Ranked choice voting

[TampaJim]

Rarely is an independent going to pull more votes from the left, they pull generally from the right.

Three "Third Party US Presidents" in the past. Ron Paul, Ross Perot and Ralph Nader all made a wave.
Only Nader would likely be consider a "liberal" since he was for the US consumer. Maine idea isn't bad.

[mastergun]

Anyone live in an area with ranked choice voting (RCV)? Man, it's confusing the first few times you try to follow. This isn't meant to be a political discussion so if you can stick to the topic, I'm sure Al would appreciate it. Maine is the first state to use it for a congressional race and it took over a week to declare a winner. Basically, it mandates that the winner receive at least 50% of the votes. In this case, there were 4 candidates. The incumbent took about 46% of the vote and was 2000 votes ahead of second place. After they booted the 3rd and 4th place finishers and distributed their second and third choice votes, the second place finisher was declared the winner.

Now comes the legal battle over constitionality of the whole process. The incumbent is leading the legal challenge which to me seems a little whiny because everyone knew that RCV was in effect prior to the elections. Now you're going to complain about it? Not sure if I like this "instant run-off" process or not. Proponents say it removes the spoiler effect of having 3-4 candidates. Do you think it accurately reflects the will of the people?

Most court challenges require that someone be harmed. Prior to the election no one was...had to wait until the election was complete before someone would have standing.

Personally, I think this style of voting where there is only one person to fill the slot is stupid and undermines the fairness and equality of each persons vote.

[rds_nc]

No it doesn’t, if you only put on your first choice and nothing after that then the second round your ballot is discarded, if you choose to write in a candidate who is not declared than your ballot is discarded. It was made for people who have no conviction. If your vote is that sacred, then cast for the one you truly believe in and let the chips fall where they may. I voted for Perot, twice, because he spoke to what I believed in and wanted to hear. I could have voted for bush and the status quo, but that did not suit me. I was actually in Somalia in the USMC the day Clinton was sworn in. Do you know how unpopular that draft dodger was to us when he was sworn in? And my third party vote was one of many that put him in, but I voted for the one I liked the best.

I see how popular the draft dodger now if is among the right leaning!

[Phoenix Dreaming]

I see how popular the draft dodger now if is among the right leaning!

Congrats.

[ziggen]

Most court challenges require that someone be harmed. Prior to the election no one was...had to wait until the election was complete before someone would have standing.

Personally, I think this style of voting where there is only one person to fill the slot is stupid and undermines the fairness and equality of each persons vote.

How does it undermine the fairness and equality of each persons vote? Everyone still has the same opportunity to cast as many votes as everyone else.

[MacIntosh]

What if an "extremist" candidate is exactly what is needed?

Then it wouldnt be good. However, to me, having more than 2 choices in an election would be a great thing, as I see both major parties as problematic, yet in 99% of the elections Ive voted in any other vote is essentially wasted/potentially a spoiler. Honestly, I appreciate extremist politicians only because they are necessary to counter the other extreme—I believe a system like this would likely make that less of anproblem and represent the actual political beliefs of more people. I dont think it would necessarily lead to compromising my rights away. But the point I think youre heading toward is well taken and I dont have actual experience to disagree with you.

[Jeff La]

To me this doesn't solve anything. If I were to vote and wanted a certain candidate to win, knowing the process, You sit down and figure out who's the least likely to win and put that as your second choice. This would prevent your closest opponent from getting votes should you not come out in the lead. Not positive yet but I still believe one man one vote. This seems to be a lazy man's voting choice.

[JHelms]

Traditional voting, we will say for Dog Catcher, for example, 3 candidates:

Mary - 40
Jane - 35
Sam - 25

Mary wins even thought the majority voted against her.

[TampaJim]

Traditional voting, we will say for Dog Catcher, for example, 3 candidates:

Mary - 40
Jane - 35
Sam - 25

Mary wins even thought the majority voted against her.

It's not quite that simplistic. We have an issue with reaching a full majority at times.
Runoff elections are expensive. And there's still the problem with true third party access.
It's a work in progress, but I personally think Maine is on the right track.
One thing for sure, the voters of the state DID approve the system. It's fully legal.
And if they don't like the way it all works in real life, they can modify it for next time.

