CDZ Ranked Voting

[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

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

“Why wouldn't it work in presidential elections within the electoral college system?” asks XponentialChaos. A good question.

In theory, but not practice, RCV in the Electoral College might work under exceptional circumstances, but states have almost unlimited Constitutional rights to choose electors by whatever method they select. They can decide to have all electors chosen by the Governor, or state legislature ... even without any presidential election at all!

The present “winner take all” method of choosing electors after a popular vote in each state is one that simply evolved (to the chagrin of most Founders), but as you may know it is still not practiced in Maine and Nebraska. Without a Constitutional amendment abolishing the College or radically reworking the selection of its members, the (majority party) professional politicians in each state would, as now, have no incentive to compromise.

The effort to make winning a national popular vote decisive (instead of the Electoral College vote) is what claims most attention today. Without a Constitutional Amendment (most difficult to imagine in the present) most attention has centered on the “National Popular Vote Compact,” which would still not prevent a candidate in a three-way race from winning the Presidency with merely a plurality of votes. The National Compact for a Popular Vote does not include a RCV. There is some new talk about trying to get “swing states” to adopt RCV in choosing electoral college voters. Some discussion is here: Want to Fix Presidential Elections? Here’s the Quickest Way.

My own feeling is that short of the Republicans experiencing a dramatic loss despite winning the popular vote (as Democrats have experienced twice in recent times) there will be little serious movement on this front. So for now it is unlikely that any progress will be made except in popularizing RCV on local and state levels first.

Another article: If we’re abolishing the Electoral College, let’s also have ranked-choice voting for president

Again, no electoral reform will solve all the problems that may arise. RCV, for example, does not address the issue of money in politics, as in Citizens United.

 

[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?

“Why wouldn't it work in presidential elections within the electoral college system?” asks XponentialChaos. A good question.

In theory, but not practice, RCV in the Electoral College might work under exceptional circumstances, but states have almost unlimited Constitutional rights to choose electors by whatever method they select. They can decide to have all electors chosen by the Governor, or state legislature ... even without any presidential election at all!

The present “winner take all” method of choosing electors after a popular vote in each state is one that simply evolved (to the chagrin of most Founders), but as you may know it is still not practiced in Maine and Nebraska. Without a Constitutional amendment abolishing the College or radically reworking the selection of its members, the (majority party) professional politicians in each state would, as now, have no incentive to compromise.

The effort to make winning a national popular vote decisive (instead of the Electoral College vote) is what claims most attention today. Without a Constitutional Amendment (most difficult to imagine in the present) most attention has centered on the “National Popular Vote Compact,” which would still not prevent a candidate in a three-way race from winning the Presidency with merely a plurality of votes. The National Compact for a Popular Vote does not include a RCV. There is some new talk about trying to get “swing states” to adopt RCV in choosing electoral college voters. Some discussion is here: Want to Fix Presidential Elections? Here’s the Quickest Way.

My own feeling is that short of the Republicans experiencing a dramatic loss despite winning the popular vote (as Democrats have experienced twice in recent times) there will be little serious movement on this front. So for now it is unlikely that any progress will be made except in popularizing RCV on local and state levels first.

Another article: If we’re abolishing the Electoral College, let’s also have ranked-choice voting for president

Again, no electoral reform will solve all the problems that may arise. RCV, for example, does not address the issue of money in politics, as in Citizens United.

Very interesting. Thank you.

From one of your articles:

"As attractive as a nationwide ranked-choice system might seem, it cannot be accomplished by the clever means of the interstate compact. It would require a constitutional amendment. This is basic logistics. It is impossible to compute a nationwide ranking of preferences unless all states use ranked-choice ballots."

It looks like you're right - it would require both sides to see the flaw in the system for this to pick up any serious momentum at the national level. I think the 1992 election would be a great example of this for Republicans as Ross Perot likely swung the election to the Democrats. But that seems like so long ago now and not on people's minds. It might take another Ross Perot instance to get this off the ground.

 

[Dale Smith]

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.

Ehhh, if voting actually mattered, they wouldn't allow us to do so.......

 

[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.

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.

Something like this would take years to implement. It's a big change. But it would be well-worth it in my opinion.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Howard Schultz.

He was the former CEO of Starbucks who threw his hat in the ring for President of the United States. The right embraced him and the left attacked him relentlessly. Why? Because he was a likeable candidate outside of the duopoly. The right embraced him because he would certainly take votes away from the Democrats. The left hated him because he would certainly take votes away from the Democrats.

