Does Ranked Choice Voting Disenfranchise Minorities?
Dueling new studies reach opposing conclusions on whether minority voters are well served by ranked choice voting.

On January 11, the Center for Election Confidence released a study of the effects of ranked choice voting (RCV). (The center, previously known as the Lawyers Democracy Fund, opposes RCV.)
The study—conducted by Nolan McCarty, a public affairs professor at Princeton University—found that RCV "disproportionately decreases the representation and electoral influence of minority voters." But a study out today from FairVote, a nonpartisan group that advocates for the adoption of RCV, reached a very different conclusion.
On an RCV ballot, instead of picking a single candidate, voters rank multiple candidates in order of preference. When votes are tallied, if one candidate gets over 50 percent of the vote, then that person wins; if not, then the candidate who got the least votes is eliminated, and all their voters' ballots are retallied with the second choices counted. This process repeats until one candidate reaches a majority.
In the study released last week, McCarty wrote that "minority electorates may be negatively impacted by the adoption of ranked-choice voting," as it "may dilute minority voter influence to the extent to which those voters exhaust their ballots by failing to rank the majority-group candidates."
If a voter only picks one candidate instead of ranking them all, and the race goes to a second round of counting, the voter's ballot is "exhausted" because there are no more candidates to count.
McCarty notes that in the 2021 New York City Democratic primary elections, voting districts with higher concentrations of certain minority groups saw higher rates of ballot exhaustion than districts that were majority-white. Notably, he also found lower rates of ballot exhaustion in majority-black districts, specifically among the races for mayor and public advocate, in which two black candidates—Eric Adams and Jumaane Williams, respectively—were ultimately victorious.
McCarty also studied the 2022 midterm elections in Alaska but found the data more difficult to parse. Nevertheless, he similarly found higher levels of ballot exhaustion among Alaska Native voters, with the exception of the state's U.S. House race, in which an Alaska Native—Democratic candidate Mary Peltola—was ultimately successful.
"The patterns of ballot exhaustion suggest that minority-group voters are not taking full advantage [of] the system," McCarty concludes, though he does not know "whether those higher rates of exhaustion are due to ballot complexity, lower levels of information and mobilization, or racial and ethnic polarization."
But while McCarty purports that RCV "weakens" minority voters' "electoral influence," what he actually found was that minority voters do turn out for candidates within their own ethnic group. Not only does this phenomenon exist, but it has been well documented—"affinity voting" occurs along not only ethnic but also gender lines.
A study out today from FairVote reached a different conclusion.
Using "data from 448 RCV elections" from around the country, FairVote's Deb Otis and Sabrina Laverty found that nonwhite voters "demonstrate the tendency to rank more candidates than White voters." In RCV races that went to second- or third-round tallies, nonwhite candidates increased their vote share at greater rates than white candidates.
In the 2021 primary, "New York [City] elected Eric Adams as its second Black mayor, and picked the most diverse city council in its history," the report notes, and "for the first time, women won a majority of council seats." The same year, "Salt Lake City used RCV to choose its city council members for the first time. People of color won a majority of seats, and most members identify as LGBTQ+."
Notably, McCarty concluded that minority voters exhaust their ballots at higher rates when there is not a candidate of their same ethnic group. But ballot exhaustion does not necessarily mean a voter didn't vote their conscience. "We simply cannot assume that not using every RCV choice amounts somehow to being deprived of influence," says Walter Olson, senior fellow at the Cato Institute's Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies. He characterizes the choice not to rank all candidates as "the functional equivalent of not choosing to vote in a runoff when no candidate you found acceptable made it to the final round."
Will Mantell, FairVote's communications director, agrees: "RCV actually makes more ballots count compared to single-choice elections or runoffs. It's really hard to say that RCV doesn't make more votes count in New York City, for example, when the last citywide primary runoff in 2013 had a 62 percent turnout dropoff from the primary to the runoff."
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
Everything else does, so why not?
Making every month extra dollars by doing an easy job Online. Last month i have earned and W received $18539 from this home based job just by giving this only mine 2 hrs a day. Easy to do work even a child can get this and start making money Online. Get this today by follow instructions
.
.
On This Website—>>> http://Www.Smartcareer1.com
How about does it marginalize Irish or Italian Americans? Let's go all the way since every ethnic group is a minority by definition.
I lived in NY and not once did I have an Italian American as my county or state rep. And I didn't feel marginalized due to my ethnicity. I did finally leave because of their stupid NYC yenta bullshit.
I'm Lithuanian American. Ohhhh, I'm being marginalized!
'Help! Help I'm being repressed!'
'Come and see the violence inherent in the system!'
Well done!
Were you there when de Blasio was mayor? When Mario Procaccino was city comptroller? John Marchi represented Staten Island for a long time in Albany. Mario Biaggi was in Congress quite awhile, until he got convicted for taking unlawful gratuities. Vito Fossella is the SI borough president. Anthony Genovesi from Brooklyn? Guy Molinari or his daughter, Susan?
You must have lived in the wrong neighborhoods.
On the other hand, many have moved to the `burbs. This article calls it a mass exodus .
I grew up on Long Island, in the `60s. Many Italian-American families had moved out near us, an Irish-American family started by a Queens guy and his wife from Brooklyn.
It’s a terrible system for everyone.
You're thinking of Reason’s spam filter
Why do you think it's a terrible system?
The same as Australia's Preferential voting, which has been delivering stable governments since 1918, when it was introduced. The state of Victoria allows a partial system in which a voter has to only list only some or even one preference. A rort instigated by the left to avoid listing preferences for conservative parties. Every federal election dumbass Victorian progressives vote that way, which in a federal election resulting in an invalid ballot.
Note to foreign readers: Australians are forced at gunpoint to vote. That and sloppy seconds voting resulted in a kleptocracy just like any other. Australia only allows lying physicians to extort fees for hemp prescriptions. Everyone else can be arrested, robbed and shot by government goons with guns. Libertarians and potheads are minorities there. Women aren't, so nobody has the power to point a gun at a lady and force her into involuntary reproduction. Canada and England also lack girl-bullying legislators--unlike former nazi Germany.
You think winner-takes-all doesn't disenfranchise voters?
What a joke headline.
The two-party system disenfranchises anyone who refuses to support Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich.
Haley 2024 ! She's not Biden, Trump, DeSantis, nor Harris !
That's about the most glowing recommendation I can make at this point.
Trump wasn't Hillary. Biden wasn't Trump. Here we are.
Looks like the LP picked the wrong year to go off the rails again.
Brazil's 32-party forced-voting system does the same thing.
An election loss in an election in which you voted is “disenfranchisement”? I think you’re gonna need to define this “franchise” to which is refferred.
An election loss in an election in which you voted is “disenfranchisement”? I think you’re gonna need to define this “franchise” to which is refferred.
I view being able to vote freely in an election with fair and accurate procedures as winning as a voter, even if the candidates I choose lose. I've seen democracy defined as agreeing to settle political differences at a ballot box instead of by killing each other. Everyone getting to live and try again in the next election to persuade a majority to agree with your position sounds a lot better than any alternative ever proposed.
That so many have taken issue with the "fair and accurate procedures" in the last 8 years might concern me that there really is a problem with that part of our democracy. But then, they end up sounding like the fans of a team that only ever loses when the refs 'steal' the game from them, so I end up not worrying.
Franchise means both entrenched looter kleptocracy parties get all the jobs and pass all the laws. Before the 19th Amendment restored the 15th Amendment struck down by Comstockist looter judges, it meant ALL-MALE entrenched looter kleptocracy parties get all the jobs and pass all the laws. The pro-choice 1973 Libertarian electoral vote count named a woman. After that, Democratic women in Congress grew like a population curve. Some women even replaced GOP geezers thanks to the Grim Reaper. LP history on the Wikipedia ENDED as of 2018, wiped out by the Mises Caucasian Anschluss murder.
You think winner-takes-all doesn’t disenfranchise voters?
Even with what I said above, I do agree that plurality winners taking everything in single-member districts does distort outcomes badly. (Along with winner-take-all state results in primaries after the first few groups of states are done, and the Electoral College, of course.)
For several decades, this enabled the two-party system to concentrate power with their party establishments and special interests rather than the voters. Now, we see it enabling populist demagoguery to compete with the big money backrooms. Being able to vote should be enough for every voter to feel like we all win, regardless of which candidates take office. But maybe Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf has a point. Maybe it isn’t that we always seem to end up with a choice of the lesser of two evils than that our options come down to: having an illusion of having chosen freely or picking someone that makes us feel great about blowing the whole thing apart before we all burn along with it.
You think winner-takes-all doesn’t disenfranchise voters?
It doesn't.
Gerrymandering is legal, so at the very least in gerrymandered districts it does.
Gerrymandering doesn't "disenfranchise" anybody.
The same year, "Salt Lake City used RCV to choose its city council members for the first time. People of color won a majority of seats, and most members identify as LGBTQ+."
This happened in Salt Lake City. It looks like RCV tends to favor Democratic candidates.
That is an interesting result, given the population of Salt Lake City seems to be about 72% white. Either white voters are remarkably accepting of being governed by someone of another race, which makes racism by a whites a non issue, or something else was going on.
If I were to guess, some non-binary candidates included all the names and genders they go by.
The tough part for them will be remembering which of their personalities won and is now in office.
If I understand, RCV has a lot of my guy didn't win, but this other person is at least all right, sorta.
For kicks, I wonder what a system would look like that let you pick a "no, absolutely not" vote. Whoever has the most "absolutely not" votes gets auto booted from the election.
‘Lesser of two evils’ is kind of like that over time. Starts out normal. Turns into Giant Douche v Turd Sandwich. And is now Senile v Insurrectionist. Like upping the game of absolutely not until someone finally says I quit voting altogether.
I see people on the left often proclaiming that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Could it be that the outcome in Salt Lake City of Democrats winning a lot of seats accurately reflects what the majority of voters wanted?
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/saltlakecitycityutah/PST045223 Shows SLC almost 20% Latino. Still overwhelmingly white.
But the LMNOP+ membership on thir council boggles.
https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2022/01/03/salt-lake-city-most/
It certainly eliminates Libertarian candidates, regardless of all other variables.
RCV will soon be replaced by the Thunderdome: two candidates enter, one candidate leaves.
Too chancy; the dems will stick with traditional ballots, but with only one candidate.
Well, Bartertown ran on pig shit, politics runs on bullshit. I do see the parallels.
After a year plus of whinging about trump being a xenophobic tyrant and destroying our republic, every leftist I know came away from seeing "Black Panther" saying they wished they could move to Wakanda.
Who would have thought the fix for what they imagined trump would do to the USA would be to go live in an isolationist ethno-state with a mining-based economy and a monarchy where the transfer of power was accomplished via hand-to-hand physical combat?
McCarty makes a big deal about "ballot exhaustion". If a voter elects not to record their choices past the most-preferred candidate - in other words, refuses to participate in the actual ranking part of Ranked Choice Voting - I fail to see why that is an indictment of RCV.
I am also utterly unconvinced by McCarty's claim that refusal to rank is a uniquely non-white problem. To the extent you think it's a problem at all, there is no evidence supporting the claim that it will be mysteriously worse for minorities.
RCV threatens the stranglehold the major parties have on things. if people can cast a vote for the third party candidate and then vote against the R or D they have been told to fear for thee second choice, then there is a chance a third party could win. everything else is them scrambling to find an excuse to shut it down for that reason.
Except is there evidence that it does election 3rd parties? And if 3rd parties need an election gimmick like this to be elected, should they?
The reason very-far-behind candidates like IRV is not that they hope it'll help them win, but that it'll increase their vote percentage from, say, 0.5% to 3%. They seek to lose less badly.
It is no more a gimmick than a run-off held on another day.
No it doesn't. RCV only perpetuates major parties. The only way to properly support a third-party candidate is to vote for that candidate and that candidate alone. I as a Libertarian have no "second choice".
says the person who doesn't understand how RCV works
First past the post also perpetuates major parties - and worse. Most who prefer a third party will hold their nose and vote for one of the two major parties, because they know a vote for the third party is "wasted".
"Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos."
Well-said. The only problem is that since the AfD Lootvig Mises Caucasian takeover there IS no LP anymore. Michael Rectumwald is a girl-bullying nationalsocialist MAGAt convert from communism. Lucky for us, the actual libertarians who show up at the polls rather than looter-corral conventions prefer Chase Oliver over the impostor by more than double. Oliver is the Libertarian at 10¢ a vote who forced Georgia looter candidates into runoffs after spending from $20 to $64 a vote! (http://bit.ly/3hFH6QJ) Libertarian Donations buy leveraged votes to repeal bad laws.
I agree. Political gerrymander by both parties has limited voters choices for candidates. RCV would restore a measure of choice for the voters and this is why parties dislike the system.
Republican DEA shill detected!
Why should some voters get multiple votes and others only 1? If someone wants to dilute their vote it should be diluted.
You don't understand how it works. Study up and you'll see none of what you wrote makes sense.
No. I know exactly how it fucking works retard.
So explain. Why should some voters get multiple votes while others get 1?
Everyone gets the same number of votes.
Yes, but Jesse doesn't like it, so he's parroting untrue talking points from some fringe site.
I fail to see why a voting system should accommodate people’s whims or their desire to gamify their whims as if they are real votes. It’s not like they are able to do something serious as in liquid democracy where representation can be pulled by any voter who can then directly participate.
Far worse – RCV will tend to increase voter ‘satisfaction’ as actual representation goes down. And I suspect that is the real purpose because that increases corruptibility. As long as you can make 50 voting choices, why not have a House of Representatives of one critter? A City Council that never increases as peeps increase?
So, lemme see if I got this right. Some people are too dumb to fill out the entire ballot. Ergo, they are """disenfranchised""" in the specific case where a runoff election is held minus their preferred candidate and they still bother to show up and vote (randomly, presumably, because they didn't display any preference before hand or were too dumb to display that preference).
If you are literally so mentally impaired that you can't understand how voting works or how to fill out a ballot, maybe you should be disenfranchised.
"Too dumb" or not wanting to put any kind of support on record for the otther candidates, even in a a second hand fashion.
Perhaps they only want a particular person to win and don't give a shit about the others.
Christian National Socialists are good at that. Hitler stuffed his book and speeches with Bible quotes, parables and allusions. Franco told the suckers he was God's Own Caudillo (Caudillo de Dios). Mussolini handed the Pope iv Rome a political State, then insisted He help Hitler rub out a few million Jews. Surrenderist France under Pétain adopted Jesus-freak mottoes with Forced labor, Family Values and Political collectivism to replace Freedom 'n such. Europeans lapped it up like a saucer of warm blood, and got what they deserved.
The solution is simple, someone should fill out the form for them.
Voter motivation is a key component of voting. Run off ballots at least force people to make an actual choice as to if they want to vote for someone.
No, they don't. Again, that's not how RCV works.
"Voter motivation is a key component of voting."
No, it isn't. Motivation is irrelevant, intent is all that matters. Measuring the preferred candidate of a majority of voters is the point of an election. Doing it with a single voting method is cheaper, easier, more accurate, and prevents a candidate who didn't win in the first round from claiming they have a mandate from their constituents.
But you also think that RCV gives some people more votes than others, so you clearly struggle to understand the most basic elements of RCV.
The vast majority of ballots cast in the United States before the 1960s were straight-ticket ballots. However, straight-ticket voting experienced a steady decline through the 2000s ….
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straight-ticket_voting
OK. I'm not sure how that relates to RCV. I would argue that RCV is the ultimate expression of split-ticket voting, since if you fill out more than one candidate you are eschewing the one-party-only ethic of straight-ticket voting.
The funny thing is, the flaw is there, plain to see, not any harder than the issue with FPTP to see and you just refuse to see it.
This isn't the Final Four, you don't have to fly teams around the country to play head to head. It's like a free throw contest where you can compare everyone head-to-head, Round Robin style. No need to take the votes from one candidate and toss them to the another, the winner would be the person with the most points on the board.
There are, of course, other obvious issues that RCV, of any flavor, runs into like information cost, distributed costs and concentrated rewards, and meaningless distinctions/false choices but, if you need to pretend that other people are less retarded than you so that you don't feel as bad go ahead.
Turn-out differs between round 1 and round 2 of an election with a normal runoff. RCV or IRV avoids that problem.
The only thing ranked choice voting does is empower the inner party of the left.
Nothing else.
So yes, it's bad for minorities. It's bad for everyone.
It also allows the libertarians with the mentality of pre-teen girls pouring over their copies of Tiger Beat and arguing over how to rank their favorite heartthrobs to out themselves.
1 man multiple votes
So? Nothing in the Constitution against it.
It's not multiple votes. It's, do you want to change your mind if you know your first choice loses?
It's not even that. It's an instantaneous runoff. Anyone who captures 50%+ of the vote in RCV instantly wins. The runoff only applies if no one meets that criteria.
Each ballot only counts as one vote in any given round of counting. Activists and other "community organizer" types still have to cast their multiple ballots the old fashoned way.
"A study out today ... reached a different conclusion."
Is anybody really surprised that the socialists commissioned a "study" to "prove their narrative? Is anybody really surprised that much better designed and conducted studies disprove their socialist narrative?
The Socialists? What are you talking about?
I thought this was going to be about political minorities and was disappointed to learn it was another pointless discussion of race by racists. RCV is a tool that can easily be wielded to elect someone who doesn't represent the majority of the electorate. We saw this in Alaska because Republicans had multiple candidates splitting the vote and Democrats coalesced around one. Splitting the vote is also an issue for getting effective third parties.
It's worth noting for RCV advocates that Larry Elder had a chance of winning in California even with Democrats trying to manipulate RCV to their further benefit.
"RCV is a tool that can easily be wielded to elect someone who doesn’t represent the majority of the electorate."
What are you talking about? It's the exact opposite of that. If someone captures more than 50% of the vote, they win. A second round only happens if no one wins a majority.
"We saw this in Alaska because Republicans had multiple candidates splitting the vote and Democrats coalesced around one."
What happened in Alaska was that the two R candidates hated each other so much that their supporters chose a D as their second choice over the other R. If they had voted for their preferred R, then the other R, an R would have won.
This is evidence that RCV works exactly how it was intended, where the voters show their preference and the candidate who wins is preferred by the majority of voters.
If there is a majority of voters who are Republicans but they split their first round votes between two Republicans so that one of the Republicans is dropped from the second ranked second round and the voters put the Democrat as their second choice then a Democrat wins despite the majority being Republicans. Not that it matters, but that's what they were saying.
That's arguing that voters should be prevented from voting their belief that a member of another party would be worse than their preferred candidate of their preferred party, but better than another member of their preferred party.
It's rank partisanship. "Someone who doesn’t represent the majority of the electorate" is very different from "someone who doesn't belong to the same party as the majority of the electorate". Claiming it's the same is just dishonesty.
In order for it to play out that way, the Dem would need to get over 50% before one of the Republican candidates is eliminated from the field. There's no winning with a plurality in RCV.
If more than half of all the ballots were marked for one GOP candidate first and the other second, then the Dem would never break 50% of the total count in a field of three of more candidates. Until one candidate gets more than half of all the votes, they keep eliminating the one with the lowest total and re-counting.
Between this injustice and the abomination of the Iowa caucus, I'm starting to think the fairest, most equitable solution would be to eliminate voting and just let a panel of experts decide who should take the various roles in government.
Thank you for your candor, Nazi.
If they’re PRIVATE experts then Reason would probably support that.
Forget the experts. I'd be totally ok with a randomly selected panel of say 40,000 people choosing from among themselves which become full-time for a term. In fact, that's also a similar method that solves the Byzantine general's problem for some cryptocurrencies.
Are you actively trying to say dumber things than JesseAZ? Because it's working.
I didn’t make that comment. That was again a troll.
I actually support RCV and don't think that it "harms minorities" is a legitimate claim.
Sure enough, I muted him and you're still here. I still usually disagree with what you post, but am glad to know you aren't as dumb as Jesse.
I can only speak for Minneapolis. We ended up with everyone's second choice, Mayor Frey, because he is according to my friends 'hot.' He's a marathoner and easy on the eyes, and people are dumb.
Opposition to RCV here is driven largely because Caribou Barbie supposedly lost an election because of it and because the crackers are afraid that similar outcomes will recur.
Yeah no, opposition to RCV was around LONG before a z-list election in Alaska occurred.
All I can see RCV doing is to assure a "winner" who didn't get a majority of the "real" votes.
Actually it's to address just such situations, and make them less likely. It never affects a result where someone gets a majority of the first round; they win.
Agreed. The one who wins is the one the most people reluctantly voted for.
You’ve coined the zeitgeist of the modern age: “reluctant voting.”
Oh, trust me, I didn't coin that. But I know who did.
"The one who wins is the one the most people reluctantly voted for."
Not if someone gets over 50% of the vote. Then that person wins. RCV only kicks in if no one gets over 50%.
Getting over a 50% majority does not mean those voters weren't reluctant.
The first time I was old enough to vote was 1972. This was before the Libertarian Party began nominating candidates for President, but there were at least a half dozen Presidential candidates on the ballot, and I was reluctant to vote for _any_ of them. McGovern was crazy, Nixon was fascist (because he heard that conservatives were fascists and believed it), and every other candidate on the Michigan ballot was some kind of communist.
"Getting over a 50% majority does not mean those voters weren’t reluctant."
And? Voting isn't ranked by how enthusiastic the voter is. A reluctant vote is worth exactly the same as an eager vote.
If someone gets over 50% of all the votes, then mathematically the most people voted for them, for whatever reason. Over 50% means that there aren't enough remaining votes in play for anyone else to have got more.
Basic arithmetic is fun AND useful. You can choose not to know it, but that really opens up a danger that you'll be taken advantage of by someone who does.
I've made the point before: You know who else was elected Chancellor by a multi-party coalition?
Which has nothing to do with RCV. But it's an awfully quick confirmation of Godwin's Law.
Notably, he also found lower rates of ballot exhaustion in majority-black districts, specifically among the races for mayor and public advocate, in which two black candidates—Eric Adams and Jumaane Williams, respectively—were ultimately victorious.
Brothas!
I'm just going to let this set of competing virtues beat each other to death in the octagon, and then see what happens after everyone agrees to disagree.
Orange Hitler wins with a majority of EC votes and the dark night of fascism descends... again.
A study out today from FairVote reached a different conclusion.
By the way, I don't really have much of a dog in this fight, but this line right here... that's literally the equivalent of saying "A study out today from Phillip-Morris concludes that smoking cigarettes is good for your health" or "a study out today from The Campaign to Elect Hillary Clinton concluded that a vote for Donald Trump is a vote for Hitler".
test
fail
Fuck off, Reason, I just posted a comment and got some oddball "your access to this site has been restricted due to something something something" Now that comment got eaten, so I'll try to shorten it:
This site is a good resource for non-partisan analysis of alternate voting systems including RCV. It makes no grand conclusions, but notes certain effects from the implementation of these systems, and they touch on something that I've said for a few years now on RCV: If your district tends to lean left/right, RCV puts it more solidly in that camp due to the elimination of 'spoiler' candidates.
site link.
As soon as I try to paste the relevant passage, I get an 'invalid operation' error.
Yeah, any attempt to paste the relevant section gives me some kind of 'wordfence' error. Fuck off.
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/ranked-choice-voting-in-practice-implementation-considerations-for-policymakers
Runoffs are the way to go
I do like their speculative conclusion that RCV might be better for primaries, when dealing with a broad range of candidates from the same party. FWIW. YMMV. OTOH, BMOC FTW FYTW
"Runoffs are the way to go"
Which is what RCV is. The advantage over a separate runoff is that it doesn't require another truckload of money to have the runoff at a different time.
