Ranked Choice Voting Won at the Polls in 2022
On a ranked choice ballot, voters can rank every candidate in a given race. Over time, that could lead more voters to consider candidates outside the two parties.

Ranked choice voting is relatively new, and most voters likely don't know about it, but it is seeing a surge of attention after its role in the 2022 midterms.
On a ranked choice ballot, rather than choosing only one candidate from a list, voters rank each candidate on the ballot in order of preference, regardless of party. If one candidate gets a majority of first-choice votes, that candidate wins. If no candidate exceeds 50 percent on the first count, then the candidate who received the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated from contention, and all of the ballots with the eliminated candidate listed first are re-tallied, this time counting the second-choice candidate. This process repeats until one of the remaining candidates passes 50 percent.
Maine became the first state to use a ranked-choice system after its voters approved the switch in 2016. The system was deployed in the 2018 midterms, causing a House seat to flip from Republican to Democrat when the incumbent fell short of 50 percent in the first tally of ballots. The two independent candidates in the race received the fewest votes in the first two rounds of counting; when the ballots were retallied, most of their voters favored the Democrat. Under Maine's previous system, a plurality would have been enough to secure the Republican reelection but ranked choice allowed independent voters to weigh in while still voting third party.
Alaskans approved a similar measure in 2020. That state's switch attracted national attention when Mary Peltola defeated former Gov. Sarah Palin in an August 2022 special election to become only the third Democrat elected to the U.S. House in the state's history. Even though nearly 60 percent of voters chose a Republican first, those votes were split between Palin and Nick Begich III; when Begich was eliminated and his votes redistributed, only half of his voters picked Palin second, while 30 percent picked Peltola. Ergo, Peltola received Democratic and Republican votes and prevailed with over 51 percent of the final tally. (The general election saw a largely similar result, with the same three candidates, plus a Libertarian, in November.)
Critics, such as Palin, contend that ranked choice is too complicated and that its convoluted nature amounts to voter suppression. But 85 percent of Alaskans polled said they found it "simple."
Ranked choice could do more than just scramble two-party races. Historically, a major obstacle for third-party candidates is the idea that a vote for a long shot is a vote wasted. But on a ranked choice ballot, voters can rank every candidate in a given race. Over time, that could lead more voters to consider candidates outside the two parties.
Ranked choice also eliminates the need for runoff elections. More than 10 states conduct runoffs when no candidate achieves a majority. This requires a second election weeks later and generally results in lower voter turnout. Three Senate elections in Georgia went to runoffs from 2020 through 2022, and each saw 10 percent fewer votes—between 350,000 and 450,000—than the general elections that directly preceded them. If Georgia used a ranked choice system of voting, voters could have simply ranked all the candidates in November and avoided a second election altogether.
One downside is that the tally process takes time. In a traditional system, votes can be tallied as soon as the polls close, and mailed ballots can be counted even earlier. Ranked choice ballots can be retallied only after all the ballots have been received. For more remote areas, Alaska allowed more than two weeks to receive all ballots.
Both Republicans and Democrats are open to change. After the 2022 runoff, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger told The New York Times that he would ask the state legislature to switch to ranked choice voting. Rob Sand, the Iowa state auditor and the only Democrat elected statewide there in 2022, says ranked choice would be great for the one-third of Iowans registered as independents who don't participate in party primaries. "The bottom line is we have a system that disenfranchises a third of Iowans," he told Radio Iowa.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
So the two examples you give of ranked choice having an effect on an election are Democrats defeating Republicans? Glad you are not a salesman.
Because a ranked choice election can take weeks to resolve, due to not having all votes in (a situation exacerbated by Democrats wanting mail-in votes with uncertain postmark dates included), it reduces transparency, raises uncertainty in the fairness of the vote counting process. It is a system that reduces trust in elections.
I am making a good salary from home $6580-$7065/week , which is amazing under a year ago I was jobless in a horrible economy. I thank God every day I was blessed with these instructions and now it’s my duty to pay it forward and share it with Everyone,
🙂 AND GOOD LUCK. 🙂
Here is I started.……......>> http://WWW.SALARYBEZ.COM
picked Peltola. Ergo, Peltola received Democratic and Republican votes and prevailed with over 51 percent of the final tally. (The general election saw a largely similar result, with the same three candidates, plus a Libertarian, in November.)
Critics, such as Palin, contend that ranked choice is too complicated and that its convoluted nature amounts to voter suppression. But 85 percent of Alaskans polled said they found it "simple."
Ranked choice could do more than just scramble two-party races. Historically, a major obstacle for third-party candidates is the idea that a vote for a long shot is a vote wasted. But on a ranked choice ballot, voters can rank every candidate in a given race. Over time, that could lead more voters to consider candidates outside the two parties.
Ranked choice also eliminates the need for runoff elections. More than 10 states conduct runoffs when no candidate achieves a
Youre applauding you getting two votes and Palin voters getting 1. Truly one person one vote.
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.NETPAYFAST.COM
It provides some voters multiple votes against just one vote for others. I have a philosophical objection to that. I’m of the Mad Max Thunderdome school of voting where the best candidate wins after just one round. That one round is called an election. Maybe Golden beats Poliquin in 2018 but I agree it allows for more shenanigans. Voting in-person on election day while providing verification who one is would help address other election shenanigans; one side seems reluctant to implement those voting protections.
Single round plurality voting provides that someone can win an election despite a majority of voters not wanting that person. I have a philosophical objection to that.
Ranked choice voting provides that someone can win an election despite a majority of voters not wanting that person. I have a philosophical objection to that.
Fixed that for you.
