States Will Choose Whether To Adopt or Abandon Ranked Choice Voting
There are any number of reasons to support or oppose a switch to ranked choice voting, but most of the opposition comes from the majority parties.

For those of us who actually vote, the process can be dispiriting. It often involves waiting in long lines on a weekday at some random schoolhouse or decommissioned train depot, just to cast a ballot for a candidate that chances are, you don't even particularly like—you just hate the other guy more.
Ranked choice voting could potentially help break up these doldrums. On a ranked choice ballot, instead of picking one candidate from a list, voters rank each candidate in order of preference. If one candidate wins an outright majority, then that person wins; if not, then the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated, and their ballots are re-tallied and allotted to whomever they picked as their second choice. This process repeats until one candidate passes 50 percent.
While ranked choice can't cure what's wrong with American politics, it can at least prevent the election of candidates without majoritarian support. It could also help potentially break up the two-party logjam by allowing people to vote for alternative candidates without worrying about acting as a spoiler—after all, if their desired candidate doesn't win, their vote will be re-tallied for whomever they would likely have settled for anyway.
The November elections represent an inflection point in the widespread adoption of ranked choice voting: Four states and Washington, D.C., will vote on whether to adopt such a system of their own. And of the two states that currently use ranked choice voting statewide, one will decide whether to abandon it.
Colorado
Some cities in the Centennial State already use ranked choice voting, most prominently Boulder. Proposition 131 would implement ranked choice statewide for U.S. senator and representative, state senator and representative, governor, lieutenant governor, and certain other state offices.
Currently, Colorado has partially closed primaries, open only to party members and unaffiliated voters—members of one party cannot participate in another party's primary. Proposition 131 would replace party primaries with "an all-candidate primary election featuring all candidates for those state and federal offices, with the final four candidates advancing to the general elections." On the general election ballot, "the voter may rank candidates in order of preference" and "may choose to rank as many or as few candidates for the covered offices…as the voter wishes, including ranking just one candidate per covered office." The votes would then be tallied and re-tallied as needed until one candidate achieved a majority.
The measure has attracted both supporters and detractors from each major political party. "Colorado has changed in the last 10 years," said former Colorado Republican Party Chair Dick Wadhams. "We went from a third…in the electorate to now, nearly 50% of the electorate are unaffiliated voters. They are rejecting both parties, and they're rejecting both parties because both parties are going to their extremes, both Republicans and Democrats."
Gov. Jared Polis (D) also endorsed the measure, writing on Facebook, "I think instant runoff voting is better than our current system because it gives voters more choices. I'm hopeful that if it passes it will encourage participation and improve our democracy."
Meanwhile, Rep. Lauren Boebert (R–Colo.) called ranked choice voting a "scheme" in a 2023 post on X and pledged, "I will oppose this effort to rig our electoral system in Colorado with everything I have." The Colorado Democratic Party voted this month to oppose the initiative. The Green Party of Colorado also opposes the measure, with party Co-Chair Patrick Dillon saying he supports ranked choice voting but opposes the measure's dissolution of closed primaries.
If passed, the measure would take effect on January 1, 2026, but a recent state law imposed preliminary requirements on the rollout of a ranked choice system that will likely delay implementation until at least 2028. Nonetheless, the measure is expected to pass, with a recent poll finding nearly 65 percent of likely voters planning or likely to vote "Yes."
Idaho
Much like in Colorado, Proposition 1 would "abolish Idaho's party primaries" and replace them with "a top-four primary and voters may vote on all candidates." The four with the highest vote counts will advance to the general election, which would use a ranked choice ballot.
"For the past 12 years, Idaho has had closed primary elections," notes an explainer video from Idahoans for Open Primaries. "Closed primaries block 270,000 independent voters from voting in the most important elections, and that's just not right. Elections are taxpayer funded, and when we're paying for it, we shouldn't be forced to pick a side to participate."
Republicans in the deep-red state are split on the issue. "Every registered voter should have the right to weigh in on choosing our leaders," former Gov. Butch Otter (R) said last year when endorsing the measure. "Independents, including a lot of military veterans, have been excluded from having their say because of the closed GOP primary."
Meanwhile, Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon called ranked choice voting "a pernicious plot to take away your ability to vote for conservative lawmakers."
"The blanket primary takes away your right to nominate your own candidates," she added. "Just as [Brigham Young University] doesn't get to decide who starts at quarterback for [Boise State University], neither should Democrats get to vote on who represents the Republican Party in the general election."
Nevada
Nevada Question 3 would amend the state constitution to "allow all Nevada voters the right to participate in open primary elections to choose candidates for the general election," at which point they would rank the top five candidates for each office. The covered races include most state offices, plus U.S. senator and representative.
Nevada currently uses closed primaries in which only party members can vote in primaries. "Voters registered to a minor party or not affiliated with a party may only vote for nonpartisan contests during a primary election," per the Nevada secretary of state. The state constitution also allows that "a plurality of votes given at an election by the people" shall constitute a victory, even without capturing a majority. Question 3 would eliminate party primaries, and the ranked choice ballot would force candidates to achieve a majority to win an election.
Nevada's proposal differs from most others on this list in that it institutes a top-five ballot instead of a top-four. It also has one of the fastest turnaround times: If adopted, the measure would go into effect by July 1, 2025, in time for the 2026 midterm elections.
Another way in which it differs from other states is that in Nevada, it's largely Democrats who oppose the initiative. "Enshrining this system in Nevada's state constitution would be a mistake because meaningful access to the ballot box is too critical to our system of representative government to sacrifice at the alter [sic] of an unproven and unwieldy experiment," state Assemblyman Steve Yeager (D–Las Vegas) told The Nevada Independent. Former Gov. Steve Sisolak and Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen—all Democrats—oppose the measure as well.
Oregon
In 2023, the Oregon Legislature passed a bill putting a ranked choice proposal on this year's ballot. If passed, Measure 117 would go into effect on January 1, 2028, after which both primary and general elections for state and federal office—including governor, U.S. senator or representative, and president—would be decided by a ranked choice vote. It would also require the secretary of state to "establish [a] program to educate voters about how ranked choice voting will be conducted."
Currently, both Benton and Multnomah Counties use ranked choice voting, as does the city of Portland. If enacted, Measure 117 would authorize all cities and counties, plus other local jurisdictions like school districts, to use it as well. The measure is supported by groups like the American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon and multiple state chapters of the League of Women Voters.
On the other hand, some Oregon Republicans oppose the measure: "Ranked Choice voting introduces complexity into the process of determining a winner," state Rep. E. Werner Reschke (R–Klamath Falls) said in a 2023 memo. "After the 2016 and 2020 presidential election, one of the last things our election system needs is more skepticism by Oregonians."
It's ironic that Oregon Republicans would so forthrightly oppose the switch: According to the Cook Political Report, the state tilted 6 points more Democratic than the nation as a whole in 2022. But that same year, Gov. Tina Kotek (D) won office with only 47 percent of the vote; Christina Drazan, the Republican candidate, captured 43.6 percent and trailed Kotek by fewer than 67,000 votes. Independent candidate Betsy Johnson, meanwhile, got over 168,000 votes; on a ranked choice ballot, if enough of Johnson's voters had picked Drazan as their second choice, the state might have a Republican governor.
Washington, D.C.
Initiative 83 would implement ranked choice voting in the nation's capital "to allow voters to rank up to five candidates according to their preference in each contest for any office." While it would not get rid of party primaries, it would "permit any voter who is not registered with a political party to vote in the primary election of that voter's choosing for all offices."