Let me try and manually type it:
Nope, it's like it doesn't like the literal text, even manually entered. I suspect some kind of copyright detection scheme in WordFence
Sorry you're having problems today! I've had lots of problems before, too, but not with this specific error.
Suggestion: _Always_ type into a notepad program, then copy/paste here. Makes life easier in the end.
Nope. I've run into the WordFence bullshit as well. It's, as indicated, some sort of copyright or cross-site checking script that can't tell its own ass from a hole in the ground.
*gets professional gameface when dealing with support on*
Before I created my ticket, here are the things I tried:
o cutting out parts of the quoted message.
o reformatting the quoted message.
o removing links to the article
o pasting the quoted section into notepad, repasting in comment box
o putting quoted section in notepad, then manually transcribing into text box
All of the above resulted in the error. So there was some combination of words and syllables, regardless of their provenance that caused the error.
What I didn’t do:
o Paraphrase original text
I didn’t do the above because that would essentially be quoting myself.
Ranked choice is a scam. It literally forces you to vote for candidates you don't want (even if you're "ranking" them dead last), and can (and often does) deny wins to the person who had the actual majority, sometimes even giving it to candidates who had <50% of the total vote count.
The Founders would have shot anyone advocating for it. And they would have deserved it.
deny wins to the person who had the actual majority
Nope. If someone actually has a majority, they win on the first count.
How can that happen? At any round, if a candidate has over 50%, they win.
First, I agree with Vernon Depner and Roberta that any candidate with more than 50% wins outright. Second you are not forced to vote for any candidate. If a ballot has 5 candidates you can vote for and rank them all, ranks a limited number or vote for just one.
We're not talking about situations where someone wins outright at 50% in the first round. We're talking about lower rounds.
Also, know what happens to your ballot if you don't rank all five? Google "Ballot Exhaustion." Know what happens then?
IRV does not ensure that the winning candidate will have received a majority of all votes cast, only a majority of all valid votes in the final round of tallying. Thus, it is possible that the winning candidate will fall short of an actual majority when a substantial number of ballots are eliminated, or “exhausted,” during the vote redistribution process.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0261379414001395
Meaning you have to rank all of them if you want your vote to continue being counted in the event your highest ranks don't break 50%. And even when you do, you get screwed up results. For example, let's suppose we have an election where the initial round of counting goes:
A - 49%
B - 21%
C - 10%
D - 20%
C is out, but the second choice for the C voters was redistributed 4/6 between B and D respectively.
A - 49%
B - 25%
D - 26%
B is out, and D takes all 25% as their third choice.
A - 49%
D - 51%
That means D wins despite not being first, or even second choice of the extreme majority of the electorate. AND despite the fact that A had almost twice as much support the entire time.
That's a screwed up result. Especially if 100 hungry people were voting on:
A) Casual Restaurant
B) Expensive Fine Dining
C) Nothing
D) McDonald's Happy Meal
What, we should all have to settle for Happy Meals when the actual majority of us want Casual, just because more of us would go for fast food rather than going without or having to pay for something we can't afford? Nonsense.
That's not a vote. That's a scam. That's a scam to force you to settle for something other than what you specifically say you want in your representative government. And it's a scam designed to benefit politicians who can't decisively win elections on their own merits.
There is not one single valid argument in favor of this nonsense. Not. One.
In your scenario, the "actual majority" did not want "Casual Restaurant". There was no "actual majority" in the first round.
And let's look more deeply at your scenario. It seems really weird that Candidate A was not on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice lists for those who voted for Candidates B, C or D. Candidate A only needed 2% more support in the following three rounds, and that candidate wasn't even able to do that. The voters who voted for Candidates B, C and D made it very clear that they really didn't want Candidate A. Viewed in this way, the majority (51%) of voters got a candidate that was a reasonable enough compromise for them, which reflected their will that they absolutely do not want Candidate A.
If this had happened without RCV, then the 49% of voters who really wanted Candidate A would have gotten their way, even though 51% of voters did not want Candidate A.
We vote for candidates here, not parties.
RCV works perfectly in parliamentary systems, where every voter knows their own MP is truly just a stand in for the agenda.
Well, I know. I am just pointing out that in AT's contrived example, he has described a situation of a rather polarized electorate, with 51% of the voters making it very clear that they reject Candidate A, because NONE of them chose Candidate A at any level on their ballots. Since that is the case, the RCV result better reflects this preference of the voters.
But not the majority of them. More - far more - people would prefer A, than they would B, C, or D. And that's all that matters.
The fact that B, C, and D voters would not prefer A, and there's more of them collectively than A supporters, has no bearing on anything. Nor should it.
Because our system of government and elections isn't A or ~A.
It's A, or B, or C, or D - based on the merits of each respectively.
The “biggest slice” is not necessarily the same as the majority of the pie. The biggest slice is a plurality in this case.
So what? The majority of the pie isn’t the subject of consideration.
49% of people agree they want something. If the other 51% are split into three different factions – let’s call them “want” “will tolerate” and “will begrudgingly accept” – and only 20% initially supports “will tolerate” then that’s 80% of voters completely disenfranchised if RCV gives him the election.
Of course, it’s plainly obvious that this is clearly the “equally shared misery” principle at play. And our elections aren’t – nor should they be – based on what most people will tolerate. Representative Government doesn’t work that way, which why RCV is a scam and an affront to self-governance.
In that same vein, when candidates like Trump or Biden campaign on that whole “You need to support me because I have the best chance of winning” tack – that’s also an affront in a very similar way. Having the best chance of winning is meaningless if that candidate isn’t going to meaningfully represent your voice in government.
That’s voting for what you don’t want, out of fear that you’ll get something worse otherwise. Same principle’s at work with RCV. And like Nobar said: We vote for candidates here, not parties.
It seems really weird that Candidate A was not on the 2nd, 3rd or 4th choice lists for those who voted for Candidates B, C or D.
Why is that weird? People want what they want for varying reasons. The whole idea is that B, C, and D supporters then either 1) attempt to convince A supporters of the merits of their general philosophy; or 2) relocate to places where there are more B, C, and D supporters respectively.
That’s why the country is referred to as a melting pot. Something for everyone, while filtering out all the garbage that can’t ever gain majority support in ANY community.
Viewed in this way, the majority (51%) of voters got a candidate that was a reasonable enough compromise for them
Again, that’s not how Representative Government works.
We elect the guy who represents the most people. Period.
Not the guy who represents some people, only kinda represents others (but not enough to actually first-choice vote for him), and “I guess it’s better than nothing” represents others (but not enough to actually first or second choice vote for him) more.
That’s the mentality of a subjugated people, content to accept whatever scraps they can get from their so-called “representatives.” It’s why our elections are unequivocally NOT supposed to work that way.
even though 51% of voters did not want Candidate A
Doesn’t matter what they didn’t want. That’s where your hangup is in all this.
"then that’s 80% of voters completely disenfranchised if RCV gives him the election."
That's not what disenfranchised means. That's called voting for someone who doesn't win and it happens every single election. The "not-X" argument is always a dishonest one.
"And our elections aren’t – nor should they be – based on what most people will tolerate."
That's exactly what we have now. Do you really think Trump was the preferred choice of voters in '16? Or that Biden was in '20?
"Representative Government doesn’t work that way, which why RCV is a scam and an affront to self-governance."
That's exactly how representative government works. Virtually no one gets a candidate who exactly mirrors their issue profile.
"That’s voting for what you don’t want, out of fear that you’ll get something worse otherwise."
Welcome to our present system.
"Why is that weird?"
Because the idea that a candidate that won 49% of the initial vote wouldn't receive any 2nd, 3rd, or 4th votes strains credulity.
Your scenario is a set-up, not a rational example.
"Again, that’s not how Representative Government works."
Again, yes it is. Representative government doesn't mean you get your issue profile advanced by your representative. Ideally it means the issues of all constituents are advocated for, but even that doesn't happen now. Representative government means that the most acceptable candidate to the majority of people wins the election.
Which is what RCV does. If a candidate speaks to the priority issues of a majority of people, they win. They may be on competition with other candidates whose issue profile overlaps theirs, in which case their positions on other issues become more relevant. That's the point. It isn't the candidate that can appeal to a plurality that deserves to win, it's the candidate that can appeal to a majority.
"Not the guy who represents some people, only kinda represents others"
Again, that's exactly what representative government is. Show me this mythical representative that represents, exactly, the issues and the priorities of a majority of voters. That representative doesn't exist because voters are people and they place different emphasis on different issues. They're willing to compromise on different issues.
Even two pro-life, pro-small-business Rs will compromise (or not) in different ways depending on the emphasis they place on those two issues. One, who is willing to compromise on the pro-life position, would vote for a pro-choice, pro-small-business candidate while the other, who refuses to compromise on abortion, would not. If a pro-choice corporatist was the R candidate, they would make different choices about who to support.
"That’s the mentality of a subjugated people"
Please. Do you write for The Batchelor? Overwrought treatment of an everyday thing like voters supporting candidates who aren't perfectly aligned with them ideologically is reality-show-level faux drama.
"Doesn’t matter what they didn’t want."
According to your logic from earlier in your own post, it does. It means 51% of people are "disenfranchised" (using your completely false definition) if A wins. So which is it?
That’s not what disenfranchised means.
That's exactly what it means. I told you what I wanted, most people agreed with me. You didn't want it, but you couldn't get most people to agree with what you DID want, so instead you all redistributed your votes after you lost. Meaning that only a small fraction of people actually got what they wanted, and the extreme majority got screwed out of what they wanted.
That's literally the textbook definition of vote disenfranchisement. You took away what the majority of people wanted, to give a small minority what they want instead, telling other minorities to be happy because something's better than nothing, and telling the actual majority to go screw themselves.
That’s exactly what we have now. Do you really think Trump was the preferred choice of voters in ’16? Or that Biden was in ’20?
Yes, otherwise they wouldn't have survived the primary.
I didn't choose either of them in the primary, and I didn't resign to one or the other in the general. They're not what I want. So why on Earth would I vote for either one?
I'm in the minority. It means I don't GET what I want, unless I can convince people of the merits of it.
That’s exactly how representative government works. Virtually no one gets a candidate who exactly mirrors their issue profile.
Nobody's saying they do. This is a straw man you're attacking.
I know what I want. That's what I vote for. I vote for the candidate that earns my vote. May not be perfect, but it IS my actual choice. I got to say, "I want that" and be listened to, win or lose. (And if I win, I also own that, warts and all.)
You want to redistribute unearned votes from loser candidates to other candidates who couldn't earn them in the first place.
I defy you to tell me one single valid reason why someone who doesn't earn a person's vote in the first place, should ultimately have it awarded to them anyway.
Because the idea that a candidate that won 49% of the initial vote wouldn’t receive any 2nd, 3rd, or 4th votes strains credulity.
I don't care if it strains credulity. You're damn right it's a setup. The fact that it COULD happen is more than enough reason to dismiss RCV as a conceptual failure right out of the gate. It's a setup to make it indisputably obvious how it's BUILT to screw people out of their vote by empowering an indecisive, disparate group of minorities over a decisive unified majority.
Designed to mulligan their vote collectively if they're clearly outnumbered individually.
Representative government doesn’t mean you get your issue profile advanced by your representative.
But you DO get your choice.
It's, "I want that guy."
Not, "I want that guy. Or that guy. Or maybe even that guy. Whatever, who cares."
It isn’t the candidate that can appeal to a plurality that deserves to win, it’s the candidate that can appeal to a majority.
Which B, C, and D clearly couldn't do. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
They’re willing to compromise on different issues.
We're not talking about compromising on different issues. We're talking about people who can't win on their merits getting do-overs that change a person's vote from "non-supporter" to "supporter" in their favor.
According to your logic from earlier in your own post, it does. It means 51% of people are “disenfranchised” (using your completely false definition) if A wins.
Only because you straw manned the logic.
How are they disenfranchised? They voted, and not enough people shared their opinion on who earned their vote.