[Ben Danbleume]

It's not quite that simplistic. We have an issue with reaching a full majority at times.
Runoff elections are expensive. And there's still the problem with true third party access.
It's a work in progress, but I personally think Maine is on the right track.
One thing for sure, the voters of the state DID approve the system. It's fully legal.
And if they don't like the way it all works in real life, they can modify it for next time.

How is it not just that simplistic. How are you not disenfranchising up to 49% of the voters?

[TampaJim]

How is it not just that simplistic. How are you not disenfranchising up to 49% of the voters?

Yes, everyone was disenfranchised, especially the voters who approved the process two years ago.

[MacIntosh]

How is it not just that simplistic. How are you not disenfranchising up to 49% of the voters?

I’m not sure why that is any worse than electing a candidate who received more votes than the others but DOESNT recieve a majority of the votes. This essentially goes from electing a candidate that the largest single group of voters (which is usually not a majority) think is best, to electing a candidate that the majority of votes think is pretty good.

[JHelms]

Traditional voting, we will say for Dog Catcher, for example, 3 candidates:

Mary - 40
Jane - 35
Sam - 25

Mary wins even thought the majority voted against her.

Now let's take the same example but with RCV. Sam is eliminated because he finished last. If 9 of Sam's voters listed Mary as their second choice, she would get their votes and if 16 of Sam's voters listed Jane as their second choice, Jane would get those votes. Final tally:

Mary - 40
Jane - 51

We have an "instant run off", no recounts and a winner in the Dog Catcher race that is not opposed by the majority.

[ziggen]

Now let's take the same example but with RCV. Sam is eliminated because he finished last. If 9 of Sam's voters listed Mary as their second choice, she would get their votes and if 16 of Sam's voters listed Jane as their second choice, Jane would get those votes. Final tally:

Mary - 40
Jane - 51

We have an "instant run off", no recounts and a winner in the Dog Catcher race that is not opposed by the majority.

The final tally would be Mary 49, Jane 51, but otherwise, you are correct.

[LTZ25]

This is election month in Florida , don't have anyone there smart enough to count votes in the same time the rest of the county gets the job done .

[RazorCat]

So, it’s like an election with participation trophies where you keep picking someone until you get a winner? Yeah, makes perfect sense.

[ziggen]

So, it’s like an election with participation trophies where you keep picking someone until you get a winner? Yeah, makes perfect sense.

I don't understand the thing about participation trophies. I got them in the eighties, my dad remembers getting them in the sixties. They're not a new thing. No kid is ever excited to get a participation trophy. Regardless, I fail to see the connection between ranked choice voting and participation trophies. Eliminating losers until there is a winner doesn't have anything to do with everyone getting a prize.

[LTZ25]

I'm thinking participation trophies started in the 1980's in Georgia and it was parents in my age bracket that started the downhill slide , I can't blame the millennial's for what a lot them became . An 18 year old American male from the 40's does not resemble the 18 years old of today . ( there are exception )

[ziggen]

I'm thinking participation trophies started in the 1980's in Georgia and it was parents in my age bracket that started the downhill slide , I can't blame the millennial's for what a lot them became . An 18 year old American male from the 40's does not resemble the 18 years old of today . ( there are exception )

Nah, they definitely had them in New Jersey and Michigan in the '80s, as well. According to my Dad, they had them in Michigan in the '60s, too. I don't think they're new, and I really don't think they do too much harm. I think you'd be hard pressed to find a participation trophy recipient that felt good about it.

[RazorCat]

I don't understand the thing about participation trophies. I got them in the eighties, my dad remembers getting them in the sixties. They're not a new thing. No kid is ever excited to get a participation trophy. Regardless, I fail to see the connection between ranked choice voting and participation trophies. Eliminating losers until there is a winner doesn't have anything to do with everyone getting a prize.

The voters eliminated the losers on election night when one candidate got more votes than the other candidates. With RCV the first loser (and so on) gets another chance to participate. Some states require a runoff if one candidate doesn’t get more than 50% +1 vote, or a recount if candidates finish within a certain percentage of each other. So, the loser gets a participation trophy of sorts for “coming close”. Pick a candidate, vote, and when the votes are counted, pick a winner. Move on.