No, actually that's the one thing that can't happen. Any run-off election system eventually results in a candidate who receives a majority of votes. Ranked-choice voting merely compresses the time needed to conduct the run-offs.
If you want to run the vote multiple times until you get the outcome you want be honest enough to say so and have enough integrity to pay for multiple elections instead of rigging a system whereby the same voter gets to vote for someone other than their first choice multiple times, you mendacious piece of shit.
RCV allows for a single voter for a single office to vote for multiple candidates. As others have pointed out, more rounds of voting creates more opportunity for fraud. While their could be a more robustly protected election that included RCV, one round makes it more protected and results in one person only voting for one candidate.
Chumpy's philosophical objection is that RCV doesn't get GOP candidates elected.
The idea that voter preferences are binary - "X or no-one" - is so fucking stupid only a moron or someone motivated entirely by self-interest can argue accordingly.
No it isnt. Try harder shrike. Mouth the words if you have to.
Shrike wants to mouth other things…Jared from Subway knows.
Fuck off, chumpy.
I am making $92 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this
website........ http://www.jobsrevenue.com
Keep seething you kiddie diddling faggot.
Fuck off. cracker.
Lol, the child molesting piece of shit is a pretend racist now too. Is your fake Bri'ish tough guy a nigger, shreek?
"RCV allows for a single voter for a single office to vote for multiple candidates."
Nope. They only get one vote. There is no scenario in which one voter gets more than one vote. RCV allows voter intent to be identified better and puts the candidate that has the broadest appeal to the electorate to win. Even better, in my opinion, it prevents candidates who don't win a majority of first-choice votes to claim a mandate from their constituents.
"As others have pointed out, more rounds of voting creates more opportunity for fraud."
How? It's one ballot. It's not like there's a way to vote twice on one ballit, as opposed to a runoff where each person who votes in both elections has cast two separate ballots.
"one round makes it more protected and results in one person only voting for one candidate."
No, one *ballot* is more protected than two (which occurs in a runoff). And the purpose of an election is to determine the will of the voters regarding their preferred representative, which RCV does a better job of.
●US Dollar Rain Earns upto $550 to $750 per day by google fantastic job oppertunity provide for our community pepoles who,s already using facebook to earn money 85000$ every month and more through facebook and google new project to create money at home withen few hours.Everybody can get this job now and start earning online by just open this link and then go through instructions to get started..........
See this article for more information————————>>>http://WWW.DAILYPRO7.COM
Except, you know, when they get to vote for multiple candidates if the candidate they supported didn't get a plurality in the first round. You're really fucking bad at this, shreek. Leave the middle school sophistry to Rossami.
Yes, the point of ranked choice voting is to have an instant runoff if no candidate gets 50% plus one vote.
I'll use small words so you don't confuse math and sophistry again. I can't make you less stupid, so this might not help you, but here goes:
If 1000 people vote and everyone chooses to fill out the ballot completely, the final result has a total of 1000 votes. That's because each time, each voter gets one vote. 1000 votes divided by 1000 viters equals one vote per voter.
You're really fucking bad at this, and it's simple math.
Difficulty. RCV doesn't force people to pick multiple candidates. In many of these races the 2nd round dropped many voters from the calculation. So your rationalization is ignorant wrong.
Google is by and by paying $27485 to $29658 consistently for taking a shot at the web from home. I have joined this action 2 months back and I have earned $31547 in my first month from this action. I can say my life is improved completely! Take a gander at it what I do…..
For more detail visit the given link……….>>> http://Www.jobsrevenue.com
re: "It provides some voters multiple votes"
It does not. It is no different than any other run-off electoral system. Every voter gets his/her vote counted in every round unless he/she abstains.
It is no different than any other run-off electoral system.
It is very different. A formal run-off system informs (and in so doing encourages) people to vote their preference in the first round. If the runoff happens then everyone can revote based on knowing that this next runoff is a two-candidate final.
RCV is an invisible run-off system - where no one other than each group of losers can change their vote in future run-offs. That masquerades as a one round election because the runoff is held in a black box and is thus basically dishonest and not transparent. That lack of transparency is what creates distrust of outcomes (see Alaska).
"That lack of transparency is what creates distrust of outcomes (see Alaska)."
Perhaps publishing the results as they are counted could make it more transparent. Another difference between RCV and runoff elections is that the latter is more susceptible to manipulation by politicians, pollsters, the press and anyone else who has an interest in swaying the vote.
With RCV voting demands more thinking, knowing that the candidate you vote for may be eliminated. Or that the second place finisher in the first round ends up winning in the end. But I don't see that not knowing the outcome, who's to be eliminated, in advance, as you would in runoff election, makes the system dishonest.
the latter is more susceptible to manipulation by politicians, pollsters, the press and anyone else who has an interest in swaying the vote.
Translation - people have the opportunity to change their minds when other people have the incentive to get them to try to change their minds.
I don't see the problem apart from the normal problems I have re gerrymandering, overly large districts, top-down elections where big money and advertising buys results, ballot access controlled by incumbent parties, elections controlled by parties, etcetcetc. And BTW - RCV doesn't solve those problems but the attention to RCV diverts attention from even thinking about those other problems.
"I don’t see the problem apart from the normal problems I have re gerrymandering, overly large districts, top-down elections where big money and advertising buys results, ballot access controlled by incumbent parties, elections controlled by parties, etcetcetc. And BTW – RCV doesn’t solve those problems but the attention to RCV diverts attention from even thinking about those other problems."
The problem is that with a runoff election, the 'normal problems' you mention are doubled - two elections held at two separate times with dwindling voter interest and participation. RCV gets the whole thing over and done with in one election.
With RCV, voters don't know the outcome of the first iteration before picking their second and third choices. But there's nothing dishonest about that. They're not voting in a runoff election, but ranking choices, presumably fully informed of the consequences of their actions.