They got to say, "I want that," and have it counted as their voice in government.
Maybe you need to look up the definition of "disenfranchisement"?
"That’s exactly what it means."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise
No, it isn't. Why are you so determined to be easily proven to be wrong?
"You took away what the majority of people wanted, to give a small minority what they want instead"
If a majority of people voted for a candidate, they win. There wouldn't be any other rounds. So you are wrong.
"They’re not what I want. So why on Earth would I vote for either one?"
Apparently your virtue is superior. Most people don't refuse to vote for someone they mostly agree with. There's a reason the phrase "hold my nose and vote for him/her" exists. No candidate wins with only enthusiastic voters. That's how Trump won. That's how Biden won. That's how every President ever has won.
"Nobody’s saying they do. This is a straw man you’re attacking."
No, that's your premise. Because those supporting candidates who are eliminated are choosing the candidate they prefer less than their first choice, but more than everone else. And that's what you are arguing is bad, wrong, and (completely ignoring its definition) disenfranchisement.
"I defy you to tell me one single valid reason why someone who doesn’t earn a person’s vote in the first place, should ultimately have it awarded to them anyway."
It's called a runoff and it happens all the time. Candidates that don't get a majority of votes don't win an election, they have to have a runoff where ... and I'll use small words so you can understand ... people who voted for their preferred candidate the first time vote for a different candidate in the runoff. So the reason is this: you don't win an election without a majority. The difference between RCV and a runoff is that a runoff is held at a later date and RCV calculates the runoff instantly.
"The fact that it COULD happen is more than enough reason to dismiss RCV as a conceptual failure right out of the gate."
If that was the standard, then nothing, no system, no process, no structure, would ever be "successful". They would all be failures. The fact that you can come up with an edge case doesn't invalidate anything. Edge cases never do. To think otherwise is to admit you are an idiot or a fool. Or both.
"But you DO get your choice."
Only of they win a majority, when RCV would have the exact same result as FPTP. And in your scenario, no one did.
"We’re talking about people who can’t win on their merits getting do-overs that change a person’s vote from “non-supporter” to “supporter” in their favor so every candidate that doesn't get over 50% in an election "can’t win on their merits"? That's a LOT of people.
You do know that you can't win with a plurality in most elections, right? That 49.9% ends in a runoff, not a victory? Actually, given your displays of ignorance, that isn't a rhetorical question.
Do you understand that if a candidate doesn't get 50% +1 vote, they don't win?
"Which B, C, and D clearly couldn’t do."
None of them could. In your bizarre world, none of the candidates would win because none got a majority. How exactly do you think such situations are resolved? Oh, right. A runoff, where people who voted for an eliminated candidate can vote for one of the remaining candidates. Just like RCV, which is why it's alternately called "Instant Runoff Voting". Because, you know, it's like a runoff on a separate day, but done instantly.
"How are they disenfranchised?"
I don't know. It's how you are defining "disenfranchised". I use the actual, real definition, which RCV doesn't do. To anyone.
"Maybe you need to look up the definition of “disenfranchisement”?"
I did it before, but I'll do it again because you seem to struggle to understand simple concepts.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disenfranchise
No, it isn’t. Why are you so determined to be easily proven to be wrong?
For the life of me, I will never understand how leftists can project so hard with zero self-awareness.
Your link: "to deprive of the right to vote".
49% of people vote for what they want.
You then want to DEPRIVE THEM OF THAT be redistributing failed votes until they can beat that majority.
RCV IS. DISENFRANCHISEMENT. By it's VERY DESIGN. There is no disputing this.
If a majority of people voted for a candidate, they win.
Exactly. And now you want to say, "Well, that's still not enough people, so let's start to redistribute votes."
Apparently your virtue is superior.
Apparently it is. It's called civic duty. You should try it.
There’s a reason the phrase “hold my nose and vote for him/her” exists.
And it's the same reason our government now consists of grifters, opportunists, brazen liars, backstabbers, and elected officials who no longer have to answer (even slightly) to their constituents.
Because what are you going to do, punk? Vote for the other guy? Yea right. Shut up and resign your vote to me!
That the government you want?
And that’s what you are arguing is bad, wrong, and (completely ignoring its definition) disenfranchisement.
Because it is bad, wrong, and disenfranchisement. Repeating otherwise isn't going to change that.
What you're doing is empowering garbage candidates who don't have to earn their vote. If they earned their vote, they'd get it right out of the gate.
Instead, they don't. Maybe they don't even get it the second time around. That's what you're peddling. Candidate Lowest Common Denominator. Which is the exact opposite of Candidate Will of the People.
It’s called a runoff and it happens all the time.
You were wrong about this earlier, and you're wrong about it now. You are conflating primary elections with general elections.
So the reason is this: you don’t win an election without a majority.
Correction: without a clear majority.
(Seriously, the civics classes - consider them.)
If that was the standard, then nothing, no system, no process, no structure, would ever be “successful”. They would all be failures.
The majority system we have now works just fine. It's worked for a very long time.
The only reason you think it doesn't is because you've embraced this "hold your nose" garbage.
You don't have to do that. Vote for who you want. If the majority is with you, they'll win.
If it's not, they won't. At which point you get over it.
Only of they win a majority, when RCV would have the exact same result as FPTP. And in your scenario, no one did.
YES THEY DID.
CANDIDATE A HAD THE MAJORITY.
49 > 21 > 20 > 10.
FFS, do you need remedial math as well as civics?
You do know that you can’t win with a plurality in most elections, right?
Most primary elections. Again, better do a bit of studying if you want to keep up here.
None of them could. In your bizarre world, none of the candidates would win because none got a majority.
Which is the highest number: 40, 21, 20, or 10.
You go ahead and tell me which is the majority number among those four.
I use the actual, real definition, which RCV doesn’t do. To anyone.
And now you're reduced to flat out lies.
Good night Nelson. You're wrong, and you know it.
In your scenario, the “actual majority” did not want “Casual Restaurant”. There was no “actual majority” in the first round.
Make it into a pie chart. Which slice is biggest? That's the majority.
I can't believe I have to explain this to you.
The voters who voted for Candidates B, C and D made it very clear that they really didn’t want Candidate A.
And that's the problem with our electorate in a nut shell. You're not voting for representation. You're literally voting Candidate Default Whatever Who Cares whose only necessary qualification for office in your eyes is, "Don't be the other guy."
And that's why RCV is bogus and a scam. Because the question isn't who you DON'T want - it's who you DO want. It's why your ballot says Candidate A or Candidate B. Not "Candidate A - Yes or No."
Make it into a pie chart. Which slice is biggest? That’s the majority.
The "biggest slice" is not necessarily the same as the majority of the pie. The biggest slice is a plurality in this case.
And that’s the problem with our electorate in a nut shell.
Well, no voting system can fix problems with the "electorate". All any voting system can do is attempt to reflect the will of the electorate, as flawed as they are.
And that’s why RCV is bogus and a scam. Because the question isn’t who you DON’T want – it’s who you DO want. It’s why your ballot says Candidate A or Candidate B. Not “Candidate A – Yes or No.”
Ideally, we would all affirmatively vote for a candidate who reflects a positive agenda that we agree with. But as you point out, oftentimes that is not how the real world works. Just look at the number of people around here who are planning to vote for Trump not because they really like Trump but because they just hate Biden.
I am pointing out that in your contrived example, a majority of voters - 51% - expressed that they really really didn't want Candidate A, because none of them chose Candidate A at any level on their ballots. And RCV permits that voter preference to be realized. Unlike with FPTP, when Candidate A would have won, even though that result did not reflect the will of the majority of the voters.
RCV is better, but it is not perfect. It cannot fix a voter's mind, that is true.
Just look at the number of people around here who are planning to vote for Trump not because they really like Trump but because they just hate Biden.
They get the government they ask for. If you're going to vote fear instead of principle, then you don't get to cry foul when the person you elected doesn't actually represent you.
I am pointing out that in your contrived example, a majority of voters – 51% – expressed that they really really didn’t want Candidate A
It doesn't matter what they don't want. Or even what they really really don't want. That is 100% irrelevant.
What matters is what they DO want. And if people more people want A than B, and A than C, and A than D - then A wins.
And B, C, and D supporters should aim for a more unifying candidate next time.
RCV does not permit voter preference to be realized. It does the exact opposite. At best, it permits vague voter sentiment to be realized - at the expense of those who are decisive about who they want representing them.
We're not voting for general voter sentiment. We're voting for majority representation. Even if that majority is under 50%, because the minorities are too fractured to unite as a majority.
"What matters is what they DO want. And if people more people want A than B, and A than C, and A than D – then A wins."
But if you are willing to accept C or D, you aren't choosing for anyone in the A vs. B, artificially created, binary choice. Exactly what you're complaining about in RCV.
No system is perfect. RCV is superior to the alternatives. Much like democracy, it's the worst system except for everything else that's ever been tried.
Willing to Accept ≠ Want. That's what you're not understanding. Intentionally, I suspect.
We already have a system that works just fine, and has for centuries. You simply reject it because, instead of a majority, you want to produce a different result - the lowest common denominator.
And what you get as a result isn't a nation of states where like-minded individuals can self-govern their local regions. What you get from RCV is fundamentally anti-American.
If no one gets 50% +1 vote, it doesn't matter what you want. That person didn't win. At that point, it's about who you accept if you can't get the one you prefer.
That's called a runoff. It happens all the time. It's exactly what RCV does, there's just no need to have an entire separate election.
"We already have a system that works just fine, and has for centuries."
And that's exactly what RCV does. Are you too stupid to understand that RCV is a runoff (which is the system you are lauding), but done on the same day instead of on a different day?
"What you get from RCV is fundamentally anti-American."
Since it is an election with a runoff, which is exactly what America has done throughout our history, this is even dumber than the wide array of mind-bogglingly stupid things you have said about RCV. Which I thought was impossible.
You literally just said that the way America has done elections throughout history is anti-American.
Your ignorance is astonishing.
If no one gets 50% +1 vote, it doesn’t matter what you want. That person didn’t win.
They don't need 50% + 1. They need a majority of total votes.
In an electorate of 100,000 voters, if 40,000 of them say A, and <40,000 say anything other than A, then A wins.
Because A has the majority. Doesn't need 50% + 1 if the remainder of the electorate is that fractured about who/what they want.
And that’s exactly what RCV does.
No it doesn't. RCV redistributes votes in a way that disenfranchises the voters who are unified as a majority in their vote, to benefit those who are not. It brazenly deprives people of their civic right to say, "I want you - you specifically - to represent me."
You're not going to win this argument, Nelson. RCV is - by design - anathema to the actual will of the people.
Like I said to that one idiot - go carve up a pie. Carve it 49, 21, 20, and 10. The biggest piece is 49%. What you want to do is undo the other cuts. Well, sorry pal, but you can't uncut a pie.
That's like arguing that your vote doesn't count if you voted for the loser in a FPTP election. If you're a "D" voter and your vote stops "counting" by the final round, it just means you voted for a loser. Just like in a normal election.
That’s like arguing that your vote doesn’t count if you voted for the loser
No, it's nothing like that whatsoever. Your vote counted, it was simply in the minority - therefore you lose, good day sir. Next time try and convince people of the merit of your position to help make it a majority position.
This RCV nonsense is, "More people wanted your guy than anyone else, but we don't think that's enough to count as a "win" - so let's redistribute the votes so that this other guy who nobody really wanted wins." It's bogus election manipulation designed to favor people who can't win either a majority or a plurality.
You are trying to play a bait-and-switch by claiming that if someone who wins a majority in the runoff rounds of RCV doesn't have a majority relative to the original total of votes, it is somehow different than someone who wins a majority in a separate runoff on a different date but doesn't have a majority relative to the original total of votes.
It isn't. RCV is the exact same as a runoff on a different day, it just costs a shitload less.
It's not bait-and-switch.
If I want a steak, and you want curry, and the jerk in our trio wants vegan - if we're all committed to eating the same meal, then two of us aren't getting what we want. If you want curry, but you'll settle for a steak, that doesn't magically create a steak majority.