The district is governed by a mayor and a 13-member city council; councilmembers are elected from each of the city's eight wards, while the other five are elected "at large." While the city overwhelmingly votes Democrat, federal law stipulates that the at-large members cannot all belong to the same political party. But as Colbert I. King wrote in The Washington Post, "Recent history is replete with examples of known Democrats who changed their party affiliation, registering as independents to run for those congressional set-asides."
Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, D.C. Democrats largely oppose Initiative 83. Mayor Muriel Bowser, for example, called ranked choice a "bad idea" and "not necessary." Charles Wilson, chair of the D.C. Democratic Party, told The Washington Post that allowing unaffiliated voters to participate in Democratic primaries would "dilute" the party's voice.
Alaska
The Yukon State is the outlier on this list: Alaska voters adopted ranked choice voting in 2020 and used it in the 2022 election cycle. But Ballot Measure 2 will let Alaskans vote on whether to scrap it altogether and bring back "a Political Party Primary and General Election Process that is easily understood."
Former Gov. Sarah Palin ran as a Republican in a 2022 special election to fill the state's sole congressional seat. Palin won the most votes in the primary but came up short in the general election: When none of the three candidates (a fourth competitor dropped out after the primary) cleared the hurdle of 50 percent, the votes were re-tallied. And even though Palin and another Republican, Nick Begich III, collectively captured 60 percent in the first round, only half of Begich's voters picked Palin as their second choice, while 30 percent picked Democratic candidate Mary Peltola. (The remaining 21 percent of Begich's voters picked no other candidates.) When the second round of votes were tallied, Peltola emerged victorious with 52 percent of the vote. Palin ran again in November to win the seat for a full two-year term, and again lost to Peltola when the ballots were re-counted.
Since then, Palin and other Republicans have blamed ranked choice voting for her loss. Sen. Tom Cotton (R–Ark.) called it "a scam to rig elections" and complained that even though "60% of Alaska voters voted for a Republican…a Democrat 'won.'" Palin had previously said ranked choice was so "bizarre" and "convoluted" that "it results in voter suppression."
But a January 2023 report from the R Street Institute found that in 2022, 90 percent of Alaskan incumbents won reelection, only slightly below that year's national average of 94 percent. And 85 percent of Alaskans polled said they found the system "somewhat simple" or "very simple."
"Alaska has been a success story for open primaries and ranked choice voting, and Ballot Measure 2 would be a major step backwards for Alaska voters," says Will Mantell, director of communications at FairVote, an organization that advocates for ranked choice voting. In 2022, "Alaska voters expressed their independent streak by electing a conservative Republican governor, a moderate Republican senator, and a moderate Democratic congresswoman."
What's Next?
Ranked choice, currently only used statewide by two states, could be adopted by as many as four more this year. "Any one of the four states considering" ranked choice voting "would become the most populous state to use it," says Mantell.
Interestingly, the measures are both supported and opposed in different states by different political parties and coalitions. And while there are a number of reasons for anyone to support or oppose a piece of legislation, it's especially notable that ranked choice voting is largely opposed by the majority parties: Democrats in Nevada and Washington, D.C., and Republicans in Idaho and Alaska, largely oppose ranked choice voting.
It's entirely possible that their opposition is genuine, but it certainly appears that firmly ensconced politicians simply don't want anything that would threaten their hold on power.
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
Am thankful elections matriculate towards more absurdity and now emulate sportsball all-star team selections.
It’s only been working for 250 years, time to change it up!
Let's see...
Direct election of senators, women's suffrage, voting rights act, the single-member district mandate, run-offs vs. plurality, caucus vs primary...
Gee, it almost looks like the "laboratories of democracy" have been experimenting with how we do elections for 250 years, not sitting stagnant.
And electronic voting machines that help fortify the most cleanest election ever.
Cmon man. This let's sarc select Chase at 1 when really voting Kamala at 2.
"Working" in the sense of "produces a result". Almost any method "works" equally.
Let's just end all the bullshit, and have our superior officials just tell us who won the "election". The media can simplify reporting into repeated episodes of Two Minute Hate, and updated propaganda about the sins of Eurasia/Eastasia.
An animated election to reveal who was selected not unlike the NBA draft “lottery.”
Will it involve any frozen envelopes?
“just to cast a ballot for a candidate that chances are, you don’t even particularly like—you just hate the other guy more.
Ranked choice voting could potentially help break up these doldrums.”
By ensuring everyone’s sixth choice win’s in the end. Nobody really likes them and they're mediocrities but at least one side doesn’t hate them as much as the other guy.
Ranked choice is the way that an establishment-pick éminence grise who would normally be a loser get’s power over far more popular choices.
> ... a loser get’s power over far more popular choices.
Popularity is neither an indicator of nor a proxy for fitness. The idea that popular opinion ought to dictate the outcome of elections is, quite simply, a logical fallacy: argumentum ad populum (ie Appeal to Popularity).
"Popularity is neither an indicator of nor a proxy for fitness."
Of course not but that's what voting is all about. It's all it is about.
And you know what, unelected establishment-picks have been far worse. Unequivocal disasters, as the DNC's leadership selected candidates Hillary, Biden and Harris have proved.
And let's not even get into Kings, Emperors and Generalissimos.
It also encourages stacking the election with candidates which favors the party of government, NGOs and Reason writers.
I'm for runoff elections, perhaps including instant runoffs. But I don't want this to be accompanied by changing the primaries.
Keep the primaries as they are - or even completely privatize party primaries (my preference).
If at the same time you can, as a standalone reform, allow instant runoffs (or runoffs of the other kind), then go for it. But don't use runoffs as the bait to get support for messing with the primary system.
Well, if there is instant runoff voting, then what is the point of having a primary system?
So you can tell one party from another?
Or the government could get out of the party-management business altogether and have parties run, and pay for, their own candidate-selection procedures.
So you can tell one party from another?
But this can be accomplished by putting (D) and (R) (and (L), and (G),...) next to each candidate's name in a general election.
Parties tried that, didn't like paying for it, so now we mostly have state-run primaries.
As to getting the government out of party-management business, some have: see California's jungle primary. The rules of the primary don't care what party you're from, and that little R and D are purely decorative.
Can the public change its mind about what to subsidize? If so, then it can change its mind about subsidizing political parties.
The only "subsidy" (for those who regard it as such) should be a place on the ballot for the candidates selected through the party's own internal procedures. Cheaper than an incestuous deal where you can't tell where the state-financed parties end and the government begins.
Yes, political parties in recent years have chosen to be part of a state-run, state-funded system. But that's only after living for many generations with such a system that the parties opposed, but was imposed judicially to prevent race segregation in elections. It started when the whites didn't want non-white participation in their parties.
California's 'jungle primary was designed to give the left a one party state with them having to actually win the day.
Why do you care to tell one party from another, if it has no effect on governance? You still have freedom of association and of communication, so go find each other. That doesn't mean elections have to take account of such labels.
Privatizing primaries is the only legitimate option. If that ever happens, the parties will move back to caucuses (or smoke-filled rooms) as they used to since caucuses are cheaper and easier to organize than primaries.
The only reason they went to primaries was to get the state to do the parties work of registering voters into parties (and publicizing party election) so that parties could fund raise off that.
Old fashioned political machines worked a lot better for everyone. Parties themselves had to deliver some value to their voting base. The better machines worked for its members every day not just on election day. It has its problems and corruptions - but better than what we got now.
The democrats already effectively abandoned the primary system as far as their presidential nominee is concerned. Literally no one voted to nominate Harris. The elites selected her.
No, that's not the reason. Parties in the 19th Century were perfectly happy to conduct the business of candidate selection on their own, but were forced into a state-run or state-supervised system so they'd have to accept non-white participation.
