Welcome to Rank-Choice voting

[Votto]

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work?

Ranked-choice voting offers a solution. It is a system that accurately represents voters’ preferences. It makes sure that the winner is the candidate with the most support, even if they are not everyone’s top choice.

www.commoncause.org

States are beginning to adopt this new voting method.

To save you the time and trouble, democrats love this as to Never Trumpsters

Why? Because had this sort of voting method been used for the election of 2016, Trump never would have won

It's all about stopping Orange man, and anyone like him in the future.

 

[occupied]

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work?

Ranked-choice voting offers a solution. It is a system that accurately represents voters’ preferences. It makes sure that the winner is the candidate with the most support, even if they are not everyone’s top choice.

www.commoncause.org

States are beginning to adopt this new voting method.

To save you the time and trouble, democrats love this as to Never Trumpsters

Why? Because had this sort of voting method been used for the election of 2016, Trump never would have won

It's all about stopping Orange man, and anyone like him in the future.

It's a solution to the two party system and their political machines' monopoly on power. That absolutely frightens those who are like things just the way they are where candidates get to choose their voters.

 

[initforme]

It's a solution to the two party system and their political machines' monopoly on power. That absolutely frightens those who are like things just the way they are where candidates get to choose their voters.

It's a most welcomed change.

 

[Oddball]

It's a solution to the two party system and their political machines' monopoly on power. That absolutely frightens those who are like things just the way they are where candidates get to choose their voters.

That's how it has been disingenuously sold....The results thus far have been that it makes it easier for establismentarian leftist to win.

 

[White 6]

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work?

Ranked-choice voting offers a solution. It is a system that accurately represents voters’ preferences. It makes sure that the winner is the candidate with the most support, even if they are not everyone’s top choice.

www.commoncause.org

States are beginning to adopt this new voting method.

To save you the time and trouble, democrats love this as to Never Trumpsters

Why? Because had this sort of voting method been used for the election of 2016, Trump never would have won

It's all about stopping Orange man, and anyone like him in the future.

Alaska was a big trump support state in 2020 the same year they did away with their primary, in order to support trump without question and voted in this rank choice thing. They were governed by a majority republican house, majority republican senate and a republican governor.
You really think they did it to stop the Orange man?
That is the stupidest thing, I ever heard.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work?

Ranked-choice voting offers a solution. It is a system that accurately represents voters’ preferences. It makes sure that the winner is the candidate with the most support, even if they are not everyone’s top choice.

www.commoncause.org

States are beginning to adopt this new voting method.

To save you the time and trouble, democrats love this as to Never Trumpsters

Why? Because had this sort of voting method been used for the election of 2016, Trump never would have won

It's all about stopping Orange man, and anyone like him in the future.

Well..yes..duh~

 

[shockedcanadian]

It's a solution to the two party system and their political machines' monopoly on power. That absolutely frightens those who are like things just the way they are where candidates get to choose their voters.

You could say this if there was a third party, instead it is just the splitting of votes by one party,

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

You could say this if there was a third party, instead it is just the splitting of votes,

It favors the moderate..and disadvantages the extremists.--I like it.

 

[occupied]

You could say this if there was a third party, instead it is just the splitting of votes,

Never going to be a viable third party otherwise. It would solve the problem of a third party candidate losing yet robbing the other candidates of a majority of the votes and forcing a run-off election.

 

[shockedcanadian]

It favors the moderate..and disadvantages the extremists.--I like it.

Except, there was only one Dem candidate, extreme or not they would be chosen by Dem voters as there wasn't another Dem option.

 

[konradv]

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work?

Ranked-choice voting offers a solution. It is a system that accurately represents voters’ preferences. It makes sure that the winner is the candidate with the most support, even if they are not everyone’s top choice.

www.commoncause.org

States are beginning to adopt this new voting method.

To save you the time and trouble, democrats love this as to Never Trumpsters

Why? Because had this sort of voting method been used for the election of 2016, Trump never would have won

It's all about stopping Orange man, and anyone like him in the future.

Sounds like a plan.

 

[occupied]

Except, there was only one Dem candidate, extreme or not they would be chosen by Dem voters as there wasn't another Dem option.

Alaska has a top-four open primary.

 

[flacaltenn]

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work?

Ranked-choice voting offers a solution. It is a system that accurately represents voters’ preferences. It makes sure that the winner is the candidate with the most support, even if they are not everyone’s top choice.

www.commoncause.org

States are beginning to adopt this new voting method.

To save you the time and trouble, democrats love this as to Never Trumpsters

Why? Because had this sort of voting method been used for the election of 2016, Trump never would have won

It's all about stopping Orange man, and anyone like him in the future.

It's a solution to the two party system and their political machines' monopoly on power. That absolutely frightens those who are like things just the way they are where candidates get to choose their voters.

