing something good for the country. I believe that more viable options will blur the line that separates one tribe from the other. Politicians will be forced to work together with more political parties at the table.

4) More voters will be engaged in the process.

Like people who choose to vote 3rd party, there are many people who simply choose not to vote. I believe the addition of more viable options will bring more people to the voting booths since their voice matters that much more. Less voter apathy. More voter turnout. Our country's political landscape would better represent the people they're serving.

What's not to love about all that?! That would be awesome!

Now I'm sure there would be a few issues with this. For one, we have had plenty of issues with vote counts. We would need a more automated system that's idiot-proof, which would also raise some concerns about the security of the system. But this can be done and it's well worth it in my opinion.

My county did it here in VA and it worked great. We had four candidates and without this the most radical candidate would have won, instead we got a winner who ended up with 65% of the votes.

 

[XponentialChaos]

We can't even manage to rustle up two candidates in each election, where on earth will we find a third?

The other options are already there. They're just not always given a legitimate chance because of the way our voting system works.

Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, etc.

 

[fncceo]

Rich people pick the President

Rich people pick who we see in TV and movies. I think it that was also true of elections, we'd get much better looking candidates...

 

[dblack]

My favorite feature of ranked-choice-voting is that it discourages candidates from alienating voters. Second or third place votes can win an election. That means divisive candidates will be at a disadvantage, while candidates who appeal to wide range of voters will have an advantage. It wouldn't eliminate the two major parties. Most countries that have tried this still have a, more or less, two party system (check out Australia). But it changes the tone of the elections. Candidates have a strong incentive to avoid extreme statements or policies that would provoke voters to rank them last. It encourages leadership that represents more than just a slim majority of voters.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea.



In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits that I can see happening:

1) People will get to vote for candidates they actually like.

That's right, like. Instead of just voting for the less terrible candidate, people will get an actual voice in who they want in charge without the consequence of throwing their vote away. I believe this will inevitably get better people voted into office who better represent the values and beliefs of the people in this country.

2) A viable 3rd party will actually happen.

There are a lot of people out there who refuse to vote for one of the two major parties. They choose to vote 3rd party knowing that their candidate won't win, but maybe they will make their voice heard as a protest vote against the two major parties. They hope that their voice will eventually change politics in this country. Well, how long is it going to take for that to happen? We have never really had a viable 3rd party and I don't expect that to change any time soon with our current system. Rather than continuing to shoot spit-balls at a tank waiting for it to get destroyed, we could change to a ranked voting system and a 3rd party would instantly become an actual realistic option.

(For example, I and many other voters weren't happy with the 2016 options. I hated Donald Trump and I hated Hillary Clinton. I would easily go 3rd party if given this option without throwing my vote away.)

3) Disrupt the tribal duopoly.

This is related to the 2nd point, but I want to elaborate on this. In my opinion, many of our current political issues stem from the tribal mentality that we have in our political system. Both sides hate each other. Both sides refuse to work together. Both sides have the intent of screwing over the other tribe rather than doing something good for the country. I believe that more viable options will blur the line that separates one tribe from the other. Politicians will be forced to work together with more political parties at the table.

4) More voters will be engaged in the process.

Like people who choose to vote 3rd party, there are many people who simply choose not to vote. I believe the addition of more viable options will bring more people to the voting booths since their voice matters that much more. Less voter apathy. More voter turnout. Our country's political landscape would better represent the people they're serving.

What's not to love about all that?! That would be awesome!

Now I'm sure there would be a few issues with this. For one, we have had plenty of issues with vote counts. We would need a more automated system that's idiot-proof, which would also raise some concerns about the security of the system. But this can be done and it's well worth it in my opinion.

It's always been interesting to look at.

However, you need to start pushing the idea right after a presidential election cycle. And you have to have a critical mass of support.

Otherwise, they'll just blow you and whoever else off.

 

[Alan Stallion]

I'm intrigued by the concept. Since this is the CDZ, it'd like to hear arguments against.