Ranked choice voting introduces a wonderful new way to completely delegitimize a process that is already on precipice of illegitimacy. Might as well just shove it over.
On a ranked choice ballot, instead of picking one candidate from a list, voters rank each candidate in order of preference. If one candidate wins an outright majority, then that person wins; if not, then the lowest-performing candidate is eliminated, and their ballots are re-tallied and allotted to whomever they picked as their second choice. This process repeats until one candidate passes 50 percent.
It's the mathematical equivalent of having an election, and if there isn't a winner, dropping the loser and having another election. Wash, rinse, repeat. Except it's all in one election.
What about the rest of the rankings - does everyone get the associated votes allocated? If someone choses not to rank all the candidates or cannot select one candidate for all the rankings, then that voters vote is abridges, which would be in violation of the 14th amendment.
Every voter's expression of voting has to be equal.
Runoffs tend to have a lower turnout. It’s no different.
With runoffs - ALL voters have the knowledge of who is running in that round.
Yeah I think this is one of the fair criticisms of RCV. It implicitly assumes a type of certitude about the voter’s preferences among all rounds of voting, that is perhaps not entirely warranted. I suppose a voter could have a complicated type of preference which can't be captured with RCV, like “My first choice is A (who I really like but I know has no chance of actually winning), and my second choice is B, but only if B is in at least second place by the second round and therefore has a shot of winning, otherwise my second choice is D, who I also really like but for totally superficial reasons OMG did you see her awesome rack?, and my third choice is definitely C, well unless D somehow makes it to the third round, then I am totally going with D.”
I suppose a voter could have a complicated type of preference
I think it's the opposite - a preference that is identified only as/if one acquires knowledge to support a preference. They don't want to check different scenarios until such time as they are real and in front of them.
RCV voters tend to, imo, be WAY too invested in trying to vote strategically. Specifically because those who prefer it all want to vote for a non-winner in round one who increases their support in each round until they win. Those who support RCV should instead force the candidates they support to just increase their support/appeal rather than try to be the least offensive 2nd choice candidate. It's a different campaign strategy.
Meaning that it is worse for normie voters themselves than having another election with a simple choice. I would much prefer a French-style election with a second round (but with more soap)
In sort-of related news, they are fighting to not require a date on mail-in ballots in my state. How fun. https://www.wesa.fm/politics-government/2024-09-26/pennsylvania-supreme-court-mail-ballot-dates-voting-rights-groups
Eventually, all we will need to do is mail in a Post-it note with a name on it to count as a vote.
What’s so bad about mailing in votes after the polls close?
What's so bad about voting the day after? Heck, why not wait a month?
There has to be a cutoff so the opportunity to vote is open and fair to everyone.
But the voter's handwritten date on the ballot envelope doesn't determine if the ballot was returned in time. It is the postmark date. So again what's the point of requiring the voter to write a date on the envelope?
I was responding to the question of mailing after the polls close.
The US post office should not be charge of voting. If the polls close at 7:pm, then you shouldn't be able to put your ballot in the mailbox after 7:PM.
I am still concerned about the chain of custody of ballots when they go from voter to 3rd party to authorized vote counter.
The US post office should not be charge of voting. If the polls close at 7:pm, then you shouldn’t be able to put your ballot in the mailbox after 7:PM.
In most places, the postmark occurs at the close of business. So your worry here is not a concern.
I am still concerned about the chain of custody of ballots when they go from voter to 3rd party to authorized vote counter.
What is your specific concern here?
You can files your taxes without penalty as long as you file before midnight on the due date. The post office postmarks based on the date, not on the time. They are NOT aligned with voting. So it is a big concern.
My concern with chain of custody was illustrated by the 2020 election: ballots not delivered; ballots delivered after the polls close and with improper signatures/dates. etc.
What is the point of requiring the voter to write a date on the ballot envelope? That date doesn't determine whether it was mailed back in time, it is the postmark date which is relevant.
[I looked this up in my old notes, circa 2020, because of the reference to post-it notes; it was part of an email exchange with a friend]
This local race in upstate NY (having spent this past summer in the area, I got a goodly exposure to the various races there) is running on a razor's edge, with 12 votes separating the Republican challenger, Claudia Tenney, from her incumbent Democrat opponent, Anthony Brindisi (155,492 to 155,480) is a perfect example. The sides are in court, where a judge has halted counting and processing, "citing major issues". On Election Day, Tenney led Brindisi by 28,422 votes. The incumbent congressman won more than 75 percent of absentees to narrow the gap.
A state judge blocking all eight counties in the 22nd Congressional District from certifying results in the race between Anthony Brindisi and Claudia Tenney. Among the major issues found:
[Judge] DelConte says lawyers still haven’t received final ballot-counts from a number of County Boards of Elections and he’s finding multiple counties have not followed state election law.
NY state allows people to vote in person even after they have mailed in a ballot, so the mail-in ballots of those people have to be located and rejected otherwise they may be counted twice
Ballot rejected for whatever reason are supposed to have the reason written on the ballot by elections officials...they used sticky-notes instead, which fell off, so thousands of supposedly invalided ballots have to be reevaluated
County boards are being opaque in their methods and cannot or will not satisfy the judge's requests for evidence to be presented
E.g. "[The judge] began the review of affidavits in Oneida County where they came under scrutiny for once again, missing sticky notes. 100 of the estimated 1500-2000 affidavits submitted by the county were rejected by the Brindisi campaign. But these rejected ballots could not be identified in the five bins laid out in the courtroom."
E.g., "Madison County BOE commissioners submitted a spreadsheet with information, but [Judge] DelConte says he doesn't know if he can go off a spreadsheet alone."
E.g., "In Oneida, not only is it unclear why 8-10 ballots were objected to in the first place, but whether they were already counted."
E.g., "Brindisi took a lead of a few votes last week, only to see his advantage disappear after two counties said they had made tabulation errors."
Small tranches of "uncounted" votes are still being found
E.g., "Chenango County informed a state judge it had discovered 55 early voting ballots that weren’t canvassed by the local board of election, and therefore weren’t included in the vote totals in the ultra-tight race between U.S. Rep. Anthony Brindisi, a Democrat, and his Republican challenger, former U.S. Rep. Claudia Tenney. The discovery of the uncounted ballots came a day after counties in the 22nd Congressional District reported what was supposed to have been their final vote totals to a state judge. Officials said 44 of the 55 found ballots were countable."
I think very few people would complain if they felt that the system was fair, impartial, transparent, uniform, and secure. If you get beat fair-and-square, you shake the other guys hand and say "good game" knowing you did your best. But evidence like the above makes everyone wonder if the playing field is level, if the rules are being followed, and if the "umpires" are fair, even-handed, and disinterested. No one wants to find out after the fact that the umpire who ran your last loss had bet big on the other team to win.
Even if there has been absolutely zero fraud, I'm sure no one involved will be satisfied with the results. How much faith do we have in this system?
The rest of that 2020 email to my friend:
More cynically, though...With such a broken system, it is far from inconceivable that a biased election official could lose a few dozen ballots (to favor their preferred candidate(s)), or to invalidate a few ballots here and there (to favor their preferred candidate(s)). If these are ever discovered, blame it on "human error" and carry on.
With such a broken system, bunches of partisans can send in their mail-in ballots, then show up in person to vote and maybe get their votes to count twice. They can say "we were told it was ok, and the system would not count our earlier vote" if such efforts were ever detected. [NY state law actually allows this].
With such a broken system, simply flooding the system with mail-in ballots that cannot be properly managed by the overwhelmed BOE officials--even if they are as honest and impartial as humans can be--minor frauds like a mail-in ballot sent to a dead cat might be returned by some partisans thinking "hey, they sent it to me, I might as well return it." can get overlooked. If discovered, these will be swept away rather than accumulated as evidence of fraud..."It was just one ballot cast by a dead cat, hardly evidence of widespread fraud." Which may be true, but how many dead-cat ballots went out and came back? No one will ever know because no one is ever allowed to audit the records.