Because you didn't want steak. You resigned yourself to steak. At the expense of what you DID want. And Representative Government isn't based on what you'll resign yourself to. That is not the mentality of a free, self-governing people. Which is why RCV is anathema to American governance. And why the Founders would have (rightfully) shot anyone who suggested it.
"If you want curry, but you’ll settle for a steak, that doesn’t magically create a steak majority."
In a runoff, it does. So using your analogy, if there are two people who want steak, two who want curry, and one who wants vegan, everyone agrees "well, it's not going to be vegan". When presented with steak or curry, the vegan chooses curry, resulting in all 5 having curry. Much like politics, not everyone gets exactly what they want but, given the remaining option, only 2 people are unhappy. And that's not even taking into account that there may be one of the steak people who says, "if we don't go for steak, I'm just going to stay home", which is also an option in RCV.
"And Representative Government isn’t based on what you’ll resign yourself to."
That's exactly what representative government is based on. Everyone knows that they aren't going to get a representative who exactly matches their beliefs. Believing that would be insane.
However, they do know that the people they vote for share some of their beliefs and that they would be comfortable being represented by those people. If there was a candidate that they wouldn't be comfortable with, they can leave them off the ballot.
Your analysis relies completely on the idea that a voter whose representative isn't perfectly matched to their issue profile is somehow not being represented adequately. That's prima facie bullshit.
In a runoff, it does. So using your analogy, if there are two people who want steak, two who want curry, and one who wants vegan, everyone agrees “well, it’s not going to be vegan”. When presented with steak or curry, the vegan chooses curry, resulting in all 5 having curry.
There aren’t two people who want steak. There is ONE person who wants steak. If they both wanted steak, they BOTH would have voted for steak. Instead, one voted for something else. Meaning THAT’S what he wanted. NOT steak.
That’s the whole reason we DON’T do a runoff. Because that screws the curry guy out of what he actually wanted.
Much like politics, not everyone gets exactly what they want but, given the remaining option, only 2 people are unhappy. … Everyone knows that they aren’t going to get a representative who exactly matches their beliefs.
Nobody’s saying they would or should.
But Representative Government isn’t a “not everyone gets exactly what they want” compromise at the individual voter level. You vote for the candidate that best represents you. Not the candidate that kinda sorta represents you. And certainly not the candidate that barely represents you. If more people want the same candidate you do, than any of the other candidates – great. If they don’t – too bad, so sad.
That’s how we are able to have a diverse society of self-governance across 50 individual states, as opposed to some kind of lukewarm homogeneous nationwide garbage. RCV robs people of that by turning the “I want you!” vote into a “I do not want you” vote and then redistributing it to other candidates who failed to earn it in the first place.
Majority consensus. Not minority compromise. And if the minority doesn’t like what the majority likes, they’re 100% free to A) spend the next few years convincing the steak-lovers of the merits of their curry; or B) relocate anywhere nationwide without penalty, hindrance, or obstruction to find a more curry-loving community. THAT’S the whole American design in the first place.
Self-governance. Not resignation to the lowest common denominator.
“That’s the whole reason we DON’T do a runoff.”
OK, you’re just being a troll or are too stupid to avoid drooling into your soup.
We have runoffs all the time in America. It’s literally the only solution to an election where no one gets a majority. And it happens all the time.
For fuck’s sake, take a civics class.
In primary elections maybe. And even then, in only like 1/5th of the nation.
And in those rare times we do, it's the VOTERS that get a chance to change their vote. It's not automatically redistributed FOR them.
Maybe you should take the civics course, hmm?
Or, you can think of it as the majority of hungry people really, really, really did not want to go to Applebee's. They would rather have Happy Meals then go to that place again. And who can blame them, really?
No, that's also incorrect. What most people really wanted was casual dining or expensive fine dining. But they couldn't get enough people to agree to that, so now everybody gets Happy Meals even though it's clearly not what 80% of people actually wanted.
Not much different than this "equity" nonsense:
https://i.imgur.com/5UiEajB.jpg
It's forcing people to settle for what they can get, instead of respecting their Constitutional and Civil Right to choose what they want. Which is so anathema to self-governance that I can't believe it's even discussed in this nation.
What most people really wanted was casual dining or expensive fine dining.
Or, what "most people really wanted" was either expensive fine dining, happy meals, or nothing. If I ignore the later rounds of voting, I can slice the first round results any way I want to construct any majority I wish. The point of the later rounds of voting is to express the voter's preference of what they would like if their first choice isn't available. And by looking at the later rounds of voting, my assessment is correct - a majority was strongly polarized against the Casual Dining option.
Or, what “most people really wanted” was either expensive fine dining, happy meals, or nothing.
Well, they couldn't decide - so they were outnumbered by the people who could.
The point of the later rounds of voting is to express the voter’s preference of what they would like if their first choice isn’t available.
This is the BS in your argument, right here. Their first choice IS AVAILABLE. And not enough people want it. Period end of sentence.
"can (and often does) deny wins to the person who had the actual majority"
It literally can't. If someone gets a majority, they win. No second round occurs.
It literally forces you to vote for candidates you don’t want
No it doesn't. You can choose to vote for only one person and leave the rest blank.
EVERYTHING is going to disenfranchise SOMEONE. Nothing is perfect.
If it were to work the way my AI art competitions do, we rank our Likes from 1-10, and that gives them points, depending on each's ranking. In recent competitions, we've had over 60 entries in a single challenge. We can also give an extra 50 points to our favorites. You may rank fewer than 10.
The winner is determined by the total numbers of points received. Seems this would be a more fair way, rather than going through the voters' lists a second time and not selecting the true favorite candidate.
Obvious questions:
1. Can RCV ballots be harvested?
2. WIll RCV ballots be automatically mailed to all addresses in the state?
3. Will felons be able to fill out RCV ballots?
4. Will immigrants be given RCV ballots?
5. Will vote counting centers be able to accept late night deliveries of ballots that were "previously lost but discovered at the last minute".
6. Will voters be allowed to vote despite having no identification?
7. And finally, who will count the RCV votes?
If these questions are answered appropriately, then I think we will have a fair electoral system that only white supremacists will distrust.
"then I think we will have a fair electoral system that only white supremacists will distrust."
That's OK because by then white spremists will all be felons anyways.
No system of voting is perfect, but in these divisive times RCV has one important feature, it drives candidates to the center. The current system of primary/general coupled with political gerrymandering has led to the election of extreme candidates on both ends of the spectrum. These candidates are often good at getting attention and poor at the actual job of governing.
No system of voting is perfect, but in these divisive times RCV has one important feature, it drives candidates to the center.
There is zero evidence for that.
It is also largely irrelevant: both Obama and Biden ran as moderates but governed as left wing radicals.
Let me suggest the following article that RCV lets to more positive campaign and more bipartisanship;
https://campaignlegal.org/sites/default/files/2018-08/CLC%20Issue%20Brief%20RCV%20PDF.pdf
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4538418
Obama and Biden are both moderates. Now they are center left, but certainly more middle of the road than you have suggested.
That
Let me suggest the following article that RCV lets to more positive campaign and more bipartisanship;
Translation: RCV leads to a less informed public, more media collusion with politicians, and less of a choice for voters. You want a socialist uniparty, don't you.
Obama and Biden are both moderates.
They are corrupt, incompetent, radical leftist psychopaths.
It is also largely irrelevant: both Obama and Biden ran as moderates but governed as left wing radicals.
lol, in NOYB2's book, everyone to the left of Ted Cruz is a "left wing radical"
To the left of Ted Cruz? Ted Cruz? Really?
That's a pretty good benchmark.
But you probably think you're pointing out an extreme.
Sad.
So in your view, Ted Cruz is center-left?
Anybody who identifies as a progressive is a left-wing radical. Pretty much by definition.
There is zero evidence for that.
Not just zero evidence, it’s a lie. It’s dishonest spaghetti advertising: it moderates your elections, makes it more likely, or evens the field, for 3rd parties to win even though the fact that they’re 3rd parties definitively makes them more fringe, removes stubborn stains from carpets, fixes leaky faucets, and also makes a great car wax!
For every 10 cases where it’s “projected” that RCV moderates elections there are actual real-world cases and poll data where the more extreme 3rd party or “other” candidates (e.g. Nikki Haley or Ted Cruz or John Edwards) win with neither a plurality of votes nor even enough to make them the pairwise winner.
Further, this is to say nothing about the libertarian truism about the patently false assumption that “moderate”, “bipartisan”, or “centrist” is inherently a desired, rather than reluctantly accepted worst outcome by the voters.
Once again, RCV and getting rid of or somehow preventing the TPD is “The Solution” to people whose conception of history goes along the lines of “And then, for no particular reason at all, the German people elected Adolph Hitler.”
"win with neither a plurality of votes nor even enough to make them the pairwise winner"
Yes. This is one of the benefits to RCV. When voters are only provided with two viable candidates, they don't vote what they want, they vote against what they don't want.
If they know that a vote for a candidate they prefer, but who has no shot of winning, wouldn't prevent them from supporting someone they like, but not as much, they will vote their actual preferences.
The primary process pushes candidates to appeal to their parry base, not their actual constituents. RCV would mitigate that trend, especially if combined with looser ballot access rules.
“And then, for no particular reason at all, the German people elected Adolph Hitler.”
Godwin's Law rears its ugly head.
Ironically, it wouldn't matter so much if the USA (US Constitution) hadn't been conquered by Democratic [Na]tional So[zi]alist[s]. Enter the street-gang political wars of UN-confined totalitarian "democracy".
Oh wait; Ignoring what the USA is for totalitarian "democracy" is exactly what the left asked for.
What often is not described in articles about ranked choice voting is that RCV contains a number of different types of counting methods that each lead to very different electoral outcomes.
The type of RCV used in Alaska recently, Instant Run-off Voting, sees the removal of the lowest vote count candidate in each round until only 2 remain. So it simply distills multiple candidates down to 2 and then matches them against one another (not all that different from what we do in primaries and then general elections now). In politically extreme environments, where voters fit a bimodal distribution (a group at each extreme with a depression in the middle), IRV tends to remove the most moderate candidates first and leave only the extreme ones (again not all that different from what we have now). That’s how you end up with a Democrat representative in strongly Republican Alaska… the more moderate GOP Begich was eliminated first and then the more extreme GOP Sarah Palin lost to the Democrat Petola.
The Condorcet vote counting type of RCV better represents “compromise” among the voting population by allocating so many “points” to each candidate for a 1st place vote on each ballot, fewer “points” for a 2nd place vote on each ballot, even fewer “points” for a 3rd place vote on each ballot, etc. In this method, more moderate candidates tend to win out over those on either extreme, since an extreme voter on either side would rather see a moderate candidate win than a candidate on the other extreme. In other words, two 2nd place votes (by a moderate candidate, who wins one 2nd from a voter on each extreme) receives more “points” and so wins out over one 1st and 1 3rd place vote (which the extreme candidate would get).
So the type of RCV counting is just as important as whether or not RCV is used at all and, if more moderate candidates are desirable to win so that the entire population is better represented, Condorcet is far superior to IRV.
"then the more extreme GOP Sarah Palin lost to the Democrat Petola."
So the moderate Democrat beat the extreme Palin. Doesn't this run counter to your argument?
I know Condorcet leads to fewer perverse outcomes, and is arguably the superior system, but people here reject IRV because it's more complex than first past the post. Condorcet needs even greater math chops to fully understand it, And, correct me if I'm wrong, the issue of the exhausted ballots isn't addressed by Condorcet.
– The argument that I put forth is simply that the more moderate candidate tends to be eliminated before the more extreme in an IRV-type of RCV; hence Begich was eliminated before Palin. The Democrat who won was neither moderate nor extreme; just the only Democrat of note on the ballot; yet a clear Democrat winning in strongly conservative Alaska can hardly be said to represent the views of the majority of the constituents. (Ultimately, many Begich-voters did not list Palin as a 2nd choice… or their votes would have gone to Palin after Begich was eliminated, leaving Palin as the winner. Did these voters not understand the IRV process or did they simply really not like Palin and choose not to put her on their ballot? I don’t have the answer to that.)