I generally agree. Even if I were to prefer runoff elections (which will tend to provide a way for people to vote their heart in the first round), I much prefer runoff elections with everyone able to vote based on the knowledge that this a runoff election with different candidates. RCV is nothing but some black box approach to elections. The last thing we need is more black boxes run by technocrats. Worse RCV pretends that real electoral/governance reform is not needed by pretending that RCV IS that reform.
Republicans have lost in early states adopting RCV, but I would expect that trend to equal out for the major parties as RCV expands to other states.
Democrats wouldn't be pushing for RCV if it didn't benefit them.
Everything isn't a conspiracy. Sometimes people just see a better system as being, you know, better.
Democrats aren't always doing things for nefarious purposes. The same applies to Republicans. It isn't corruption all the time, everywhere, in every situation.
It's remarkable that a party that believes blacks are too stupid to obtain a free photo ID are intelligent enough to navigate a ranked-choice voting system, but I guess it's all just Democratic altruism as usual, right shreek?
Why?
Because New England trends independent with a liberal lean. So the second choices would lean more towards Democrats. Someplace like Georgia or Texas would be the opposite, with independents trending conservative.
Alaska was a weird case where Palin and Begich hate each other with a white-hot passion and conveyed that to their voters. In a normal RCV election in Alaska, the GOP candidate would get a majority of second-round votes. Those two couldn't put their petty feud aside, so their party lost.
Lol. I guess where "independent" means "Stalinist" and "liberal" means "Leninist"
If you think that, you don't know anything about New Englanders.
They are applauding some citizens getting multiple votes while others get 1. Not sure why they think that is good aside from democrats winning.
I've said it before. If you want multiple votes, have your votes diluted with a share given number of candidates picked.
No one is getting extra votes. I'll repeat waht ai said above. If 1000 people vote and everyone fills out their ballot completely, the final vote total is 1000. That remains the same if there is only one round or if there are additional runoff rounds. 1000 votes divided by 1000 voters equals 1 vote per voter.
The only potemtial change is if some voters don't indicate what their second, third, etc. choice is. Then you would have fewer votes than voters in later runoffs, but there is a 0% chance that anyone gets more than one vote.
If RCV resulted in Democrats losing then it would be fair.
Or promoted by reason.
Oh the irony of this statement.
The fact is that as RCV is expanded you will see Democrats lose as well. Commenter here are taking two states and extrapolating those results to the entire country.
"If Republicans would cheat like Democrats did in 2020 they could win elections, too!"
Yeah, we got that shreek. The problem is the cheating itself, not who's doing it.
It's like the death penalty. I'd support it if I could be confident the government wouldn't *&^% it up.
I wish people would pick a better solution than IRV to implement ranked-choice voting. Methods like the Schulze method or Tideman's ranked pairs can be completed from an n-by-n matrix (for n candidates) where aggregation of results simply involves adding the matrices from different precincts, and those methods satisfy more useful voting criteria than IRV.
The paleocons here are already complaining that IRV is too confusing and therefore, in their minds, somehow more subject to manipulation, designed to screw them over, or just makes them feel icky. Several have claimed that it allows some people to vote more than once, so it apparently even screws up their ability to do basic math.
Imagine what would happen if you used the word "matrix" to explain a voting system. Their brains would burn out.
Brief reminder that this is coming from the racist piece of shit who thinks that black people are too stupid to obtain a free photo ID.
I have never said anything if the sort. I have never weighed in on voter ID except to say that the acceptable forms of confirmation shouldn’t exclude any form of government-issued IDs (birth certificate, SNAP card, passport, etc.).
In 2018, Jared Golden (D) received fewer votes than Bruce Poliquin (R) but was awarded Maine’s CD2. Golden defeated another GOP contestant in 2020 before again defeating Poliquin this past year iirc without needing multiple rounds of rank choice.
Last year, I wrote Golden asking for clarity on the spending he and Biden (D) were doing in Ukraine. I received no response. I am merely a resident, landowner, taxpayer and occasional voter in CD2 so I can understand why he couldn’t be bothered to provide an update on how Washington was spending my money.
As I have noted before I see RCV as a possible way for citizens to push back against gerrymandered districts and as such I support its use. Both parties have sought to limit the voter's choices using gerrymander districts, and courts have typically upheld the maps. The result has been a widen political divide. RCV will require that candidates run to the largest voter audience and the not to a base.
How? A. gerrymandered district is one that is overbalanced towards one party in an inorganic fashion. It would seem RCV would have more effect in more heterogeneous districts.
The recent Democrat complaints about gerrymandering actually arise from Democrat voters have concentrated majorities in homogeneous urban districts and Republicans have bare majorities in more numerous heterogeneous rural to suburban districts. From a pure utilitarian game theory standpoint, why would Republicans want this system?
It looks like M4e wants this system and therefore others should too.
Gerrymandered districts for either party shift the focus of the election from the actual election to the primary, where the most active members (usually the farther to the extremes) have an oversized influence. Then the election is merely a rubber stamp for the dominate party. People may not like the candidate, but they are the party's choice so they will vote for them. RVC rolls the primary into the election and in doing so we can expect a larger turn out, smaller base effect. In addition, a voter can choose an alternate candidate as a second choice. So, a voter could support their preferred party, but as a second choice maybe a member of the other party they find most acceptable.
The assumption here is that a center right/left of the alternate party would be a more likely second choice.
Open primary systems defeat the purpose of a primary, which is the individual parties voters choosing their candidate for the general election. There is no reason at all for open primaries.
Shreek knows that, he just wants single-party states like California and Washington where open primaries are conducted.