Having said all this, do not be disheartened! Be vigilant in getting your vote cast whenever it is called for, and keep fighting for better systems that will restore our trust in their results.
I for one agree that incompetence and unprofessional behavior on the part of election officials should not be tolerated. Part of the problem IMO is that elections are largely run by volunteers and amateurs. Instead they ought to be run by trained professionals who know the rules and follow the rules. Problem is, local election districts don't want to pay for trained professionals when they can benefit from free volunteer labor instead.
I would also add that adding more burdens on the voter, like making early voting or absentee voting more difficult, such as has been the case with some of these "election reform" bills, wouldn't do anything to change the above incompetent and unprofessional behavior that you cite.
Trust the experts!
Re open primaries – these are private party elections., States needs to stop funding them, not make them open to all. Amend so that people who do not belong to a party can be placed on the general election ballot, after meeting specified criteria.
Re Ranked choice: The votes for the loser are reallocated to the second choice of the voter. What if there are 4 candidates? What about all the rest of the votes? If someone is leading in the first round, but then loses because of reallocations, that hardly seems fair. What if someone declines to rank the candidates? In at least one state, those ballots are not counted at all, which also seems unfair. What if a voter only likes one candidate? Why can’t they rank that candidate as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th?
Another argument against Ranked Choice voting – with a primary, each party advances their winning candidate to the general election. With RCV, one party or special interest group could load the race with several candidates, ensuring that at least one of theirs will win. That is not democratic, it is a manipulation of the system under the guise of democracy.
Anything that makes voting less transparent or understandable, or stacks the deck, is an abridgement of the right to vote.
Ranked Choice Voting IMO is most easily understood if viewed as a series of instant runoff elections. So in each of your scenarios, just replace them with what would happen if there were a bunch of runoff elections instead.
The votes for the loser are reallocated to the second choice of the voter. What if there are 4 candidates? What about all the rest of the votes? If someone is leading in the first round, but then loses because of reallocations, that hardly seems fair.
The analogous situation, in terms of runoff elections, would be if a candidate wins the first election but does not receive an absolute majority. In the runoff election, the candidates with the fewest votes are dropped from the ballot, and so their supporters could choose to support the second-place finisher of the first election instead. If that happened, then in the runoff election, the second-place finisher would win the runoff.
What if someone declines to rank the candidates? In at least one state, those ballots are not counted at all, which also seems unfair.
The analogous situation would be, if a voter only votes in the first election and then chooses not to vote in any subsequent runoff election. It is entirely the voter's choice to do so, no one is disenfranchised if the voter freely chooses this option.
What if a voter only likes one candidate? Why can’t they rank that candidate as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th?
A voter liking only one candidate is the same as ranking that candidate first, and then not choosing any other candidates to rank. Again, totally the voter's choice to do that.
I've read that these RCVs go for as many rounds at it takes, meaning that only the lowest is dropped each round. It would be a nightmare to audit all these rounds.
To your point about subsequent runoff elections - that is the problem. This is ONE election, not many and, as such , if anyone doesn't fill out the rankings, or cannot rank one candidate for all the slots, then their opportunity to vote is abridged.
That is took Alaska so long for their recent election due to it is not a positive. Just makes the whole process dramatically LESS transparent.
Dramatically less transparent is exactly the point for Democrats.
The whole point of ranked choice in Alaska was to protect Lisa Murkowski.
It would be a nightmare to try to do RCV by hand, yes. Fortunately we have computers to help speed up the process.
This is ONE election, not many and, as such , if anyone doesn’t fill out the rankings, or cannot rank one candidate for all the slots, then their opportunity to vote is abridged.
No, the opportunity to vote is not abridged at all. It's the voter's *choice* to decide what to do with his/her ballot. Just like, with a traditional ballot, if a voter chooses to vote for some candidates in some races, but leaves the ballot blank for other races. That's their choice.
No way could a computer be corrupted.
You are mixing apples and oranges. We are talking about one race on a ballot.
You are correct, that in different races on one ballot, a voter has a choice to vote on each race or not.
Me, for instance, I refuse to vote in a race with only one candidate. I would prefer for there to be no race or for them to only win with one vote, because not having more than one candidate is a symptom of a diseased democracy.
Ranked Choice Voting IMO is most easily understood if viewed as a series of instant runoff elections in which you only make an informed choice in the first round. After that you have no idea who's running against who.
Which is how the left wants it.
Your logical argument is that the abridging conditions in a real time current event can be excused because of presumed future events occurring in a way that supports your argument.
That is not a valid argument.
Suppose, in your runoff analogy, one candidate makes a deal with another and drops out of the race. Suppose one candidate dies before the election. Suppose new information is uncovered about one or more candidates that cause the electorate to reevaluate their support.
Any or all of these things can happen. There could be other conditions that arise as well.
The fact is that no matter how many rounds in a SINGLE election, every voter has a vote or the process is unconstitutional.
Proposition 131 would replace party primaries with "an all-candidate primary election featuring all candidates for those state and federal offices, with the final four candidates advancing to the general elections."
Why limit the general election ballot to only four candidates? Why not have instant runoff voting with every candidate on the ballot?
While ranked choice can't cure what's wrong with American politics, it can at least prevent the election of candidates without majoritarian support. It could also help potentially break up the two-party logjam by allowing people to vote for alternative candidates without worrying about acting as a spoiler—after all, if their desired candidate doesn't win, their vote will be re-tallied for whomever they would likely have settled for anyway.
I'm going to need a lot more definitions of 'without majoritarian support' as it relates to 'would have settled for anyway'.
Basically, you've just proved my long-standing point about the end result of RCV... if you have a political district of X/Y party split but said political district generally leans X but occasionally gets a Y because of Z spoilers, with RCV, you end up with a district that now leans solidly X. You know, because all those people who generally vote X but a percentage of whom sometimes like the Z spoiler candidate can now vote for the Z candidate, but still vote for X, because that's who they'd have settled on anyway...
Once again, lest we forget, the whole premise of RCV of any sort is the presumption that we, or any given state, are a pure democracy.
I'm generally thinking of highly local, mayoral elections or at-large city council races, although elections for representatives such as senators are fairly straightly forwardly democratic.
And of course, limiting this to the candidates only, not the laws that are passed... yadda yadda.
I guess I was speaking more to your prior post about definitions of 'without majoritarian support'. I certainly agree with Federation, kinda to the point: It seems like, despite 'Enlightenment', some consider mob rule and tyranny of the majority to be an unfettered good. The problem with all this goddamned binary thinking is that it's not unary enough!
To put it another way: Please clarify the distinction between 'majoritarian' and 'populist'.
I see this as a calculated way for a majority party to stay in power. How? By loading the race with as many candidates as they can afford to field. Maybe a lot of people support candidate Z, who would win with a plurality, but enough people will rank candidates A1, A2, and A3 high enough that one of them wins with RCV.
Party A just figured out how to stay in power forever; the will of the people be damned.
Oddly, your complaint is the precise opposite of other opponents of RCV, and the opposite of what happened with RCV in Alaska. Tom Cotton’s complaint is that the Alaska majority party had Palin (R) + Begich (R) and was therefore in his opinion was entitled to a Republican representative. Peltola (D) had the plurality, and won because Begich and Palin voters picked her as second choice.
So what happened in real life was the A2 voters in your scenario ranked Z higher than A1.