– I think also though that there are two different issues subtley hiding in all discussions about the electoral process… one is about the winner-take-all vs proportional (i.e. parliamentary-style) representation within a district or state in which the winner-takes-all path ultimately leads to the perpetuation of a consolidated 2-party system, excluding 3rd parties and their candidates and views… the other is about how counting the votes in an RCV should be carried out in order to select a winner, should an RCV be employed.
– In terms of complexity, everything is more complex than first-past-the-post and voters need to be informed and to understand how to fill out their ballots (as may have been seen in Alaska). However, I don’t know that you actually have to understand the detailed math of Condorcet in order to vote in a system that uses it. You just have to understand that not voting for any candidate puts all candidates that you did not vote for on equal “footing” on your ballot; i.e., Palin and Petrola are viewed as equally good/bad in terms of the ballot of a Bagich-voter who only lists Bagich. So, as you said, exhausted ballots is still an issue for the uninformed voter and for the voter who truly only has one candidate that they want (all other candidates are equally good or bad in their mind). Voters need to be responsible enough to make sure that they understand the voting system in-place and that they understand the implications of how they choose to vote.
– Finally, from the standpoint of deciding on its possible implementation before any election, one simply needs to understand the first-past-the-post and IRV (when in a voting population that has greater numbers on either extreme than in the middle), when compared to Condorcet, can both lead to having a large number of voters grossly dissatisfied with the outcome of the election.
So all one really needs to decide philosophically is, “Do you want a system in which an extreme ideologue wins every cycle, with roughly 50% of the population always feeling as if their government in no way represents their views… or do you want a system in which everyone sacrifices a little bit of their ideal, so that everyone always feels represented to some degree, regardless of which candidate ultimately wins?”.
In other words, are we willing to accept the less than ideal, more moderate candidates that represent a sort of compromise and a sense of working together among the electorate or… is it forever going to be the all-or-nothing elections where one side or the other is cast out every 4 years and which periodically highlight the tribalism and perpetual anger that we see on both sides today?
(Ultimately, many Begich-voters did not list Palin as a 2nd choice… or their votes would have gone to Palin after Begich was eliminated, leaving Palin as the winner. Did these voters not understand the IRV process or did they simply really not like Palin and choose not to put her on their ballot? I don’t have the answer to that.)
This makes it sound like your problem is that you don't understand why Alaska voters chose as they did than with RCV. You would have preferred either that the winner was the one with a plurality or that a runoff would have occurred where voters had to make the binary choice between Palin and Murkowski. If the way that Alaskans had ranked their preferences on their RCV ballots is exactly what they would have done in a runoff, then the results would have been the same. Those that put Murkowski ahead of Palin would have chosen Murkowski in a runoff, and those that only put Begich on their ballots and no second choice at all wouldn't have shown up for the runoff.
This kind of RCV looks to me like it is synonymous with instant runoff voting.
In my mind, plurality winners are what enables factions that represent a large minority of voters to act as if they were a majority. They can win elections even though a majority of voters did not want them, block the implementation of policies that a majority supports because they won elections, and so on.
"yet a clear Democrat winning in strongly conservative Alaska can hardly be said to represent the views of the majority of the constituents"
Actually, that's exactly what it means. The *candidate* was chosen by the voters, not the *party*. The idea that candidates are just human-shaped stand-ins for the national parties is proved false by voters consciously and intentionally choosing to support a D over an R in Alaska. That's exactly why we vote for candidates, not parties.
Also, I would characterize Alaska as more independent and individualist than conservative. Like Maine, but colder.
One other thing that I think is worth mentioning about IRV… those who advocate for the IRV-style of RVC (by far, the most common type of RVC used in the U.S.) often cite statistics that derive from mathematical models (i.e., computer simulations) which “show” that RVCs (represented by the IRV-style in these mathematical models) lead to “more moderate” candidates being elected.
The flaw that many who cite these studies do not know or do not understand or do not care to share is that: the populations that these studies use are based on a “normal distribution” of voter philosophy/beliefs (i.e., most voters are in the middle of the bell-curve with smaller numbers are on either extreme).
This is very much inaccurate and dramatically affects the cited statistical outcomes. Recent studies of the current political climate in this country have demonstrated that the voting population in the U.S. does NOT follow a normal distribution any longer, but rather now follows a strongly bimodal distribution (as described above). And IRV-style counting in bimodal populations (in contrast to normal populations) drives the removal (not the retention) of moderate candidates, in favor of extreme candidates.
It should be noted as well that your conclusions assume a direct democratic system and not a republican one and, unless you plan on repealing the EC, exercising little care in the implementation on top of any sort of RCV is going to cause not only the same sort of perverse problems we know, where the popular vote and EC vote disagree (because delegates), but potentially some new ones as well.
The same hustle sells fake Soviet Warmunist Sharknado climate hysteria with fake data. Pragmatically, that's a win for the looters and utilities get to charge more for energy.
Political preferences are multi-dimensional, not just along a one dimensional spectrum.
With plain FPTP, people at least understand the system well enough to make tradeoffs in their heads.
RCV makes the process so complex that people can't make tradeoffs. Furthermore, RCV is hard to poll for, making fraud even harder to detect.
RCV is a very bad idea.
True, FPTP is simple. It's easy to understand. So is having a two-party system rather than 4 or 5 parties. But making things simpler for people means taking away complexity... and also taking away options. In this case, it means taking away some of the possible best options... because we believe our populace isn't smart enough or is too lazy to learn and to understand a better way.
Maybe that is really all that we can expect from human beings. Maybe complexities of thought are too much to ask for. Maybe that would require time and effort that they would rather spend on TicTok and Facebook or whatever. Maybe humans don't deserve more options and greater freedom to choose the best possible way forward... especially if they aren't willing to accept the responsibility that comes with that.
True, FPTP is simple. It’s easy to understand. So is having a two-party system rather than 4 or 5 parties. But making things simpler for people means taking away complexity… and also taking away options.
In the end, you don't get any "options" when it comes to government: a single set of laws gets passed. More options for voters just means that the decision making will end up being done in party backrooms.
"More options for voters just means that the decision making will end up being done in party backrooms."
What nonsense is this? Would you like to explain how more options lead to shady politics?
What nonsense is this? Would you like to explain how more options lead to shady politics?
Look at European parliamentary systems: you end up with half a dozen political parties getting elected. So, you have a whole bunch of people with extremist views, each representing a small slice of the electorate, trying to cobble together a coalition government. The only way they can do that is by making backroom deals. They are necessarily backroom deals because the elections themselves have already happened.
The US system avoids these mechanisms.
Political preferences are multi-dimensional, not just along a one dimensional spectrum.
It's especially disheartening among Libertarians who should always have a conception of The Nolan Chart and horseshoe theory at hand and reject the sales pitch of "bias towards more moderate candidates" when what may or may not be the case is "biased towards equally, if not more, authoritarian, but centrist candidates".
In a sea of candidates and issues being the "Your $0.05 aluminum tax goes to far!" to someone else's "Your $0.05 aluminum tax doesn't go to far enough!" doesn't make you stand out like "Morbo's good friend Richard Nixon".
"RCV makes the process so complex that people can’t make tradeoffs."
It's complex if you aren't very smart. "If no one gets a majority, there is an instant runoff" is a one-sentence way to say it. Explaining the details isn't much harder to say, nor is it difficult to understand. If someone can understand how "Chopped" or "Survivor" works, they can understand RCV.
"RCV is a very bad idea."
Only if you prefer to force people to vote against a candidate they don't like (or for someone they only sorta like, or against someone that they prefer slightly less).
As opposed to being able to vote for someone you actually support without fear that it will "spoil" the success of someone you support 51/49 over their major-party opponent.
In a choice between a system that allows people to cast a positive vote of support for a candidate vs. a system that forces people to cast a negative vote against a candidate, the former is vastly superior to the latter. And that system is RCV.
It’s complex if you aren’t very smart.
You aren't very smart if you think it's simple.
Only if you prefer to force people to vote against a candidate they don’t like
I want people to take into account both the policy preferences they have and the electability and likely appeal of a candidate to others.
As opposed to being able to vote for someone you actually support without fear that it will “spoil” the success of someone you support 51/49 over their major-party opponent.
That is how the US political system is supposed to work. If you introduce RCV, you break it.
the former is vastly superior to the latter.
No, it is vastly inferior. But you aren't very smart, so you don't understand why.
“You aren’t very smart if you think it’s simple.”
“If no one gets a majority, there is an instant runoff with the weakest candidate eliminated. This continues until one candidate gets a majority.”
That’s a pretty simple system to understand.
People understand how “Survivor” works. They can understand this, since it’s essentially the same thing.
“I want people to take into account both the policy preferences they have and the electability and likely appeal of a candidate to others.”
People called and said they don’t give a shit what you want them to do. They’ll choose their candidates their own way, not yours.
“That is how the US political system is supposed to work.”
That is complete nonsense. Just because something is a certain way doesn’t mean it’s supposed to be that way.
The Constitution is ultimately what tells us what’s supposed to happen and the present system isn’t in the Constitution, nor is RCV banned by it. So you are 100% wrong.
“If you introduce RCV, you break it.”
And yet RCV has been used in the past and nothing is broken. Weird, if RCV is as destructive as you claim.
“But you aren’t very smart, so you don’t understand why.”
I’m not the one who claims that RCV isn’t simple to understand. Perhaps if someone used crayons it would make it easier for you to grasp?
That’s a pretty simple system to understand. People understand how “Survivor” works. They can understand this, since it’s essentially the same thing.
Yes, they understand how the system works, but they don't understand how to vote within the system to get their desired outcome.
With a WTA system, voters are forced to make a compromise between what they want and who they think others are willing to elect. That is, they may vote for Biden even though they prefer Sanders because they conclude that Sanders doesn't stand a chance. With RCV, it is nearly impossible to make such tradeoffs; RCV is based on the assumption that everybody just votes for the candidate they like best, which is an absurd idea and a lousy strategy.
I’m not the one who claims that RCV isn’t simple to understand.
No, you're the one who doesn't even understand what the problem is.
There is a set of desirable properties for voting systems. It is impossible to satisfy all of them.
Having said that, a simple winner-take-all system allows people to make reasonable political calculations and pick the best compromise.
RCV doesn't allow mere humans to do that. RCV is all around a bad idea.
I would argue that one of the most desirable properties for voting systems (after honesty and transparency) would be that every voter, even if their preferred candidate loses, should still feel represented by their government. No one should be yelling, “Not my President” after any election.
Right now, we are in a period of political dominance by those at the ideological extremes, in both our candidates and our voters. Tribalism has become the accepted norm so publicly and legally challenging the results of our elections has become expected for whomever loses (e.g., even extending to the Presidential level in 2016 and 2020). Compromise is virtually non-existent and political retribution and revenge have led to anger and vitriol on both sides.
I believe that we can do better. I believe that we need to do better if we actually want to solve real-world problems that our country faces in a manner that is both effective and long-lasting. And in order to do that, as many people in the country as possible need to feel that their government has their best interests at-heart and represents them, both domestically and abroad. Our government should be working for us, bringing us together, not driving us apart.
Tribalism has become the accepted norm so publicly and legally challenging the results of our elections has become expected for whomever loses
It's not just that challenge is expected. It's that they've closed themselves off to any result but the one they want. Right now, every single MAGA and Wokie out there already knows with absolute certainty who won 2024. Their guy did. They don't need an election to tell them that. They take it for granted and will accept nothing to the contrary.
And right up until the actual goat rodeo, they'll be spending their time A) affirming themselves with anything that validates it ("those polls I don't trust say my guy is winning!!!") and B) rationalizing excuses if Reality doesn't meet their pre-determined conclusion.