After months of criticism from the left, he withdrew from the race.

Former Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz decides against running for president

"An independent campaign for the White House is not how I can best serve our country at this time,” Schultz said in statement.

www.nbcnews.com

How did we get to this point? The way our system is set up, a likeable candidate is attacked because they like him. Think about that for a moment. A likeable candidate is attacked and chased out of the race because they like him.

This is why mediocrity reigns. And it could be fixed with a change to our voting system.

Imagine a debate with the nominees from the Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Green party. Imagine that any one of them can realistically win the election by being the best on that stage. Imagine how that debate would go.

Imagine a system where we don't chase off some of the best talent we have because they're too good. Ranked-Choice Voting doesn't fix everything, but it would fix a lot of it.

 

[XponentialChaos]

“Maine will officially become the first-ever state to use ranked-choice voting for a presidential election, the state’s Supreme Court ruled Tuesday, allowing voters to rank each presidential candidate in order of preference for the November election.”

Maine Will Be The First-Ever State To Use Ranked-Choice Voting For A Presidential Election

Trump, Biden and three others are on the ballot.

www.forbes.com

 

[Picaro]

Just go with what works; bring back literacy tests, the reasons for banning them are long gone, and implement civics tests, one for each level of govt., local, state, and Federal. Keeping illiterates and dumbasses away from the polls will clean up the systemic problems, but of course cleaning up the corruption among voters will take a lot more effort.

All you end up with at the end of the day with the OP is a list of candidates with the highest name identification, a function of money and advertising, not a any real genuine improvements.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Just go with what works; bring back literacy tests, the reasons for banning them are long gone, and implement civics tests, one for each level of govt., local, state, and Federal. Keeping illiterates and dumbasses away from the polls will clean up the systemic problems, but of course cleaning up the corruption among voters will take a lot more effort.

All you end up with at the end of the day with the OP is a list of candidates with the highest name identification, a function of money and advertising, not a any real genuine improvements.

I listed a few improvements in the OP. Do you disagree with those improvements? I don’t think it fixes all the issues, but it fixes several.

If you feel strongly about literacy tests, then I encourage you to start a topic on that. This topic, however, is about ranked-choice voting.

 

[dblack]

Just go with what works; bring back literacy tests, the reasons for banning them are long gone, and implement civics tests, one for each level of govt., local, state, and Federal. Keeping illiterates and dumbasses away from the polls will clean up the systemic problems, but of course cleaning up the corruption among voters will take a lot more effort.

All you end up with at the end of the day with the OP is a list of candidates with the highest name identification, a function of money and advertising, not a any real genuine improvements.

I listed a few improvements in the OP. Do you disagree with those improvements? I don’t think it fixes all the issues, but it fixes several.

If you feel strongly about literacy tests, then I encourage you to start a topic on that. This topic, however, is about ranked-choice voting.

It would be a huge improvement. It won't make voters any smarter. It may be the case that we've jumped the shark in the regard. But it would make for more civil elections and less bridge-burning.

 

[sartre play]

As long as voters will not do the research necessary, they will pick the leader who tells them what they want to hear, we forget they will say just about anything, but follow up only what they or their party want. its become a hate fest. millions spent on polls to pick what your willing to support and what they can pass on because you ranked it low in your polling answers. Its darn hard to not get caught up in the anger.

 

[dblack]

As long as voters will not do the research necessary, they will pick the leader who tells them what they want to hear, we forget they will say just about anything, but follow up only what they or their party want. its become a hate fest. millions spent on polls to pick what your willing to support and what they can pass on because you ranked it low in your polling answers. Its darn hard to not get caught up in the anger.

That's where ranked choice voting really helps though. Candidates who promote a "hate-fest", who demonize opponents and alienate opposition, lose out on a lot of second place votes. And, under ranked choice voting, second place votes a can make the difference. Candidates have an incentive to reach for broad consensus and avoid divisive rancor.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'm thrilled with Maine's decision to implement ranked-choice voting.

I have some questions about the logistics of how this will work for a national election considering that they're the only state implementing this concept for a presidential election.

Let me propose a hypothetical scenario to address my questions:

Suppose that Trump vs Biden is an extremely close national election with both candidates just under the 270 amount in the electoral college. Suppose that under ranked-choice voting, Maine's top presidential candidate is from the Green party and their second choice is Biden. What would happen in this scenario?