The purpose of RCV is to obfuscate the ballot count to the point that the counters can simply say who won without anyone being able to factually refute it.
The point of this is not simply to occupy elected office, but to undermine faith in the system of voting at all.
They are hoping that the resultant chaos will usher it 'the revolution' since they keep failing with class war and it's proxies.
"The purpose of RCV is to obfuscate the ballot count to the point that the counters can simply say who won without anyone being able to factually refute it."
That may not be the official purpose but that's definitely why they're pushing it.
Without Voter ID and/or more election security, it's indistinguishable from any other "Random"
NumberVote Generating algorithm.If it were to be performing some official purpose, they would be ensuring it performs that official purpose reliably. They specifically are not doing that.
"Without Voter ID and/or more election security,"
More paper work, more bureaucrats, more police. Ah, Liberals. They never change.
Less electoral fraud is the one that really hurts you.
And why the hell do you imagine flashing your ID will result in "more paper work, more bureaucrats, more police".
That doesn't even make sense.
"And why the hell do you imagine flashing your ID will result in “more paper work, more bureaucrats, more police”.
Because it takes an army of bureaucrats to issue, archive, print, check, distribute, double check, and police these IDs. That's the way government works, and I get that Liberals first instinct is to look to government to solve problems, but to not understand that every government solution entails an expanded bureaucracy is willful ignorance.
EVERYONE ALREADY HAS ID'S YOU DISINGENUOUS FUCK!
You can't cash a check or open a bank account, book a flight, drive a car, get a hotel room or buy beer and weed without one.
You show your voter registration and flash your Driver's License/birth certificate/social security card/passport/state ID/whatever and you're done.
Stop being so deliberately fucking stupid.
"Driver’s License/birth certificate/social security card/passport/state ID/whatever and you’re done."
These are not voter IDs. A driver's licence is a piece of paper issued by a massive government bureaucracy to allow people to drive. It has nothing to do with voting, as many voters don't have cars and don't want to waste their time jumping through bureaucratic hoops to get licenses for something they don't want or need. Liberals like you never tire of expanding the reach of jack booted bureaucrats.
Anyone with a basic understanding of arithmetic can check the vote count. This is not some strange higher level math, it just counting votes.
Anyone with a basic understanding of arithmetic can check the vote count.
So what you're saying is that the people counting voters in Alaska didn't have a basic understanding of arithmetic? Because it took them ages to
fortifyclarify their vote count.When did AK offer such information?
I just googled it. Nick Begich came in third and his voter second choice were tallied. The bulk 72.5% went to Pallin, while 14.2 percent went to Peltola, and 13.3% made no second choice.
Nothing complicated about the math. Why did it take longer, because the first round had to be counted and checked before the next round of counting could start.
But they didn't release that info until after the nearly month long count. Which does nothing but increase doubt in the legitimacy in the eyes of many.
Those same people question the legitimacy of counts released on election night too.
As a rule, no.
When there are exceptionally odd goings-on, then questions are asked. But for a normal race, no, not really. Nobody questioned Dr. Oz losing. Nobody questioned Blake Masters losing. Kari Lake's "loss" was so fucked up eight ways from Sunday that to take it as legit is to be a fool.
If foreign countries ran their elections like we do, we'd call all of them corrupt and untrustworthy.
If lack of an overnight result is an "exceptionally odd goings-on" then one wonders how anyone accepted any election results up to even a few decades ago.
"Lack of an overnight result" is a pretty strange way of saying "illegally changing election law by executive and judicial fiat under the guise of a public health emergency and counting ballots with no postmark or signature verification for weeks after election day" you slimy lying piece of fucking shit.
Yes, counting and comparing totals is completely beyond election officials. Obviously if there are more than 20 votes they run out of fingers and toes to count on, so you can't trust any total over 20.
Ranked choice means electing someone nobody really wants or knows much about.
Rather than being a compromise candidate they’re almost always people who simply weren’t good enough to capture the opprobrium of the other side. It's a great excuse to sneak in an establishment candidate who normally couldn't generate interest.
Jeb Bush!
My issue with RCV is that it is ultimately not based on actual enumerated votes, it is statistical sophistry.
You have an election: no winner, top two vote getters do run-off
You have run-off: enumerated votes determine winner
This is a very simple, two-step process that we know has worked for hundreds of years. But no, we need to fix something that is not broke (you know, actual enumerated votes from a verified voter), and replace it with RCV. What horseshit.
"You have an election: no winner, top two vote getters do run-off"
No winner? You mean it's a tie? That is extremely rare.
Since another thing leftists have put in place wherever they could manage it is ‘no pluralities’-- you, as a raging leftist, know damned well that ties aren’t required.
If the republican gets 50% of the vote and the leftist gets 1% of the vote and no one gets even .0000000001% over 50, then there must be some RCV kicked in.
So the left can
fortifysalvage that obvious Dem victory."If the republican gets 50% of the vote and the leftist gets 1% of the vote and no one gets even .0000000001% over 50, then there must be some RCV kicked in."
You seem to have a clear understanding of RCV, which is a fine thing indeed. However, it's worth noting that it works the same way if a non-republican gets 50% and a non leftist get 1%.
Ranked choice means electing someone nobody really wants or knows much about
George Santos was elected without RCV.
And you're wrong. If people don't know about a third-party candidate they won't vote for him and he won't get elected. Duh.
Not a single intelligent argument has been advanced here. IF 40% of people want a vegetarian meal, 35% want steak, but would happily have salmon, and 25% want salmon but would happily have steak, a single-item menu would always lead to 40% getting what they want and 60% not. RCV gives voters a chance to get someone they want even if it's not their first choice.