The truth is that our vote doesn't really matter anymore anyway - because we don't take it all that seriously. We've given it over to this mindless binary choice (which only serves the existing political aristocracy), which means we don't actually care who our candidates are. We support Candidate Default, so long as he has the singular qualification of Not Being The Other Guy, as they plead/berate us, "We need to come together, so hold your nose and shut your mouth - and God help you if you break ranks because that is literal treason in our book."
It's dumb.
We’ve given it over to this mindless binary choice (which only serves the existing political aristocracy)
The direction of US politics is decided in the primaries. Republicans have a wide range of ideological choices. It's the Democrats' fault that they are denying similar democratic decision making to their party members. The final binary choice is supposed to split the country down the middle, to result in two candidates that are about equally hated.
Right now, every single MAGA and Wokie out there already knows with absolute certainty who won 2024. Their guy did. They don’t need an election to tell them that. They take it for granted and will accept nothing to the contrary.
You're projecting your own delusions onto others. Republicans quite worried that their candidate will lose, both due to concerns about electability and concerns over unfair election tactics by Democrats. Fortunately, this means that Republicans will be fighting fire with fire. Democrats shouldn't expect to get away with the same sleazy tactics they did in 2020.
I didn't mention Republicans or Democrats.
Yes, but I did mention Republicans because the distinction you make between "MAGA Republicans" and "Republicans" are nonsense.
Republicans (as well as many independents) are worried that Democrats will use dirty tricks in the 2024 campaign, just like in 2020. And Republicans will be fighting fire with fire and adopt the same dirty tricks that Democrats have.
But we’re not talking about Republicans and Democrats (or, for that matter, Conservatives or Liberals).
We’re talking about MAGA and Wokies – the extremes of the partisan divide whose fanaticism clearly separates them from the average Conservative, Republican, Democrat, or Liberal. While there may be bleed-over between them at times (usually policy, but rarely governance), there also is a very clear distinction between them – namely, for purposes of this conversation, normal Republicans and Democrats can handle it when their candidate loses – even IF there’s some unease about the legitimacy of the outcome. As the first guy mentioned, these aren’t your “not my president” types.
The MAGAs and the Wokies, however, are – and, unless their guy wins, they will necessarily conclude election shenanigans as the only explanation of how their guy could have lost. They are the sort who think the office is their candidates by right, and don’t need (or frankly even really want) an election to prove it.
I think your confusion rests in a fail to separate “not my president” and “not my candidate.” And while Trump may be the presumptive candidate of the Republican Party, and Biden the Democrat Party – plenty of Republicans, Conservatives, Democrats, and Liberals will say “not my candidate” all the way to election day and, hopefully, not endorse the dirty tricks that MAGA and Wokies will undoubtedly embrace.
We’re talking about MAGA and Wokies – the extremes of the partisan divide whose fanaticism clearly separates them from the average Conservative, Republican, Democrat, or Liberal.
There are no significant numbers of actual “liberals” left in the Democratic party; the party consists of radical, illiberal nutcases. I say this as a former Democrat who left the party in disgust. Liberals (in the sense of small government and free markets) are either independents or Republicans.
As for the Republicans, they are indeed split: between the neocon, neoliberal, theocratic-leaning old-timers and a large number of people who are angry at the failures and increasing authoritarianism of their government.
The MAGAs and the Wokies, however, are – and, unless their guy wins, they will necessarily conclude election shenanigans as the only explanation of how their guy could have lost.
Democrats have challenged every election of a Republican for president for decades, have called every Republican presidential candidate a “Nazi”, and there have been violent protests against every one of them at least since Reagan.
Both Trump and Biden were bad candidates. But there were massive “shenanigans” in the 2020 election: a press that protected Biden from allegations of rape, corruption, pathological lying, and plagiarism, while presenting this angry, narcissistic psychopath as a kindly grandfather. In addition, there were widespread violations of state law, ballot harvesting, and selective funding of voting in Democrat-leaning districts.
The 2020 election was technically legal, but it was clearly not a free and fair election.
I think your confusion rests in a fail to separate “not my president” and “not my candidate.”
Your confusion rests in not understanding what is actually going on in the country or who the political parties are realigning.
There are no significant numbers of actual “liberals” left in the Democratic party.
I didn't say or imply there were. You seem to be treating the terms as if they're synonyms with political parties.
Wokies may by and large vote Democrat, but that doesn't imply that every Democrat is a Wokie. Similarly, Wokes are extremely different from Liberals, as you correctly point out. In that same way, MAGA may by and large vote Republican, but that doesn't imply that Republicans = MAGA, or that MAGA is even a significant portion of their voting base. And MAGA and Conservatism may well be on different planets. (If you're looking for a synonym for MAGA, "populist" is probably your closest bet. Ironically, that's probably true for Wokes too. They actually seem to agree with MAGA on most things, and really only disagree on policy direction.)
I find it easist to think in terms of policy and governance.
MAGA and Conservatives may lean more towards the Republican party social/political philosophy in general - and while they share general policy goals from time to time, they're polar opposites when it comes to governance.
Wokie and Liberals may lean more towards the Democrat party social/political philosophy in general - and while and while they share general policy goals from time to time, they're polar opposites when it comes to governance.
And, as you point out, Liberals and Conservatives tend more towards the Republican ideas of governance (small government, free markets); whereas MAGA and Wokes tend more toward the more Democrat approach to it (ends justify means, authoritarianism).
Democrats have challenged every election of a Republican for president for decades, have called every Republican presidential candidate a “Nazi”, and there have been violent protests against every one of them at least since Reagan.
Which is the direction MAGA is pointed now as well.
MAGA and Woke are two sides of the same coin. Which is an entirely separate coin from Conservatives, Liberals, Republicans, or Democrats. The fact that they sometimes end up in the same pocket, however, means nothing.
"Republicans (as well as many independents) are worried that Democrats will use dirty tricks in the 2024 campaign, just like in 2020."
There were no "dirty tricks". Trump lost because he is a bad candidate who people were exhausted by.
"And Republicans will be fighting fire with fire and adopt the same dirty tricks that Democrats have."
I don't believe that. They will continue to try to limit the franchise and push down participation, because the more people who vote, the worse Republicans do. But I disagree that they will use "dirty tricks". They will try to manipulate the process, but they will do it legally.
There were no “dirty tricks”. Trump lost because he is a bad candidate who people were exhausted by.
You are living in a fantasy world if you believe this. From clear violations of state voting laws and selectively directing funding to Democrat districts to extending deadlines, ballot harvesting, and the press colluding in hiding allegations of corruption and rape, there were lots of dirty tricks.
Trump may have been a bad candidate, but the senile, corrupt imbecile who ran from his basement was a far worse candidate.
Trump operated under the exact same rules as Biden. He just failed to get more votes.
Trump operated under the exact same rules as Biden. He just failed to get more votes.
That is false. Even if it were true, "operating under the same rules" doesn't make an election free and fair.
My LP won every election before 2018. We won because LP spoiler votes gave the opportunity to make the worst looter lose. This broke down after many Dems used LP votes to ditch the lying Dems that took them for granted. Those 4 million votes reshuffled 13 states and let Trump win and packed the Suprema Corte with christian nationalsocialist race-suicide bigots. This was the same as the Christian Enabling Act that eliminated all but Hitler's party--just weaker because it left the Kleptocracy standing with no LP.
as many people in the country as possible need to feel that their government has their best interests at-heart
You are so steeped in leftist ideology that you don't even realize that more than half the country doesn't want that.
Right now, we are in a period of political dominance by those at the ideological extremes,
This is not a both sides issue; the only extremists in the US are the leftists.
Compromise is virtually non-existent and political retribution and revenge have led to anger and vitriol on both sides.
Political vitriol and revenge in the US is mild compared to historical US standards and international standards.
I believe that we can do better.
The US system has successfully prevented fascism/socialism from taking over, and I trust it will continue to do so, despite the howls of protests from people like you and the radical left. No, we can't do better.
Shorter NOYB2:
The status quo permits Republicans to win even when they don't receive a majority of the popular vote, and Republicans stop the literal-Hitler Democrats, so we should not change the status quo, even if that means using a voting system that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters.
Stopping the leftists is more important than reflecting the will of the voters. The ends justify the means.
Of course we see that NOYB2's argument is the slippery slope towards getting rid of elections entirely.
It's so funny that you will never understand that your response proves what NOYB2 said.
No, I simply want US democracy to function the way it always has: limited, representative government with subsidiarity.
You want to change it into a Mao-style totalitarian democracy. You're welcome to do that under the US Constitution, but you will have to pass the necessary amendments.
Until you manage to do that, you can go to hell.
No, I simply want US democracy to function the way it always has: limited, representative government with subsidiarity.
RCV doesn't change that.
You want to change it into a Mao-style totalitarian democracy.
lol that's absurd, RCV doesn't do that
I know I am hitting close to home when you bring up absurd claims like this. The closer I am to the mark the more ridiculous your accusations become.
lol that’s absurd, RCV doesn’t do that
And neither does RCV "accurately reflect the will of the voters".
I was responding to the more general objectives you and others stated: election by popular vote, and elections that "represent the will of the people".
"elections that “represent the will of the people”."
That's a bad thing, in your book?
Candidate A has over twice the support - the will of the people - than Candidates B, C, or D.
The will of the people then clearly isn't B, C, or D. Otherwise one of them would have beat A, and the other two.
Why am I not surprised you think majority "democracy" can change the very fabric of USA. Oh that's right; because all leftards tort that line for their [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire.
even if that means using a voting system that does not accurately reflect the will of the voters.
The US system of government is designed to strictly limit what voters can decide on, and to prevent majoritarianism.
No doubt leftists want unlimited majoritarians. Fortunately, that is not the US system of government.
Stopping the leftists is more important than reflecting the will of the voters. The ends justify the means.
The US could turn into the kind of Mao-style democracy you desire by Constitutional amendments. Until you manage to pass that, you can STFU.
The US system of government is designed to strictly limit what voters can decide on, and to prevent majoritarianism.
It prevents majoritarianism by limiting the topics over which voters are allowed to have direct power. Voters don't get to directly decide matters of individual liberty, AND RIGHTLY SO. But when the voters DO get to decide on something, don't you think that the result should reflect the will of the majority?
Nobody here is claiming that RCV or any voting system should be used to decide EVERYTHING.
And frankly I think I am right about why you oppose RCV. It is because FPTP in the American system has been exceedingly good to Republicans, and you don't mind that Republicans are elected with a minority of the vote, because that means they stop the literal-Hitler Democrats.
But when the voters DO get to decide on something, don’t you think that the result should reflect the will of the majority?
No. It should reflect the overwhelming consent and agreement of the governed, not mere majorities. That's why we have the House and the Senate, and why they represent voters and states, and both are needed. We should make supermajorities mandatory in both the House and the Senate.
And frankly I think I am right about why you oppose RCV. It is because FPTP in the American system has been exceedingly good to Republicans, and you don’t mind that Republicans are elected with a minority of the vote, because that means they stop the literal-Hitler Democrats.
Quite correct. The US was set up so that a few large urban areas could not determine policies for the entire nation. Rural Idaho will not be dictated to by coastal Californians and rich New York elites how to live. If the country were to switch to simple majoritarian government, it would break apart, either peacefully or in another civil war. You better hope it doesn’t come to that.
And, on a personal note, I wouldn’t have immigrated into the kind of shithole you want to turn the US into.
"You are so steeped in leftist ideology that you don’t even realize that more than half the country doesn’t want that."
You're projecting again.
"This is not a both sides issue; the only extremists in the US are the leftists."
Really? Take a look at abortion, for example, and think about it again.
"Political vitriol and revenge in the US is mild compared to historical US standards and international standards."
So we shouldn't decry it because it isn't as bad as it used to be? Nonsense.
"No, we can’t do better."
We can always do better. Surrendering to an at-least-it's-not-the-worst-it-could-be fatalism is pathetic.