Personally, I've been involved in enough campaigns where people will say to me "I like what your candidate stands for, but can he win?"

Well, that's the crux of the matter. If you don't for the candidate you truly like, that candidate will not win because of fear, by someone's fear that they need to vote strategically to prevent a bad candidate of winning instead of supporting whoever's the best candidate.

So mediocrity reigns.

I've seen that mentality in all races from President to state government to local government.

For example, in the California Gubernatorial recall of 2003, we could have had a different result than movie actor/bodybuilder Arnold Schwarzenegger becoming the governor.

 

[dblack]

Well, that's the crux of the matter. If you don't for the candidate you truly like, that candidate will not win because of fear, by someone's fear that they need to vote strategically to prevent a bad candidate of winning instead of supporting whoever's the best candidate.

That's exactly what ranked choice voting addresses. It does away with "lesser-of-two-evils". You can rank the candidate you like best first, and rank the candidate you like least at the very bottom. With ranked choice voting you really can vote "against" a candidate - by ranking them dead last. And you can do so while still giving your primary support to the candidate you like best - and not feel compelled to vote for the "lesser-evil".

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

The two party system is actually two coalitions of two groups

 

[dblack]

I'm intrigued by the concept. Since this is the CDZ, it'd like to hear arguments against.

I've not heard any compelling arguments against it. Election purists point out that it can still be "gamed", in certain edge cases. But it's orders of magnitude better, in that regard, than plurality voting. The other criticism you'll hear is that it's too complicated, and that many voters will be confused. The experience of most districts that have implemented it does not support this concern, however.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Ranked choice voting is indeed an excellent reform, which can be adopted for many positions. It requires changes in state voting laws and an investment in new voting machines, re-education of voters, etc. It cannot today be applied to Presidential elections (the Electoral College gets in the way) but it can work well in party primaries. Many cities use ranked choice voting, and it can be adopted most everywhere in state elections. I contribute every year to an organization that is leading the fight for this reform across the nation: www.fairvote.org

I think if folks poured a tenth as much energy into good government reforms as they do into generating ultra-partisan hyperbole, we could probably dig ourselves out of the hole our system’s duopoly of professional politicians has forced us into. Of course we need other reforms besides RCV, but enough said ...

 

[Muhammed]

Been there done that in 1930s Germany.

Very similar to how Hitler came to power.

I don't think it's a good idea because it favors extremists. Modern day San Francisco is proof enough, IMO.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Been there done that in 1930s Germany. Very similar to how Hitler came to power. I don't think it's a good idea because it favors extremists. Modern day San Francisco is proof enough, IMO.

Nonsense. As conceived and utilized in the U.S. “Ranked Choice Voting” would undoubtedly lead to less extremism. But no voting reform can protect a nation’s democracy or sanity under every condition. The same is true of the most carefully designed Constitutional Parliamentary system imaginable.

 

[Muhammed]

Been there done that in 1930s Germany. Very similar to how Hitler came to power. I don't think it's a good idea because it favors extremists. Modern day San Francisco is proof enough, IMO.

Nonsense. As conceived and utilized in the U.S. “Ranked Choice Voting” would undoubtedly lead to less extremism. But no voting reform can protect a nation’s democracy or sanity under every condition. The same is true of the most carefully designed Constitutional Parliamentary system imaginable.

San Francisco is less extremist than what other city?

 

[Alan Stallion]

I don't think it's a good idea because it favors extremists. Modern day San Francisco is proof enough, IMO.

San Francisco has had ranked voting since 2004. They were already politically extreme long before 2004.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Ranked choice voting is indeed an excellent reform, which can be adopted for many positions. It requires changes in state voting laws and an investment in new voting machines, re-education of voters, etc. It cannot today be applied to Presidential elections (the Electoral College gets in the way) but it can work well in party primaries. Many cities use ranked choice voting, and it can be adopted most everywhere in state elections. I contribute every year to an organization that is leading the fight for this reform across the nation: www.fairvote.org

Why wouldn't it work in presidential elections within the electoral college system?