The "will of the people" is not well-defined when there are more than two candidates and no plurality. Tom Cotton looked at the results and saw "they want a Republican", you apparently would look at the results and say "they want Peltola".
Oops, I'm wrong. Palin had a slight plurality. However, still shows -even more - that RCV doesn't systematically entrench the majority party. It did the opposite here.
As I understand Alaska, one primary reason they were stuck with Peltola is because enough voters only selected one choice. Their votes were not counted in subsequent tallies of the ballots.
It was not that more people wanted Peltola; it was that more people did not rank the candidates. I think that was Cotton's argument - the people who refused to rank more than their first choice were disenfranchised and their voting power was abridged by the process, thus making it unconstitutional.
But that same year, Gov. Tina Kotek (D) won office with only 47 percent of the vote; Christina Drazan, the Republican candidate, captured 43.6 percent and trailed Kotek by fewer than 67,000 votes. Independent candidate Betsy Johnson, meanwhile, got over 168,000 votes; on a ranked choice ballot, if enough of Johnson's voters had picked Drazan as their second choice, the state might have a Republican governor.
Again, per my X/Y description above, that's a big... BIG IF. Betsy Johnson is a former Democrat running as an "independent". I didn't follow that election, but here was Rolling Stones summary:
So from Rolling Stone's perspective, the danger was she was going to be a spoiler to Kotek, not the "pro-Trump, pro-life Republican" (*spits*).
I don't know how the votes broke down in that election, but from my personal experience with local elections, the spoilers tend to come from the majority party (the party that usually wins the elections) because in the X/Y dynamic, X isn't X enough. So the Z spoiler draws votes away from X, giving the Y an occasional chance to win an election. If Y is the 'minority' party, then a Z spoiler that drains votes from Y merely means X wins anyway.
but from my personal experience with local elections, the spoilers tend to come from the majority party (the party that usually wins the elections) because in the X/Y dynamic, X isn’t X enough. So the Z spoiler draws votes away from X, giving the Y an occasional chance to win an election.
I agree with your personal insight here. If a majority of the voting public are on the "X+Z" side, then wouldn't it be more representative of the voters if the eventual winning candidate came from the "X+Z" side as well? If a candidate Y can only win on a plurality basis if Z draws too many votes away from X, then I would argue, from a democratic perspective, that it's an unjust result.
Only under the assumption that voters for the least-favored candidate would have stuck with the same "team".
Cases like Alaska happen when they *don't*.
Well, yes. Rick’s framing kinda assumes that X is the “moderate” candidate and Z is the “crazypants” candidate. What happened in Alaska was the reverse: X was the “crazypants” candidate” and Z was the “moderate” candidate. So the Z voters in the second round split their ballots between X and Y, and Y won. Despite what happened in Alaska, I think Rick’s framing is probably more commonplace however.
When you confuse "commonplace" for "we're entitled", that's the problem.
Only if all Z voters choose X as their second choice.
In practice, they don't.
And even though Palin and another Republican, Nick Begich III, collectively captured 60 percent in the first round, only half of Begich’s voters picked Palin as their second choice, while 30 percent picked Democratic candidate Mary Peltola. (The remaining 21 percent of Begich’s voters picked no other candidates.)
So, being clear, Palin beat Peltola in the first round and, in the second round, head-to-head, Palin beat Peltola for Begich’s votes again and the only way you consider Peltola to have ‘won’ a majority is if you throw out the Begich-only votes in the second round, but not the first, *and* ignore the secondary votes cast for Palin and Peltola. Essentially saying, on the one hand “Every ballot cast by every person counts as a vote.” and then, quietly behind the scenes saying “Only the ballots with certain bubbles filled in a certain way get counted as a vote in this round.”
You can’t have RC-IRV *and* ‘one man, one vote’. It’s not possible. Now, as a libertarian, I’m wholly willing to call a spade a spade, say the 14A and/or 15A conflicts with the 1, 9, and 10A directly as well as parts of others. But the idea that RC-IRV is the obvious solution to marginalized voters or systemic privilege, and isn’t simply more government to solve the prior problem of too much government is plainly retarded/dishonest.
You can’t have RC-IRV *and* ‘one man, one vote’. It’s not possible.
Sure you can. Every ballot is counted at least in the first round. Now, if a voter chooses not to rank any other candidates but one, that is a choice that is totally up to the voter to make. It is analogous to a voter choosing not to vote in a traditional runoff election. No one is 'disenfranchised' if a voter freely chooses not to participate in a runoff election. Same deal here.
Eye of Ranked Choice Voting, Toe of Top Three,
Wool of First past the post, tongue of mail-in-voting,
No signature match fork, blind chain of custody,
Ballot harvested leg, no ID requirement’s wing…
Like a hell-broth boil and bubble,
*poof* democracyisms fixed to be kind of betterer for people bored and dispirited with the process.
The "We may not know the results of the election on election night." vs. "We need ranked choice voting to thwart the TPD." sounds familiar.
Thank you for explaining this better than I can.
Even more simply: if I were going to commit vote fraud, RCV is the voting system I would prefer.
Why? Because FPTP is transparently straightforward: 1 man = 1 ballot = 1 vote. If I get to the end of vote tallying and I’ve got 1.5 votes per man, shit’s fucked up.
RCV (of *any* type), OTOH, 1 man = 1 ballot = n votes. So, if I get to the end of vote tallying, as long as I’ve got less than n votes per man I’m unable to determine if shit’s fucked up. As long as somebody doesn't dump in n * population more ballots, or bubbles, I can't know or tell.
There’s all kinds of other idiosyncracies woven in. For instance, as Rick James mentions ‘majoritarian support’ above, for FPTP, ‘majoritarian’ is obvious. Someone with 30% of the vote has 30% of the populace, even if they aren’t the majority. However, for Peltola, there were 188,666 ballots for 565998 potential votes. She got 51% of the ballots but that doesn’t correspond to 51% of the populace. Moreover, as with the criticism about ‘30% isn’t majoritarian’ she only garnered something like 16% of all the possible votes.
There are all kinds of *correct* counter arguments like “She couldn’t possibly get 565998 votes.” but, back to the fraud, systemic privilege, etc. that doesn’t change the fact that garnering 51% of the ballots that were bubbled in a certain order doesn’t directly translate to 51% of the population either. Doesn’t resolve the “FPTP leads to a situation where somebody with <50% of the vote wins.” issue.
It’s not n votes, it’s 1 vote in each round. At no point is any voter’s choice weighted more.
False. Just like saying ’round’ for ‘vote’ doesn’t change the number ‘n’. Saying you exhausted someone’s ballot and tossed it out doesn’t mean it wasn’t weighted. Other alternatives, like IRV, address this issue, but still leave open the issue that there are (in the case of Alaska) factually and irrefutably 566,000 bubbles or potential votes on those ballots and only 530,000 residents/voters. Only something like a third of the electorate actually voted, as would be expected with 3 candidates, the total number of possible votes exceeded the voting population. Meaning 1 man = ~1.1 votes *or* lots of votes only counted as 1 (or 0.33 votes) vote and a few counted as 2 (or 0.66).
Again, fundamentally, you cannot have “1 man, 1 vote” *and* ranked-choice. It’s one or the other. The math isn’t that difficult, and is actually empirical, why do you continue to refute it except to lie to people? Even the FPTP people you, seemingly, look down on are honest enough to say “Yeah, it doesn’t always pick the most popular guy, but it’s dead simple to implement, relatively easy to audit, and we're a republic not a direct democracy anyway.”
Again, you are thinking about this wrong.
The math isn’t that difficult, and is actually empirical, why do you continue to refute it except to lie to people?