Democrat: 267 votes
Republican: 267 votes
Green: 4 votes

A. Since no candidate has the 270 votes in the electoral college, would this automatically go to the 12th Amendment? If I'm understanding this correctly, the House of Representatives would then pick the winner. This would likely lead to Trump's victory as Republicans control the House.

OR

B. Since states have almost unlimited power to choose electors by whatever method they want, could Maine choose to change their votes and have their electors select Biden instead? Their top green party candidate has no chance at winning, so they implement their ranked choice and go to Biden instead. This would then lead to a Biden victory.

I could be way off here, but I'm under the impression that B would work since "states have almost unlimited Constitutional rights to choose electors by whatever method they select" - Tom Paine 1949.

Now if this is correct, then what's stopping other states from implementing the exact same idea? Have each of the participating states rank their top choices. If the state's top candidate has no chance at winning, then the state electors are instructed to drop down to the next candidate. Under this framework, there is no contractual agreement between states - each state is simply surveying the rest of the electoral college map and then choosing their own electors as they wish with their own unlimited ability in deciding such things. We get ranked-choice voting at the national level from participating states who are simply exercising their own states' rights and not from any kind of interstate pact that requires a constitutional amednment.

Couldn't this work? Let me know if I'm way off here. I have a feeling I might be.

 

[Picaro]

Just go with what works; bring back literacy tests, the reasons for banning them are long gone, and implement civics tests, one for each level of govt., local, state, and Federal. Keeping illiterates and dumbasses away from the polls will clean up the systemic problems, but of course cleaning up the corruption among voters will take a lot more effort.

All you end up with at the end of the day with the OP is a list of candidates with the highest name identification, a function of money and advertising, not a any real genuine improvements.

I listed a few improvements in the OP. Do you disagree with those improvements? I don’t think it fixes all the issues, but it fixes several.

I pointed out why it's not any improvement, just a another list of those with lots of name identification via advertising and promotion, no different than what elections are now.

If you feel strongly about literacy tests, then I encourage you to start a topic on that. This topic, however, is about ranked-choice voting.

I encourage you not to start topics on voting reformsand then whine about people who post on the topic.

 

[Picaro]

A. Since no candidate has the 270 votes in the electoral college, would this automatically go to the 12th Amendment? If I'm understanding this correctly, the House of Representatives would then pick the winner. This would likely lead to Trump's victory as Republicans control the House.

A. Since no candidate has the 270 votes in the electoral college, would this automatically go to the 12th Amendment? If I'm understanding this correctly, the House of Representatives would then pick the winner. This would likely lead to Trump's victory as Republicans control the House.

When was the last tie? In any case, the Electoral College is designed to limit the powers of the more populous states, and it works fine at doing that. I think 48 states now have 'winner take all' statutes. Those are what you need to try and change, not implement an entire new 'system' of popularity lists that will end up essentially the same list as what we have now. Changing one statute in a state is a far easier prospect than getting rid of the entire electoral system that works just fine, especially if the stupid and uneducated are removed from foisting their ignorance on the entire country.

Any Party can change its primary system as well; they fact that they don't or only do so occasionally is a choice its members make, same as states choose 'winner take all' re their electoral votes. Obviously the majority of today's Democrats are happy with their corrupt 'Super Delegate Rule', or they wouldn't vote for the scumbags their commie leaders nominate for them. Trying to 'fix the system just to pander to a handful of 3rd Party cranks is only going to result in more dissatisfaction and confusion among the semi-literate and dumb, since doing nothing to prevent those from voting will screw up anything done to improve things.

Improve the quality of voters first, then worry about the rest.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Just go with what works; bring back literacy tests, the reasons for banning them are long gone, and implement civics tests, one for each level of govt., local, state, and Federal. Keeping illiterates and dumbasses away from the polls will clean up the systemic problems, but of course cleaning up the corruption among voters will take a lot more effort.

All you end up with at the end of the day with the OP is a list of candidates with the highest name identification, a function of money and advertising, not a any real genuine improvements.

I listed a few improvements in the OP. Do you disagree with those improvements? I don’t think it fixes all the issues, but it fixes several.

If you feel strongly about literacy tests, then I encourage you to start a topic on that. This topic, however, is about ranked-choice voting.

It would be a huge improvement. It won't make voters any smarter. It may be the case that we've jumped the shark in the regard. But it would make for more civil elections and less bridge-burning.

I agree 100%.