Funny how you lot argue that the "real reason" people advocate for RCV is because it favours the Democrats (which is likely to be true in some areas, false in others, most obviously the 1992 presidential election) but can't see, or at least, refuse to admit that a reason you advocate against it might be that it, er, favours the Democrats.
Just because you can’t rationalize away the arguments made doesn’t mean the argument is not intelligent. It just means you have no valid counter to it. The intelligence issue is yours shrike.
You blindly ignore the issues presented because you like the favored outcome produced.
What argument other than "the way it has always been is best because that's how it's always been" has been made?
Said another way, can you explain why the RCV system is worse than a traditional election at identifying the will of the people?
Yes shreek, feel free to read the 250 posts in the thread prior to this one.
Why switch socks when you come back to corpse-fuck the thread a day after it's done btw? Nobody but me is going to read the posts, and I already know all of your socks.
"RCV gives voters a chance to get someone they want even if it’s not their first choice."
You're missing the point. The commenters here don't want anyone who's not a Republican. Giving them the option of a vote for a non-Republican is not wanted nor welcome.
Unlike you and the Reason staff who vote in lockstep for Democrats, there's a lot of Libertarian Party retards in this comment section. Not only do they probably not want to vote for a Republican, but the fact that RCV allows multiple big-party candidates onto the ballot pushing small parties like the Libertarian Party even further into obscurity if they can even get on the ballot at all is another one of those bugs that you, being a batshit fucking crazy radical Marxist 9/11 Truther, consider a feature.
"the Libertarian Party even further into obscurity "
If Libertarians want to perform better at the polls, I suggest better candidates with more attractive platforms.
“Ranked choice means electing someone nobody really wants”
That sounds like our current system.
Reason wanted Biden. They shill for him and at least some of the editors admitted to casting a vote for him.
"It’s a great excuse to sneak in an establishment candidate who normally couldn’t generate interest."
You mean someone like Joe Biden? Biden was elected under the current system that you favor and defend. RCV probably would benefit an outside candidate that manages to generate a lot of interest, to the detriment of the Joe Bidens of the political world, quite the contrary of what you fear.
"You mean someone like Joe Biden?"
I was thinking Jeb Bush, but you're going to run with your example instead and argue against that, aren't you.
"Biden was elected under the current system that you favor and defend."
As expected of you.
Anyway, Biden only won the Democratic party nomination because of a shitload of hijinks, superdelegates, botched counts and outright fraud.
If anything what happened at the convention showed exactly what will happen with RCV.
"If anything what happened at the convention showed exactly what will happen with RCV."
Doesn't the convention follow the first past the post system? How does it show the consequences of RCV, a different system?
"Even though nearly 60 percent of voters chose a Republican first, those votes were split between Palin and Nick Begich III; when Begich was eliminated and his votes (correction here: CANCELLED) redistributed, only half of his voters picked Palin second" leaving 1/2 of the Republican Vote CANCELLED.
So; It's actually a total elimination of the 2nd best team from the playoffs. How exactly is that suppose to be fair?
"Ranked choice voting claims to protect majority rule, but in reality, ranked choice voting merely creates an artificial majority. One study of elections in Maine found that, of 98 recent ranked choice voting elections, 60% of ranked choice voting victors did not win with a majority of the total votes cast. *****By the final round of one San Francisco local election, more ballots had been thrown out than were counted toward the winner’s total.******"
Unless every ballot is required to have "ranked-choice" voting applied to it; It's a flat-out Cancellation of the 2nd best team voters.
It's a dumb initiative pitched mostly by Democrats and Libertarians across the board. Democrats because they just want new ways to commit fraud and Libertarians because they're upset they can't win and just want to FORCE there way into the play-offs they lost trying to get there. (i.e. We don't stuff all the teams on the "Final" football field at once and see who wins).
For Example: From what I understand (the confusion is the BS). If both Democrats and Republican voters both had 1/2 of their voters only vote for a 'leading' candidate after the 2nd BEST CHOSEN candidate Begich lost *ALL* Begich ballots are thrown in the garbage but the 1/2 of Democrats who didn't rank-choice isn't.
It **throws-out** the 2nd most desired candidate and jumps to the 3rd in any scenario that doesn't require a full ranking of all candidates.
Voters vote for candidates, not parties. With RCV, the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated and the 2nd choice votes are distributed among the remaining candidates. This continues until a winner with more than 50% is elected. The ballots of an eliminated candidate are not thrown into the garbage. They are counted again, like all other ballots, only the second choice is counted distributing the votes among the remaining candidates. It's more complicated than typical systems in current use but simpler than some of the other potential reforms.
Exactly what I just described. “the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated” tossed in the garbage for the 2nd candidate voters who didn’t vote rank-choice all the way down the list.
*All* those voters who voted only for Begich their votes were CANCELLED entirely (garbaged) while the 3rd candidate Democratic only-voters were not.
It junks the 2nd choice and pushed up the 3rd in it’s spot. It would be fairer to just trash every non-ranked ballot right off the beginning.
The thing is that Begich got the fewest votes. No one says that voters who don't vote for one of the top two candidates in a runoff system had their votes thrown away when their candidate is eliminated and its the same here. The only difference between RCV and a runoff system is that you essentially vote in the initial election and the runoff at the same time.
If people only voted for Begich because they truly couldn't pick between Petola or Palin/refused to vote for either of them, then the outcome of RCV would be no different than a runoff system because they presumably also wouldn't have voted in the runoff. If they would have voted in a runoff, it wasn't RCV's fault they were too lazy/stupid to rank Petola and Palin the first time around. While the math and calculations when counting the vote RCV can get complicated, all a voter has to do is rank the candidates (in this case only 3) in order of preference. It's not that hard.