It isn't about the math. It is that you are giving a preference in your reasoning to the people that are choosing the more popular candidates/parties as their first choice. If you want to insist that someone that chose a candidate that gets eliminated in the first round is casting a second vote for their 2nd choice, then you need to also agree that the people whose candidates are not eliminated are casting a second vote for their 1st choice. That is the idea of how this works. That is why the other term used for this kind of system is instant runoff voting. A person that cast a ballot for someone that doesn't make it to the runoff is casting a second ballot. But then, the people that cast a ballot the first time around for someone that does make it to the runoff is then casting a second ballot as well.
False. Where N = number of candidates, it is N votes per voter and then in the second round it is N-1 , then N-2 , etc.
The entire process is unconstitutional if every single voter does not have their votes counted in every single round.
> … Someone with 30% of the vote has 30% of the populace, even if they aren’t the majority…
Demonstrably and mathematically false by the simple fact that the entire populace does not vote. Even accounting for the fact that a substantial percentage of the populace is ineligible to vote (underage, disenfranchised by felony conviction, etcetera), there is never 100% voter participation.
For example, look at 2016. The voter turnout was just under 60% of the voting eligible population (VEP). Clinton received 48.2% of the votes and Trump received 46.1%. Neither received the majority (50+%). That they received, approximately, 29% and 27% of the VEP respectively.
The system, as is, is already illegitimate in that it does not require candidates to receive a majority or plurality of the entire pool of possible votes (VEP) but, instead, only of the votes cast. Uncast votes should be counted, effectively, as votes against all of the candidates (ie “Nay”).
* https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/voter-turnout-in-presidential-elections
Demonstrably and mathematically false by the simple fact that the entire populace does not vote. Even accounting for the fact that a substantial percentage of the populace is ineligible to vote (underage, disenfranchised by felony conviction, etcetera), there is never 100% voter participation.
But RCV, or any voting method (compulsory voting would be a legislative act), doesn't exactly address this issue and, again, if this is a foul against plurality voting it’s doubly so against RCV.
For plurality, 30% represents 30% of the total number of votes cast.
For RCV, 30 or even 50% of the vote doesn’t necessarily represent any portion of the total number of votes cast.
If the rules against people being ineligible for voting because they’re under age or a felon or whatever are whimsical, the fact that a Begich:Peltola vote gets counted for Peltola but a Peltola:Begich or Palin:Begich vote doesn’t get counted for Begich is completely arbitrary. Even by the popular standard, people didn’t cast votes and you can’t just make them up, but for RCV, the votes are there, “you” just refuse to count them (equally).
So, being clear, Palin beat Peltola in the first round and, in the second round, head-to-head, Palin beat Peltola for Begich’s votes again and the only way you consider Peltola to have ‘won’ a majority is if you throw out the Begich-only votes in the second round, but not the first, *and* ignore the secondary votes cast for Palin and Peltola.
For those who are curious, here are the actual results from that election.
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/22SSPG/RcvDetailedReport.pdf
At no point did Palin have more votes than Peltota.
Imagine if instead of a secret ballot, you had a convention of all the voters. One candidate might have a plurality, but supporters of other candidates might decide their individual candidates couldn't beat that one, but that if they got together to agree on a compromise candidate, that candidate could win. So the instant runoff simulates a way of reaching such compromises.
"Currently, Colorado has partially closed primaries, open only to party members and unaffiliated voters—members of one party cannot participate in another party's primary. Proposition 131 would replace party primaries with "an all-candidate primary election featuring all candidates for those state and federal offices, with the final four candidates advancing to the general elections.""
The Californication of Colorado continues unabated, it would seem.
That was done a few years ago. Before 2016 or 2018, CO had a caucus system so the state didn’t pay for any primaries. That change then was done by the parties in coordination with big CA/NY donors who wanted to control the party selection process by eliminating caucuses. The thought being to be able to eliminate the Trump/Sanders wildcards.
"If one candidate wins an outright majority, then that person wins; if not," - - we are assured the final 'victor' did NOT have a majority.
I see the system being scammed. A party could run as many candidates as it wanted. They could have their A guy who they expect to win, and their B guy to siphon votes from the other party's A guy. And vice versa. Just for laughs, they could have their B guys register as members of the opponent's party. That wouldn't be fraudulent, they are free to do that.
I see it getting really ugly really quick. And I see it helping to cement absolute control of our governments by the two parties. Good luck with a third party lining up a team to break into this mess.
If your candidate finishes out of the top two, why should you get to vote again to decide the winner? One man, one vote.
If your candidate finishes out of the top two, why should you get to vote again to decide the winner?
Same idea as a traditional runoff election. If your preferred candidate doesn't make it to a runoff election, you still get to vote in the runoff for any of the remaining candidates.
Equating one election to two is a fallacy. You cannot predict the future. You only have that vote in that moment.
> If your candidate finishes out of the top two, why should you get to vote again to decide the winner? One man, one vote.
It would appear that, by your complaint, runoff elections also violate the "one man, one vote" principle since some people who previously voted will vote in the runoff and others won't. In that case, those who participate in both votes twice while those who only participate in the original election but not the runoff only votes once.
Maybe it would be better if any candidates didn’t pull 51% they are all disqualified and we have another election.
Probably in successive elections you'd get fewer and fewer votes, and the final winner might be with a very small number. Why do you think those candidates were in the initial election? What makes you think disqualifying the front runners — whom you'd have to count them as, ahead of people who didn't even run at first — would lead to finding candidates more voters wanted?
I think the conclusion is a bit paranoid and looking for a villain. Even if RCV is theoretically superior to one man-one vote, that fact that it makes the NFL salary cap seem elementary is cause enough to be suspicious of the voting public's ability to understand the system with all and its permutations and implications. People are rightly circumspect.
I don't find it difficult at all. I would have no trouble ranking the candidates in order of preference, and, if one of them is Trump, leaving them off entirely.
And if I put down every candidate you put down, plus Trump, your vote gets tossed in the n - 1 round and mine doesn't.
The best Rube Goldberg contraption for elections is to use sortition and liquid democracy.
Sortition – random selection like juries – is what selects any assembly. They make the decisions of that assembly – but their votes are ‘weighted’ based on liquid democracy. Which means that, at any time, a voter can choose one of those randomly selected to vote as their proxy. Those voters can consent to critter X or Y or Z (or hell X for some set of issues and Z for another set of issues) – or withdraw their consent – or change it someone else.
The assembly critter has no legal obligation to vote in that particular way because the voter can withdraw their consent at ant time. And there will be another random selection in six months or so. But those consents and weights are known at the time of any particular vote in the assembly.
The real value is that allows those who favor RCV to creep into the deepest weeds they wish. They can change their consent every minute if they want. Thus giving them unlimited opportunities to do something meaningless. They can even figure how to get a blockchain to track all their individual consents (and even the history of their consents) in a decentralized non-controlled manner,
Eh.
That's basically a weird half-step between direct democracy and a representative republic. Not the worst idea, but between "rational ignorance" and the logistical problems, I don't see it working at scale.
For relatively small groups I think it'd be fine, but not at scale.
I suspect it would turn into the distorted form of sortition which can turn into demagoguery.
But at least it's way too complicated
Alternative to sortition that doesn’t involve conscripting random innocent people to lose six months out of their lives.
Candidates run as normal, and voters vote for just one candidate, like normal. Instead of counting the ballots, we just draw one at random.
It’s “fair” in a couple different senses:
– in the short term, over a large assembly, a party with X% support will get roughly X% of the seats.
– in the long term, for a single seat, if a place has 55% Yellows and 45% Purples, instead of Purples having to accept loss for their entire lives for single offices like mayor or governor, they’ll be in charge about 45% of the time.