That's a BS advertisement for RCVoting. The voting laws are SO DIFFERENT between states now -- that's it's hard to MAKE ANY generalizations about "party power" or RCV. For instance in states that run primaries FOR THE DEMS and REPS -- Those PARTIES NARROW DOWN the 4 or 10 candidates to ONE that appears on the FINAL GENERAL ELECT. ballot. And RCV does LITERALLY NOTHING on those GENERAL final election ballots other than weed out 3rd parties and MOST Independents.

TOO MANY STATES are just tossing EVERYONE in on one big JUNGLE primary. Then they determine the "top 2 or 3 or 4" that can BE on General election ballot. There can be as many 50 or 60 candidates on that JUNGLE ballot. Before you even DISCUSS RCV -- you have to GET RID of the WIDE open or Jungle primaries. Because that's how you CREATE "a one party state" and PRESERVE IT.

Because NOBODY that doesn't survive the JUNGLE in the PRIMARY will get to RUN an election campaign. They wont BE on the final ballot. For INDEPENDENTS -- who dont NEED PRIMARIES -- this is an insurmountable challenge. Because the JUNGLE is FORCING them to run and spend time and money on the primaries where there is MAXIMUM NOISE and hardly any chance of debate. You CANT HAVE a 40 person ON STAGE primary debate. The 2 corrupt BRAND NAME PARTIES have just LOCKED all Independents OUT of a meaningful campaign.

For 3rd parties like Greens, Libertarians, etc -- the effect is similar. Because 3rd parties use THEIR OWN caucuses/conventions/mail-ins to determine THE candidate. And the 2 "brand name" parties are USURPING that right and TOSSING them also "into the jungle -- with same insurmountable extra effort/expenses ON TOP of paying and accomplishing 50 party petitions for each state.

So in the case of JUNGLE primaries -- it matters not a whit what the effect of RCV is UNLESS a voter is FORCED TO CHOOSE a Dem or Repub as a 2nd or 3rd choice to remain relevant. LATELY -- all those Dem/Rep choices are worst of BOTH evils.

We can DISCUSS the role of RCV in a 40 choice primary -- but Like i said -- the "BRAND NAME" parties ALREADY have superiority if the state uses Jungle "all on one ballot" primaries. And the EFFECT of RCV in a Jungle primary is just to TOSS OUT voter preferences. Not to SATISFY the voter. And they are TRUELY TOSSED OUT --- as in those votes that get bounced out on each round -- they DONT EVEN MATTER to getting a "majority" of the people who VOTED in the first round. If you only have TWO viable choices and LOSE BOTH OF THOSE -- your votes did not count toward the majority goalline of number required to win in the LATER rounds.

So RCV makes IDIOTS believe that when you use RCV for a 40 person race and the winner of the final four GETS 26% or MORE of the "total" vote -- that's a sham. Because the votes for 36 candidates that "fell out" DIDN'T COUNT for the final percentages --- it just SOUNDS MORE Democratic, but its not. It's STILL FAR LESS than the 26% of the TOTAL number of people voting.

 

[konradv]

Except, there was only one Dem candidate, extreme or not they would be chosen by Dem voters as there wasn't another Dem option.

But wouldn’t most voters just put the candidate of the party they favored as a second choice? That’s what happened in AK, but it still wasn’t enough to put Palin over the top. Oops, I guess that’s another Trump endorsement that wasn’t worth much!

 

[occupied]

That's a BS advertisement for RCVoting. The voting laws are SO DIFFERENT between states now -- that's it's hard to MAKE ANY generalizations about "party power" or RCV. For instance in states that run primaries FOR THE DEMS and REPS -- Those PARTIES NARROW DOWN the 4 or 10 candidates to ONE that appears on the FINAL GENERAL ELECT. ballot. And RCV does LITERALLY NOTHING on those GENERAL final election ballots other than weed out 3rd parties and MOST Independents.

TOO MANY STATES are just tossing EVERYONE in on one big JUNGLE primary. Then they determine the "top 2 or 3 or 4" that can BE on General election ballot. There can be as many 50 or 60 candidates on that JUNGLE ballot. Before you even DISCUSS RCV -- you have to GET RID of the WIDE open or Jungle primaries. Because that's how you CREATE "a one party state" and PRESERVE IT.

Because NOBODY that doesn't survive the JUNGLE in the PRIMARY will get to RUN an election campaign. They wont BE on the final ballot. For INDEPENDENTS -- who dont NEED PRIMARIES -- this is an insurmountable challenge. Because the JUNGLE is FORCING them to run and spend time and money on the primaries where there is MAXIMUM NOISE and hardly any chance of debate. You CANT HAVE a 40 person ON STAGE primary debate. The 2 corrupt BRAND NAME PARTIES have just LOCKED all Independents OUT of a meaningful campaign.