"because they presumably also wouldn’t have voted in the runoff".
That's exactly the problem. When the people's 2nd choice gets auto-eliminated (i.e. TRASHED) it cancels theirs !!!--and ONLY--!!! their vote from voting in the magical runoff. Propping the people's 3rd choice into the #1 spot.
It is RCV's fault for using that type of deception.
I've read all your replies this thread and I still have no idea what you are blathering on about, and at this point I'm pretty sure you don't either.
Ranked Choice = 3rd Candidate choice WINS over 2nd Candidate choice everytime..
Frankly; I think you're just playing stupid.
Yeah you definitely have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think you're playing.
Do or do not all ballots with only one vote for JUST the 2nd-runner up get thrown in the garbage on ranked-choice?
"Do or do not all ballots with only one vote for JUST the 2nd-runner up get thrown in the garbage on ranked-choice?"
What's wrong with these ballots getting thrown out? The voters presumably wanted it that way as they knew the consequences of their actions when they decided to make only one choice for a candidate they knew would potentially be eliminated. With RCV voters are given the option of a more comprehensive expression of their preferences. Nobody is forced to take full advantage of it.
What’s wrong with these ballots getting thrown out?
They represent the 2nd runner up - not the last runner up.
"would potentially be eliminated" - But probably not just by the off chance their vote ended up being for the 2nd runner up.
Like I said all along. It shoves the 3rd runner up into the competing candidate by trashing the 2nd ( and only the 2nd ). None of the 3rd runner up (one-choice) votes get trashed ONLY the 2nd runner up.
The situation you have in mind is not clear to me.
With rank choice voting the last place finisher is eliminated and the ballots of the voters who voted for the eliminated candidate are examined again to check those who selected a 2nd alternative. These votes are then distributed among the remaining candidates. If some of these voters didn't select a second choice, then that's it, same as if they'd chosen to stay at home, except for their participation in the first iteration.
I understand it's complicated and confusing but it's one of the easier vote reform alternatives. I remember last time the topic of RCV came up a commenter was pushing for paired choice voting, arguably better than either first past the post or RCV, allowing for few if any peerverse outcomes, but so complicated that abstruse math papers are written to explain the advantages, so difficult that they're impossible for the lay man to understand.
Oh Yes; I see now... Begich was in last place.
Even though nearly 60 percent of voters chose a Republican first, those votes were split between Palin and Nick Begich III; when Begich was eliminated and his votes redistributed, **only half** of his voters picked Palin second, while 30 percent picked Peltola.
So Begich voters went 30% for the [D] and 60% for Palin[R] ending up with a [D] win. It makes sense after all!!!!
The KEY, "last place finisher is eliminated"
Thanks for pointing that mistake out. I was under the assumption that Begich was the 2nd place runner.
"Exactly what I just described. “the candidate receiving the fewest votes is eliminated”
The same thing happens with elections under the current system except that instead on the one candidate with fewest votes getting eliminated, all of the candidates get eliminated except the one with the most votes.
"*All* those voters who voted only for Begich their votes were CANCELLED "
Their choice. They presumably knew what they were doing when they submitted their ballot. Whining about it after the fact doesn't help anything. My advice: spend 5 minutes on wikipedia to learn the system. My other advice: choose the winning team, vote for a winner.
Funny how most voters probably won't see this deceptive tactic as "Their choice" and will most likely peg it (rightfully so) as a deceptive voting scheme perpetrated by dishonest fans of state's 3rd choice candidates.
"Funny how most voters probably won’t see this deceptive tactic as “Their choice” and will most likely peg it (rightfully so) as a deceptive voting scheme perpetrated by dishonest fans of state’s 3rd choice candidates."
Confusion and distrust is normal when people are faced with something new, especially if it requires some consideration and cogitation. After a few cycles, even conservative change resisters will get used to it and even embrace it. The people pushing for it now are a nasty lot, early adopters, the kind that made a fortune on bitcoin.
It's just another voting fraudulent scheme trying to fix the original voting fraudulent scheme of allowing 3-Candidates in the final game ( general election ) because the 3rd couldn't win any preliminary games (primaries).
RCV is new and confusing, I admit. I recommend you study it a little before further commenting.
If I'm mistaken about my point then just say exactly that and correct it. Don't run around being all smug about something if you can't correct it.
Do or do not all ballots with only one vote for JUST the 2nd-runner up get thrown in the garbage on ranked-choice?
"If I’m mistaken about my point then just say exactly that and correct it."
Your mistake lies in the idea that elections are games and general elections are final games, and that three candidates in an election is a fraudulent scheme.
You're right; It's not the 2nd Runner up its the last runner up.
Ranked choice also eliminates the need for runoff elections.
This is factually incorrect. Unless RCV is manufacturing votes, it cannot eliminate the need for runoffs. What it can and does do is, in such situations, perform the runoffs automatically. This is the main part of the problem with the RCV system, the same as with the FPTP/WTA system, not every method of instant runoff treats every candidate or the voters or their votes equally.
Difficulty is that in US elections voter motivation to go and vote is a primary part of the election cycle. Forcing voters to vote in a run off shows voter motivation. RCV removes that aspect from the system if a majority not selected. It is a fundamental change to how us elections are ran.
" It is a fundamental change to how us elections are ran."
Runoff elections are rare. Generally one election is held and the candidate with the most votes wins.
It's a bigger issue than just voter motivation.
It props the people's 3rd choice in as 1st choice and TRASHES everyone's 2nd choice.
Voters who didn't rank-choice all candidates and end up picking the peoples 2nd popular running candidate *all* those votes aren't even considered in the recount while those that chose the 3rd popular are.