Some practical advantages:
- much easier to count
- no need to argue about the validity of 2% of the ballots that could swing a close election. You just need to verify that the one drawn was valid.
- no whining about spoilers
Off the top of my head, you could use the poll size calculation to set the assembly size.
Using online calculators (and assuming they're accurate), if you want a 95% confidence level with a margin of 1%, then for the state of California you'd probably want an Assembly of ~9500.
If we drop the margin of error to 5%, the Assembly shrinks to 381.
so thinking about this pipe dream... it might work for the lower house of a legislature, but I don't think it'd swing for the upper house, and for single-seat positions (like Governor) there just aren't enough "rolls" for it to work.
But if you're counting ballots for the upper house, governorship and propositions anyway, then the effort saved by *not* counting them for the loewr house is negligble.
Would also work better for multi-seat districts, making it more likely that there's at least one representative for your district that you like.
Athens did have some 'single seat' positions - notably the strategos during wartime. Nowadays there are also positions that really require specific skill sets. But those can all be chosen by a randomly selected assembly or subassembly as well in the same way that a committee of the board chooses the CEO.
We think of President as a unitary position but it is in fact selected by a college of electors - not voters. Constitutionally the job is a)CinC; b)head of the Cabinet of 'principal officers'; c)the negotiator of treaties with foreign powers; d)appointee of judges/etc consented to by Senate; e)representative of the US as head of state.
Those don't need to be one person and once you realize that - wow. There aren't many countries that have a 'collegial executive' - but we could easily decide that what matters is who becomes part of an Electoral College - elected or random. Switzerland is the obvious collegial executive now - but they got that idea from places including Pennsylvania (1777-1790) and New England (1643-1686).
And you’re right that the poll size ‘margin of error’ is what creates a randomly selected sample where the law of large numbers will approximate the entire population for a particular question (or demographic).
Ireland did just this – using sortition in a 99 person assembly – starting in 2013 and it still convenes twice per year. Their role is limited – to propose ideas for how to deal with difficult questions (constitutional amendments, abortion, climate change, population aging, etc) that the parliament wants to avoid. Kind of like what in the US would become a ‘bipartisan commission’ of permanently corrupt DC swamp people.
conscripting random innocent people to lose six months out of their lives.
They should be paid – and a real income not like jury duty. People will still opt out and that’s ok
I suspect we can never get rid of elections. Better probably is to have a dual assembly – one elected to do what it does, one randomly selected to create an agenda, audit, check, etc. Ultimately to morph into an assembly that plays like the kids game where one cuts the pie and the other selects.
Tough part would be to get the random assembly paid for its work. Best benefit would to be see how quickly gerrymandered districts would be undermined and really to demonstrate all the screwed up things that result from elections. The election would just have a smaller impact because the district still has a randomly selected in the other assembly
"While ranked choice can't cure what's wrong with American politics, it can at least prevent the election of candidates without majoritarian support. "
No it can't.
I categorically reject the notion that a candidate that can't win without being someone's 3rd + choice has "majoritarian support".
So you agree, Mary Peltola won Alaska fairly? (Before RCV kicked in, Palin had 58,973 votes to Mary Peltola's 75,799.)
There were 189,000 ballots cast. Each with 3 votes. Peltola, all said and done, had 91,000 votes, less than 16% of the 566,000 possible (There are only some 530,000 voting age people in Alaska). Even if you say realistically or mathematically one candidate’s votes don’t count and she could only win half the “other” votes without winning a majority of all the votes in the first round she still only won 32% of *that* number.
She won according to the rules. She beat Palin according to the rules. Fair would require an honesty that RCV advocates specifically avoid the same way casinos operate ‘fairly’.
The only way you declare her the majority winner is if you assume 1 person with 1 ballot putting down 2 votes counts as 2 people while 1 person with 1 ballot putting down 1 vote only counts as 1 person.
As an Australian I would like to make the following comment that we have had ranked choice voting or as we call it preferential voting for over a century. The system ensures that the winner of any election has the majority support of the voters in every contested seat as the voters make their choices from most liked to most disliked and all the preferences are allocated according to the voters intentions. It leaves the first past the post as ineffective in reflecting the intentions and desires of the voters.
Don’t you guys also have *compulsory* voting? So I presume they’re actually interested in extracting from you an accurate tabulation of your preferences.
(Though I presume they can’t stop you from turning in a blank ballot, which would be the same as if you didn’t vote at all, right?)
You are correct about compulsory voting and some voters do put in blank ballot papers, which are called informal votes, and are counted and not allocated to any of the candidates.
Here, those blank ballots would go for whichever (D) candidate has the most need.
The candidates for election provide scrutineers at every polling booth so when the count is made, every ballot paper is checked and there are no stories of filling in blank ballot papers.
They count them at the booth in front of the person casting them? If so, then what are the scrutineers for? The person casting the ballot is right there to validate, not verify (which is all a scrutineer *could* do), the vote.
If not, then the scrutineers are what we call election monitors who just observe the votes being delivered and amassed and your system isn't that special or different, there is plenty of fraud happening, and you just pretend that the amount is acceptable or otherwise not immoral, like we (or some of us anyway) do.
After all, you were the one Western Nation at the forefront of setting up camps to put people with*out* COVID into merely because they had contact. Why *wouldn't* you guys just assume everything performed by your government is rainbows and sugar gliders?
Ultimately, you're beginning to sound a lot like an American Leftist, ignorant of even basic security, election, and system control processes (anywhere), trying to exploit a lack of familiarity with the Australian election process to advocate for processes which demonstrably don't produce outcomes more favorable to economic, social, or individual liberty.
To be clear; you say "The system ensures that the winner of any election has the majority support of the voters", what happens if the majority of the voters cast "informal votes"?
There are other aspects of the system that make your statements, especially combined, untrue but that's a/the pretty primary, obvious, and dishonest/nonsensical one.
Are there examples of elections where preferential has produced a much different outcome than a FPTP election would have?
There are any number of reasons to support or oppose a switch to ranked choice voting, but most of the opposition comes from the majority parties.
This can’t be a surprise to anyone paying the least bit of attention. It has become more and more obvious that the winning side is not really interested in seeing the power in the hands of all voters. The politicians in office have every incentive to keep the system as it is, even if they are in the minority party. They get their spot and taxpayer-funded salary for being in office, along with all of the side perks. There’s some extra money in the form of travel expenses and the like that come from public funds, but the big bonuses come from special interests. Some of that is legal, some is shady and possibly illegal, and some is definitely illegal but hard to catch and prove. The last two parts assume that other office holders want those laws enforced, of course. Some politicians gripe about gerrymandering, but again, that doesn’t stop some minority lawmakers from going along with it if it helps keep them in office.
But most of all, the problem is with too many of the voters themselves. Some voters that see their guys winning are completely happy with how elections work because their guys won. If anything, the definition of what constitutes a free and fair election in their minds is that their side wins. Democracy is ‘broken’ and elections are a ‘sham’ when their side loses.
If people truly value human rights as a matter of principle, then the exercise and protection of those rights won’t depend primarily on whether their rights are at issue. It will only matter that someone’s rights are not being respected. Thinking that way and overcoming our selfish biases toward our own needs and desires is not easy. The Golden Rule is deceptively simple. It is not nearly as easy to follow as it is to say it. If we want other people to respect our rights, though, we should be sure that we’ve fully considered how we would like to be treated in their place. That goes for elections and voting rights as well.
If we vote for someone that ends up getting over 50% of the vote, we should want that person to be able to take office. We should want any challenges to results of the election to go through processes for presenting and judging the legal and factual claims to be such that they are as likely as is possible to be evaluated objectively.