For 3rd parties like Greens, Libertarians, etc -- the effect is similar. Because 3rd parties use THEIR OWN caucuses/conventions/mail-ins to determine THE candidate. And the 2 "brand name" parties are USURPING that right and TOSSING them also "into the jungle -- with same insurmountable extra effort/expenses ON TOP of paying and accomplishing 50 party petitions for each state.

So in the case of JUNGLE primaries -- it matters not a whit what the effect of RCV is UNLESS a voter is FORCED TO CHOOSE a Dem or Repub as a 2nd or 3rd choice to remain relevant. LATELY -- all those Dem/Rep choices are worst of BOTH evils.

We can DISCUSS the role of RCV in a 40 choice primary -- but Like i said -- the "BRAND NAME" parties ALREADY have superiority if the state uses Jungle "all on one ballot" primaries. And the EFFECT of RCV in a Jungle primary is just to TOSS OUT voter preferences. Not to SATISFY the voter. And they are TRUELY TOSSED OUT --- as in those votes that get bounced out on each round -- they DONT EVEN MATTER to getting a "majority" of the people who VOTED in the first round. If you only have TWO viable choices and LOSE BOTH OF THOSE -- your votes did not count toward the majority goalline of number required to win in the LATER rounds.

So RCV makes IDIOTS believe that when you use RCV for a 40 person race and the winner of the final four GETS 26% or MORE of the "total" vote -- that's a sham. Because the votes for 36 candidates that "fell out" DIDN'T COUNT for the final percentages --- it just SOUNDS MORE Democratic, but its not. It's STILL FAR LESS than the 26% of the TOTAL number of people voting.

Democracy is messy. It has never been improved upon by anyone trying to make it neat and predictable.

 

[flacaltenn]

Except, there was only one Dem candidate, extreme or not they would be chosen by Dem voters as there wasn't another Dem option.

That's EXTREMELY important. Because Dems VET the candidates they support in crowded races TO AVOID VOTE splitting. While traditionally Repubs run MORE CHOICES for the party members to chose from. You'll RARELY find anything close to even number of Dems/Reps on full OPEN Party primaries. The RECALL for Newsom in Cali had 50 or more choices on the replacement -- had the RECALL been approved. Something like NINE Dems and over TWENTY Republicans running.

The MORE DESPERATE the minority gets to RUN -- The less chance they have surviving a primary. It's the Democrat "tar baby in the Brier patch" routine. That's how One Party states put a LOCK on ballot access. For Indies, for 3rd parties, and even for Repubs trying to offer choices.

 

[Augustine_]

Ranked-Choice Voting: How does it work?

Ranked-choice voting offers a solution. It is a system that accurately represents voters’ preferences. It makes sure that the winner is the candidate with the most support, even if they are not everyone’s top choice.

www.commoncause.org

States are beginning to adopt this new voting method.

To save you the time and trouble, democrats love this as to Never Trumpsters

Why? Because had this sort of voting method been used for the election of 2016, Trump never would have won

It's all about stopping Orange man, and anyone like him in the future.

I have always been bothered by the winner take all system. If your party wins, the other side gets the middle finger. With ranked choice, if your party doesn't win, you at least get somebody that doesn't view you as an enemy. In ranked choice voting, candidates have to at least attempt to appeal to members of other parties, rather than villainizing them and swearing to crush their hopes and dreams.

 

[flacaltenn]

Democracy is messy. It has never been improved upon by anyone trying to make it neat and predictable.

These GIMMICKS when viewed from ALL the different voting processes in the various states that are being foisted on people -- make it EXTREMELY "messy". And peoples eyes glaze over when I talk about the complexities of ballot access for Indies and 3rd parties. It's understandable.

Lets NOT MAKE IT WORSE... This gets fixed at your STATE level. NOT by following the Dems "bad idea" bureau and FEDERALIZING elections.

 

[Augustine_]

These GIMMICKS when viewed from ALL the different voting processes in the various states that are being foisted on people -- make it EXTREMELY "messy". And peoples eyes glaze over when I talk about the complexities of ballot access for Indies and 3rd parties. It's understandable.

Lets NOT MAKE IT WORSE... This gets fixed at your STATE level. NOT by following the Dems "bad idea" bureau and FEDERALIZING elections.

Yeah imagine having to run campaigns for all the citizens of your constituency instead of only the partisans you need to motivate. That would be terrible.

 

[flacaltenn]

I have always been bothered by the winner take all system. If your party wins, the other side gets the middle finger. With ranked choice, if your party doesn't win, you at least get somebody that doesn't view you as an enemy. In ranked choice voting, candidates have to at least attempt to appeal to members of other parties, rather than villainizing them and swearing to crush their hopes and dreams.

NOTHING saves them -- not EVEN RCV in a 49 person Jungle primary. It's ALL NOISE and slime. No debate. Not possible. The PARTIES should narrow down candidates in their OWN primary processes and INVITE Independents to vote as well if they CHOOSE to do so.