 

[dblack]

Suppose that under ranked-choice voting, Maine's top presidential candidate is from the Green party and their second choice is Biden.

I haven't yet read about Maine's efforts, but the above isn't how ranked-choice voting normally works. There would still only be one winner. Not sure what you're thinking here.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Suppose that under ranked-choice voting, Maine's top presidential candidate is from the Green party and their second choice is Biden.

I haven't yet read about Maine's efforts, but the above isn't how ranked-choice voting normally works. There would still only be one winner. Not sure what you're thinking here.

I know. I'm trying to figure out how/if this would work within a national election when they're the only one participating in this concept.

If they're using ranked-choice voting, then what exactly does that accomplish for a national election? It seems like their ranked choice only really works at the state-level, which could potentially screw things up for themselves nationally. (Like if Maine selects a 3rd party candidate when nobody else does. Does that mean that their vote is stuck on the 3rd party, which loses electoral college votes for their next preferred candidate?)

State-wide elections are perfectly clear, but I'm unsure of the logistics of how their ranked-choice vote interacts within a system of other states who are not participating in the same system.

Would their winner be the 3rd party candidate, which would force the 12th amendment since no candidate has 270 electoral college votes?

 

[dblack]

Suppose that under ranked-choice voting, Maine's top presidential candidate is from the Green party and their second choice is Biden.

I haven't yet read about Maine's efforts, but the above isn't how ranked-choice voting normally works. There would still only be one winner. Not sure what you're thinking here.

I know. I'm trying to figure out how/if this would work within a national election when they're the only one participating in this concept.

If they're using ranked-choice voting, then what exactly does that accomplish for a national election? It seems like their ranked choice only really works at the state-level, which could potentially screw things up for themselves nationally. (Like if Maine selects a 3rd party candidate when nobody else does. Does that mean that their vote is stuck on the 3rd party, which loses electoral college votes for their next preferred candidate?)

Right. Maine using ranked choice voting to assign its electors won't have any bearing on other states, or the way the electors are counted once submitted. It will only change how people vote.

Would their winner be the 3rd party candidate, which would force the 12th amendment since no candidate has 270 electoral college votes?

Outside of Maine's internal process of assigning electors, the election would be no different than the way it works now. I'm not sure I see the problem your concerned about.

 

[sartre play]

QUESTION, how could they screw it up, who would have the best advantage, isn't the problem really about allowing them all to lie & mislead us.

 

[XponentialChaos]

I'm not sure I see the problem your concerned about.

My concern is that ranked-choice voting for a single state in a national election may make matters worse for that state.

Hypothetically let’s suppose that Biden and Trump are really close. Each has 267 electoral college votes. It all comes down to Maine.

Steve is a voter in Maine. Steve is not happy with the duopoly and he reads about ranked-choice voting.

“Well I’m not crazy about Biden and I absolutely hate Trump. Might as well try something different and vote 3rd party. If my 3rd party vote for president doesn’t win then my choice goes to Biden anyway so it doesn’t hurt to try something different” he thinks to himself.

Well what if there are a lot of Steves in Maine. The Green Party candidate actually wins! The Steves in Maine celebrate that Maine goes Green Party in the presidential election and all is great. Or is it?

What happens to Maine’s electoral college votes?

Democrat: 267
Republican: 267
Green: 4

If this was a NATIONAL ranked-choice voting system and with no majority of electoral college votes, then the lowest choice would be redistributed to their second option. Maine’s choice of Green Party would get redistributed to Democrat and Biden wins.

Democrat: 271
Republican: 267
Green: eliminated

But that’s NOT what we have. We don’t have NATIONAL ranked-choice voting. It’s just Maine.

So what would actually happen, I think, is that Maine’s votes would not get redistributed. They picked green so they stay green.

Democrat: 267
Republican: 267
Green: 4

Now there’s no candidate with the 270 electoral college votes needed. To select a winner, they invoke the 12th amendment which puts the result of the election in the hands of the House of Representatives, which will vary in results depending on who currently controls that branch.

So what happened to the Steves out there in Maine? They prefer Biden over Trump but chose to vote 3rd party. By doing so, they ended up hurting Biden’s chances of winning. They potentially sabotaged the less terrible candidate by going 3rd party. Maybe they should have just stuck with the duopoly.

Doesn’t that defeat the entire purpose of ranked-choice voting??? I’m not sure how helpful it is if just one state is doing it, but admittedly I’m still unsure of the logistics on this.