It's an automatic dismissal of the people's 2nd most popular candidate.
Correction; It's the least popular candidate. My mistake.
Wordplay. A runoff election requires people to go back to the polling booths to vote again. RCV doesn’t.
Yes. Voter motivation has always been an aspect of elections. Congratulations on noticing it shrike.
Fuck off, cracker.
Learn a new slur, you child-raping wigger.
Right. Wordplay the same way "James Madison was the 16th President." is wordplay.
A runoff election requires people to go back to the polling booths to vote again.
How do the people who didn't go to the polling booths to cast their vote in the first place go *back*?
Just because you're really stupid doesn't mean you can just explain away factual inaccuracy or your lack of understanding just by saying "wordplay".
How do the people who didn’t go to the polling booths to cast their vote in the first place go *back*?
That shows how desperate you are to argue against RCV. First, there's such a thing as mail-in ballots - you might have heard of them. Second, your argument is that a runoff gives people who didn't vote the first time the chance to vote. Do you seriously want to make that argument?
The nice thing about an all mail-in RCV election is that instead of having to print up enough ballots to move the Democrat ahead on the 23rd day of counting after election night, and then match those ballots up to potential voters from the state database, you can just fill in the Nth-choice candidate for everyone who already voted.
Stick to posting child porn, shreek.
" it cannot eliminate the need for runoffs"
It eliminates the need for runoff elections. With RCV voters submit one ballot on one day in one election.
"not every method of instant runoff treats every candidate or the voters or their votes equally."
Because the candidate with the least votes is eliminated and the votes are counted again except this time the 2nd choice votes of the eliminated candidate are counted, distributed among the remaining candidates.
Just my two cents but RCV seems contrary to the 'one man one vote' rule. While I kinda view it as a solution looking for a problem I wonder what the RCV fanboys would think of giving voters one vote for every candidate in a race. Not saying that is also not a solution looking for a problem but I would bet in many cases if there were say seven candidates then many voters would cast all seven of their votes for their favored candidate. Why would anyone split their vote and reduce their first choice's chances to win?
Maybe a better question is what is wrong with the current system?
There is no “one man, one vote” rule.
what is wrong with the current system?
It biases in favour of two parties and against political compromise.
Stunning analysis shrike.
Fuck off, cracker.
Shrike mad.
Not shrike, you cracker. But you're both too stubborn and too stupid to see that.
Poor shreek. Remember when this sock was going to be your Bri'ish account and you were trying to use UK slang? Maybe you should go back to that instead of embarrassing yourself trying to act street when you're a lily white faggot child molester.
It isnt fortified enough.
While I get the claim that the current system is not fortified enough the same can be said of any RCV system unless changes are made.
"Just my two cents but RCV seems contrary to the ‘one man one vote’ rule."
Because the votes are counted multiple times. Once and then once again for each candidate who's eliminated. Runoff elections are also contrary to the rule. With RCV you get 'one man one ballot,' with each ballot reflecting a more accurate and comprehensive view of a voter's preferences.
I can see how this system irks commenters here who don't vote for the candidate, so much as their party. They prefer one party and don't care who's running and want nothing to do with candidates of other parties.
Then let's do a similar system for primaries. If you vote for a person in a primary, then your vote in the general is already locked in and you cannot vote for anybody else.
I'm not sure I follow. For each election the voter participates in, there will be one ballot. One ballot for the primary, one for the general. Presumably secret in each case.
That would just further entrench the two-party system. The biggest advantage of RCV is it makes it easier for people to vote for the candidates they actually want. Those who might vote for an independent don't have to worry about throwing away their vote as they do in a first past the post system.
Yes, allowing the major parties to pack the ballot with multiple candidates and strategic spoilers works great. Just look at all the independents and greens and libertarians being elected in RCV states. Retard.
“Because the votes are counted multiple times”
Wrong, multiple ranked votes are only counted once after some of the multiple votes are thrown out. This is the reason I suggested getting one vote for each candidate on the ballot. That way every vote would be counted once and no votes would be thrown out.
"Wrong, multiple ranked votes are only counted once after some of the multiple votes are thrown out."
The votes are counted in each iteration. The candidate with the least votes is eliminated and the 2nd choice votes are distributed among the remaining candidates. Neither the ballots nor the votes are thrown out.
"This is the reason I suggested getting one vote for each candidate on the ballot."
The purpose of the election is to select a candidate to fill an office. It's not to give voters the opportunity to show to depth of their devotion to a particular candidate or party.
You do in fact get "one vote for each candidate on the ballot" in a manner of speaking, but you can only vote for each candidate once. If you choose not to rank all the candidates then that is the same as staying home because there are no acceptable candidates on the ballot.
It was your party that voted in a literal fucking vegetable who can't even form complete sentences due to a brain injury. I would normally say I don't think this is a road you're stupid enough to want to go down, but you're a 9/11 Truther, so you're nothing if not consistently retarded.
I've got a better election reform. Give everyone one vote for each office up for election. And let them spend those votes on any race they wish for which they'd be eligible to vote. If you have 12 races up for election you get 12 votes. If you want to cast all of them for one candidate in the House election, fine. If you want to cast them for multiple candidates in the same election, that's up to you. If you just want to cast one for each election, that's okay.
It seems like ranked choice voting is a way to eliminate Republicans.
It's effective at eliminating libertarians, green, independent, and reform party candidates too, it's just that, in those cases, it's a sledgehammer to drive a thumb tack.
Only if you don’t understand how it works. It’s math. It doesn’t favor anyone.
Just because it has the exclusive effect of eliminating Republicans in the only places where its been implemented is no reason to assume that was the intention or predictable result. Leave this to your fellow retards in the 75-90 IQ bracket, shreek. Your sub-70 input isn't helping.