You are correct. If the true majority is found in a field of 10 candidates, the people WILL be satisfied. Here's a case in point. The Civil War was arguably the result of a failure of the plurality voting system. I’d recommend, “Would the Borda Count Have Avoided the Civil War” by Tabarrok & Spector. It makes a very strong argument that the “Condorcet Winner” was Stephen A. Douglas. The title of the article is a little deceptive because the key criterion is, who was the Condorcet Winner in the 1860 election. In the mathematics of Social Choice/voting, the key is finding the "true majority winner" that is, the Condorcet Winner.
"The Civil War was arguably the result of a failure of the plurality voting system."
And slavery. And the decision by the South to violently oppose the results of an election. And the willingness of Southerners to break their oaths.
Even if your premise were to be accepted without challenge, the "failure of the plurality voting system." is about #675 on the list of reasons for the Civil War.
An artificial choice between two candidates, as we have now in a two-party system, isn't improved by having that artificial structure repeated multiple times between candidates with vastly different financial and structural resources. Condorcet creates that closed, unequal paradigm.
RCV, by keeping all potentially viable candidates in play as the field is slowly whittled down, is a much more accurate and nuanced way to judge voter intent. And it's much more easily explained to the voting public, resulting in higher confidence in the results.
An artificial choice between two candidates, as we have now in a two-party system ... RCV, by keeping all potentially viable candidates in play as the field is slowly whittled down, is a much more accurate and nuanced way to judge voter intent.
You're making the basic error that all common analyses of voting systems make: you assume that people have an intent and vote accordingly. It's obvious to most people that this is false.
"you assume that people have an intent and vote accordingly"
Yes, because there is only one person in the voting booth. I don't assume that people who vote differently than me aren't voting with intent because that would take an insane level of arrogance.
The question of whether Ranked Choice Voting disenfranchises minorities is a complex and debated topic. As discussions around
electoral systems continue, it's essential to foster open dialogue, involve diverse perspectives, and work towards solutions that prioritize equity and inclusivity.
It gets real simple once you understand that Libertarians are the minority and entrenched communo-fascist looters are the enfranchised majority. The whole POINT of democracy is to defeat the disenfranchised. Therefore leveraged LP spoiler votes are hated just as jury-nullification is hated: both thwart God's coercive Will!
So here we are once again, just like voter id laws, the leftist "progressives" are saying black people are too stupid to read voting instructions just like they say black people are too stupid to be able to get a drivers license or id card. Its shocking to me how they get away with these racist thoughts.
Bernard Baruch confessed in his memoirs the Dems in Reconstruction elections put the Dem urn on one side of the stage and God's Own Prohibitionist ballot box on the other during speechifying. Just before the voting the boxes were switched to the opposite side of the stage. Thus black republicans were gulled into stuffing the White Supremacy Dem boxes with their votes. Oddly, Baruch was jewish yet found Klan robes in his grandfather's trunk in the atttic as a child. Uniform or conquered souvenier?
This is why we need "None of the above are acceptable" as a binding choice on all ballots. When a ballot is exhausted, the vote goes to NOTA. If NOTA wins, all candidates are ineligible for the next round of voting for that office.
Respectfully, AlBarnes is wrong about Condorcet. The RCV system being described is the Borda Count. It is the ranked magnitude method. The NCAA uses it for its college sports rankings. Condorcet is the RCV system that emulates a round-robin tournament. Condorcet's system is the ONLY system that will find the majority winner when there are three or more candidates. Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is the system that has been pushed by FairVote since 1992. The IRV system throws legitimate votes away in order to emulate a sequential runoff. A standard runoff often doesn't find the true preference - it's just a two-round plurality contest. IRV should be illegal precisely because it throws legitimate votes away. It was legitimate votes for Begich being thrown away that caused him to lose. An analysis of the Alaska Department of Elections (DOE) ballots by Edward B. Foley and his associates showed that a pair-wise, round robin tally of the candidates head-to-head would have given GOP Begich a 52.5% to 47.5% WIN over Democrat Peltola and a 61.4% to 38.6% WIN over GOP Palin. This is essence of Condorcet's Method and it is the mathematically BEST system to find the true majority winner when there are three or more choices. This is the mathematics of Social Choice Theory - it is a real mathematical theory, true everywhere in the universe for all time. For some bizarre reason, Condorcet, who largely created political SCIENCE in the late 18th Century and also created the mathematical analysis of voting, is not taught. You can see my video on Condorcet vs IRV in my youtube video: Paul Hager, "Count Every Vote". The title emphasizes that IRV is such a lousy system precisely because it throws legitimate votes away. This is almost certainly illegal but almost no one who talks about it, even opponents seems to have the faintest idea how IRV works and, therefore, how to properly attack it.
"Condorcet’s system is the ONLY system that will find the majority winner when there are three or more candidates."
That's not true, unless you define "majority winner" as "candidate that can beat a single opponent in all scenarios". It assumes that a series of one-on-one matchup is more valid than an open field in judging voter preference. That is a flawed assumption, especially in our two-party system. With the vast difference in resources available to major party candidates, Condorcet is basically a series of unequal contests that lead to the exact same scenario we have now: a faceoff between two major party candidates.
Said another way, a series of artificially limited binary choices doesn't take into account the level of support (or opposition) that a candidate has garnered. It can only measure relative support, not actual support.
"The IRV system throws legitimate votes away in order to emulate a sequential runoff."
Absolutely untrue, unless the voter themselves chose not to rank all of the candidates. And if a voter opposes a candidate so much that they would never vote for them, that's relevant to judging the will of the voters.
"It was legitimate votes for Begich being thrown away that caused him to lose."
Not even a little bit. No votes got thrown away, unless the voter themselves chose not to include a candidate.
It was Begich's inability to convince voters that he was a better candidate than the others that caused him to lose. The fact that his voters preferred a D to Sarah Palin is why she lost. It was the failures of the R candidates to convince people that they were a better choice than the D that caused them to lose.
Pretending that an artificially created binary choice would be a better gauge of voter preference is a fallacy. An open system with multiple choices is much more nuanced and relevant to voting.
"The title emphasizes that IRV is such a lousy system precisely because it throws legitimate votes away."
Once again, it doesn't do any such thing. If the voter themselves declines to include a candidate, that is their prerogative. As the saying goes, choosing not to choose is still a choice.
Typical FairVote cant. The "majority winner" terminology has actually used by this organization to claim that IRV finds such a winner. In voting science, the terminology means the candidate who beats all others. The simplest way to find this is by using a RANKED BALLOT that looks identical the IRV one, then using the Condorcet Algorithm to produce the pairwise result. The Begich example I referenced uses the actual Department of Elections Data. The writer doesn't know what he's talking about. I'm use to this from the FairVote people. They started out back in 1992 - a largely Democratic organization that wanted to bring Proportional Representation to the US via the Australian System IRV is the Trojan Horse for this. Typical is to lie how the IRV system works. In fact, IRV does THROW VOTES AWAY. This was shown in the actual Begich example. Back in 2017, a Senate Bill was submitted that proposed Indiana adopt IRV (naturally called RCV). In describing the process, only number 1 rankings were called "votes". All other rankings were called "potential votes". Since they are "potential" they aren't real and can be thrown away, which is exactly what is done. I'm amazed that people can actually get away with this sort of sophistry. In my White Paper I presented to the Indiana Senate Permanent Committee on Elections, I dissected the Bill and showed every example of the throw away process. I pointed that that Indiana's Voter Intent statute was violated if the intent was thwarted by throwing votes away. The Bill was tabled The statement concerning only giving a ranking to one candidate is ACTUALLY THE BEST STRATEGY due to the fact that the IRV algorithm frequently produces a phenomenon called non-monotonicity. Contrary to a claim that who you rank 2nd can never affect your 1st place choice, non-monotonicity does just this. In my talk, I call this the "rank reversal paradox" and I show exactly how it works. Thanks to non-monotonicity, the optimal strategy is to ONLY RANK ONE CANDIDATE. Australia prevents voters from choosing this strategy by requiring that EVERY candidate be ranked. On a ballot with 100 candidates this can be a pain. Any ballot with even one missed ranking is considered "spoiled" and thrown out. It produces the phenomenon of "donkey voting". Look it up. Votes are thrown away. I show it in the video. Calling them "potential votes" ultimately didn't fool the Senate Committee when I actually pointed out to them what was going on.
Australia's involuntary voting is de-facto slavery. Their rank-cranked voting system resulted in laws that allow only the Kleptocracy's "genuine" buddies to pack heat. Australia is an example of how bad gets worse. The one thing that resulted was there is NO libertarian party in Australia. Libertarians have to resort to fake-name camouflage parties thanks to Kleptocracy sloppy seconds voting. --Libertariantranslator
California's recalled goovernour LOVED adding dozens of Boothead Dementia and Zippy Pinhead clones to "the" alternatives that could replace him. In Brazil voters are forced to vote for 16 subsidized communist and 16 subsidized christian nationalsocialist parties. Something like a fifth of the population chooses NOTA. Libertarians cannot run as a party because that would make "too many" subsidized parties--parties that are looter BY DEFINITION. Out-of-specs is reason enough to ban the LP.
Here is a donkey vote joke (https://bit.ly/3QpGuKk)
Being a monolithic "voting bloc" which predictably only backs one party in a two-party system is the thing that most thoroughly disenfranchises a minority group in a two-party system. The worst part is that they're still made to think that they're participating and allowed to cast ballots for one or the other candidate while both candidates simply ignore whatever issues are of real importance to the members of that group unless those issues happen to overlap with the concerns of several other minorities.
Unless a minority group is willing to switch their support frequently, one party can take their votes for granted and therefore has no incentive to prioritize that agenda, and the other party has no reason to pay attention to a group whose support they can't obtain.
The reason why the Civil Rights movement made such a huge jump forward in the mid 1960s was the transition of the "black vote" from being reliably for the party which had "freed the slaves" 100 years earlier to LBJ and the Dems (with the side effect of creating a larger realignment in when the KKK left their traditional place as a major Dem constituency). In the 60 years of Dems taking them for granted, the major "progress" they've made since then includes widespread welfare/public assistance dependency, shorter lifespans, and over-representation among the Prison population resulting from the "Crime Bill" co-authored by none other than Joe Biden (who bragged about his role in it for 25 years then ran for President on a platform including trying to undo its effects).
The Klan was just such a block till called into question in 1924. The KKK switched to supporting Hoover in 1928. The Prohibition Crash and Depression sparked the Liberal Party formation on a repeal platform. Dems adopted this and beat the bloody stool out of all God's Own Prohibition candidates for two decades. Nixon-Reagan-Bush-Bush prohibitionism THRICE wrecked the economy, so Obama backers seen their chances and took 'em! Only by pretending you can have free trade and ban it too are republicans able to gull the dumbest mystics into voting their ticket.
"The patterns of ballot exhaustion suggest that minority-group voters are not taking full advantage [of] the system," McCarty concludes, though he does not know "whether those higher rates of exhaustion are due to ballot complexity, lower levels of information and mobilization, or racial and ethnic polarization."
The soft bigotry of low expectations.
Law-changing Libertarian spoiler votes DID game the system to increase freedom. But when voters picked pro-choice Gary over lying Dem Clinton the unexpected result was Trumpanzee MAGAt packing the supreme court with Comstock mystical bigots eager to enslave (and kill) women fia coerced reproduction. The binary Kleptocracy solution was to infest and dismember the LP, now reduced to a squirming MAGAt-infested carcass. Compare the 1972 LP platform.
Sloppy seconds candidate voting was invented to nullify law-changing libertarian spoiler votes and elect prohibitionists. It guarantees no libertarians will ever get elected OR cause the more violent socialists to lose, which is our traditional function. ISSUES, however, like repeal-versus-coerce initiatives, might actually benefit from ranked rather than cranked voting. This may be why no entrenched looters recommend it. "Repeal laws that point guns at potheads" might stand a chance against "Shoot hippies and blacks for tax evasion rather than holding weed" which is the usual looter proposal.