If Palin and Begich hadn't brought their personal animosity into the election, Alaska would have a Republican Congresswoman named Sarah Palin. It was her actions that poisoned a significant percentage of Republican voters against her, which meant that when people were asked for their second choice many either preferred the Democrat or didn't choose either.
If Palin and Begich weren't so infantile, they wouldn't have sunk their party's chance at success. But their adolescent pissing match screwed their party over. Given the maturity level of the two, each probably prefers a Democrat to the other one because they are both that shallow and self-absorbed.
RCV didn't get a Democrat elected in Alaska. The Republican candidates did.
Ranked choice voting has been a disaster for everyone except the left wing Democrats who have campaigned to impose these woke lowest common denominator laws.
Remember the old adage, "You can have it fast, cheap, or right--choose two"?
That's almost funny when you see that on a sign at your auto repair shop. But it is criminal when applied to elections for public office.
Ranked choice voting attempts to have it fast, cheap, AND right. But if you want to increase names on ballots, and if you want the process to include multiple stages of voting to yield a candidate with a true majority, then hold multiple elections.
As many paleos have whined about, RCV isn't fast. But it is cheaper and a more accurate means of determining the will of the voters.
So RCV does choose two: cheap and right, but not fast.
elections have been one vote for one person for one role since like third grade
If there's a better system, we don't need it. In a faceoff between better and traditional, tradition should always win, right?
The number of issues to which cultural conservatives apply that flawed logic is legion. It's their lodestar.
Although ranked choice voting is better than the current two-party system, it's not enough to quickly cause independents to start voting for third parties. In small states like Alaska where they only have one Representative to Congress it can make an immediate difference; but in larger states with more than one Congressional district, switching to ranked choice should be accompanied by a change to statewide at-large ballots. Also, there is no reason to require delays in the vote count if you use online voting with computers assigning the ranked votes automatically; and also no reason to avoid the system because it might take an extra two weeks! What's the rush?
The only thing that could possibly make American elections more secure than the securest election ever would be to switch to online voting and have software do the tallying.
Kill yourself you absolute fucking retard.
In order to avoid "gaming the system" as happened recently in Alaska, the ranked-choice voting formula needs to take into account BOTH ENDS of the voting spectrum., and count votes in the bottom half of the ranking as NEGATIVE votes -- then the system would properly take into account both "I like X" and "I hate Y" preferences among the voters.
For example, in a 5-candidate race:
1st place gets a score of 2
2nd place gets a score of 1
3rd place gets a score of 0
1st place gets a score of -1
2nd place gets a score of -2.
Then add up the total scores, and eliminate those candidates with a negative score.
Repeat until you have a result.
You must be using the new math if a 1st place vote gets both a score of 2 and a score of -1; or maybe you just were trying to say the last two lines should have been 4th and 5th place votes.
In any case I still think if you want to monkey around with this idea you should get one vote for every candidate on the ballot and cast them however you want. I would bet that would mean most peeps would cast all their votes for their first choice.
Still think RCV is a solution looking for a problem.
It's not neccessary to avoid gaming the system. All you need to support ranked choice voting is to decide what the goal of the election is in the first place. The goal should be: "as many citizens as possible are represented by the representative of their choice." That is not even remotely achieved or achievable by the current two-party system.
While I think Biden is in contention for the worst president in my life time I had to hold my nose when I voted for Trump as he was not my first choice of a prez to represent me. Thing is I was not alone in not voting for someone to represent me but rather voting against someone I was sure I did not want to represent me; and not just for prez.
At the federal, state, and local level it is not easy for me to name a pol I voted for as opposed to voting against their opponent. As many peeps have posted elsewhere it would be nice if there was an option 'none of the above' and any pol who ran for election when none of the above won would be barred from running again.
Actually it is; Complaining that one's team didn't make it to the playoffs isn't an excuse to jump into the playoffs. If 3rd party candidates want to make it in the pre-playoffs (primaries) they have every option to do so.
It was a process of elimination until ranked-choice started playing card tricks with it. If you cannot make it to the top of the primaries why would anyone thing they deserve to be in the general election?
That makes absolutely no sense. Primaries are typically controlled by the parties themselves and typically require candidates to be actual members of the party. How is a third party candidate supposed to win when the people in charge of the primary are against them?
UR complaining about not winning the primary.
"win when the people in charge of the primary are against them?"
The primary is voted on by the people. Accept the loss.
You're right; I was wrong. It gives 3rd party candidates a vote without throwing it away because their 2nd Choice will be used during rank-voting if the leader cannot amass 50%. It actually makes a lot of sense after all.
You realize that RCV doesn't change the process of getting candidates on the ballot, right you stupid piece of shit?
There’s a reason ranked-choice is getting shoved on Republican States while Newsom in CA is vetoing it.
Ranked-Choice cancels voters 2nd choice and pushed their 3rd into that spot. If you vote for [R] and your [R] looses to a second [R] your vote get TRASHED but [D] votes don’t… This bumps the 3rd-level losers up into #1 spot. This can byte from either side of isle. If CA went ranked choice they’d probably end up with a [R] on any tight (2)[D] candidate races.
The only way to fix this massive mis-representation is to require EVERY ballot is ranked through *all* candidates.
It makes absolutely no sense to require 50% of the vote on a 3-Candidate race. Frankly the 3-Candidate or more race is the BS to begin with. If you can't win at the primaries you've already LOST; insisting you get a second chance in the general is the BS manipulation playing out in the voting system.
Incorrect: "Ranked-Choice cancels voters 2nd choice".
On the 8th round, with 6% of the vote. Just as our messiah George Soros intended.