On the other side of that, if we vote for someone that ends getting fewer votes than a candidate that we opposed, then we should want to be as sure as we can be that the process of counting the votes was accurate. That only those legally eligible to vote cast a ballot. That no one that wanted to vote for our preferred candidate was denied their right to vote. And if there are claims that one or more of those was not true, then we should also want those claims to be taken seriously and evaluated using processes and in forums that are as objective as it is possible to arrange.
Ultimately, valuing democracy* means wanting decisions about how to govern, who will hold office, and even how to make those decisions to be a process that best reflects the “will of the people”. How we define the “will of the people” can be contentious itself, but it has to at least mean what the most people want that isn’t so onerous upon those that disagree that they won’t accept the bargain of voting at all. People can be convinced to accept it if they know that there will be future opportunities to vote again. And that they might be able to convince enough people to their point of view that they will be on the winning side the next time. Or, *gasp*, they might even change their mind and decide that they were wrong to vote as they did the previous time and be happy that they lost.
*democracy in the modern sense of the word is simply a system where some set of eligible citizens votes on matters of government. On a small scale, direct democracy might work, or more frequently, it could mean voting for representatives to make the laws and enforce them. Or even voting for people that will vote for a chief executive, though this does dilute the power of voters to change their government and get what they want. The people, directly or through their representatives, could even vote to limit their own ability to make laws that could infringe upon their rights and require a larger consensus (a supermajority) to change those limitations and the overall structure of government. Aka, a constitution. Call the U.S. system of government whatever you’d prefer, but I will still think of it as a “democracy” unless there is an important reason for that discussion to distinguish it from how other countries translate the power and votes of the people into a working government.
That was remarkably good. It is so good that it can't possibly have been written by a modern American voter, it must have been written by AI and ChatGPT. A real American voter would have said something about Haitians eating pets, or talked about whether Kamalama really worked at McDonald's or not.
How about her price control and wealth tax proposals? You disingenuous, sophist shitweasel.
Aristotle defined any system of elections as either aristocracy or oligarchy. A system of 'rule by the few'. Elections merely serve to provide a patina of 'consent of the governed' to those who win. But those who win are always the rulers and voters are always the governed.
Thus exactly why the USA is not a 'democracy'.
It is a *Constitutional* Union of *Constitutional* Republican States.
Pretending it was just a 'democracy' is the very problem with it.
80%+ of what government is doing (ILLEGALLY) should've required 3/4 of the States and 2/3 of Congress to implement. Instead it flies under the Radar with just a slim majority in just congress and that was in the early 1900s. Now it seems President Biden just dictates 'Loan Theft' and 'Censorship' by decree even against Congress and SCOTUS. Perhaps the worst president since FDR.
Aristotle defined any system of elections as either aristocracy or oligarchy. A system of ‘rule by the few’. Elections merely serve to provide a patina of ‘consent of the governed’ to those who win. But those who win are always the rulers and voters are always the governed.
The difference between rulers and representatives is that no one can vote out a ruler.
I am all for ranked choice voting based on how well it has worked in Alaska. Here's hoping the voters there have enough good sense to keep it.
Your article missed Montana, which has a top 4 candidates regardless of party measure on the ballot, which I am voting for. It also has a separate top 2 runoff ballot measure I am voting against, because growing up in Texas I saw runoffs used all too often to beat candidates considered too progressive. They also cost too much. Runoffs still happen throughout the south and southwest, although interestingly now they result in more progressive candidates winning. It was interesting to see Thad Cochran reelected in a runoff after losing his Republican primary to the US Senate in Mississippi with the overwhelming support of black and white liberal Democrats. Runoffs also resulted in Georgia's US Senator Rafael Warnock winning.
TL;DR - Your pet cause, including RCV, is not special. Fuck you, cut spending.
it can at least prevent the election of candidates without majoritarian support
Again this is a lie. You aren’t gaining a majority, you’re rather whimsically redefining the population and what constitutes a majority.
Simple analogy: We order a pizza, 12 (equal) slices. You eat 4 slices. I eat 5. Beer is consumed. We wake up the next day, I declare that I ate a majority of the pizza and am, therefore, the winner. You point out that no less than 6 slices and then some constitute a majority. I point out that we ate 9 slices, the current 3 are inedible and should be discarded, and of the 9 pieces eaten I ate 56%, a majority.
Even further: We agree to a scheme for discarding uneaten slices of pizza ‘fairly’. Slices of pizza without any pepperoni on them get tossed out, only the remainder get counted as actual slices of pizza. However! We can take extra pepperonis on slices we do eat and count them to pieces that we don’t eat. All slices (again 12) will be drawn blindly. You eat 2 slices, I eat 1, but my slice had 5 pepperonis on it while yours only had 2 each. So, again, I wind up eating 1+4 slices (56% of the slices eaten) and you end up eating only 2+2 (44% of the slices eaten).
Even if, in the next two pizza-eating contests, you wind up eating 5 slices and I wind up eating 4 the assertion of the majority isn’t met and the issue, supposing it is one or critical, isn’t resolved.
The winner still winds up with the majority of votes counted but the votes counted don’t, in any direct, apparent, or in the vernacular of data sciences, ‘atomic’ way translate to a person or portion of the electorate.
And, again, this doesn’t get into the issues about the demonstrably false presumption that democracy or even the math ‘just work’.
Ranked Choice Voting is the most anti-American thing anyone has ever thought of. It's the exact opposite of Democracy. It is a middle finger to the Founders. The only people who support it are those who can't win elections on their merits. They hate freedom and they hate Democracy and they hate representative government, and they hate America.
One man, one vote. Period.
Anyone who supports RCV deserves to be smacked in the mouth. With a brick.
Anyone who supports RCV deserves to be smacked in the mouth. With a brick.
Now, c’mon. That’s not fair.
“Fair” would be asking them to rank whether they’d prefer to be hit in the face with half a brick, 3/4 of a brick, or a full brick, tossing out all the “Did not vote” ballots, re-apportioning all the first and second loser ballots to the winner (which would obviously be a more ‘moderate’ 1/2 or 3/4 brick even though the system specifically pits them against each other and favors the full brick in such situations), declare majority support for the portion of brick selected, *then* hit them with it.
The only people who support it are those who can’t win elections on their merits.
I suppose you feel the same way about the state legislators that gerrymander districts, look for ways to decrease the turnout of opponents' voters, and so on.
Oh, and you must feel the same way about people that try and get their loss overturned by their running mate and allies in Congress.
Yep, sure do.
At least you're consistent, then. I disagree that RCV is so obviously dumb that people deserve to be smacked in the mouth with a brick for supporting it, though. In fact, I think that alternatives to first-past-the-post should definitely be considered. Combining FPtP with single member districts encourages the kind of factions that the Founders worried about. (Some of them, anyway.) And it enables those factions to play to a large minority that is more unified rather than to try to have a broad appeal to a majority that might require compromises.
I disagree that RCV is so obviously dumb that people deserve to be smacked in the mouth with a brick for supporting it, though.
So what you're saying is you might benefit from that brick to the face. Because RCV is so obviously dumb. And anti-American, and anti-representative government.
In fact, I think that alternatives to first-past-the-post should definitely be considered.
No. That's the majority. That's what the majority of people want. The people get an individual and decisive voice, and RCV and all your "alternatives" seek to take that away from them. You use terms like "more unified," but what you're NOT saying is that your definition of "unified" involves compromise and sacrifice on the majority's first choice.
Most people want pepperoni pizza. Some will settle for plain cheese. The others can't really decide what they want, but they kinda default like cheese more than pepperoni. Because you can't decide what you want, the people who CAN decide should have their "choice" taken away from them?
No. That's so fundamentally anti-American, it borders on treasonous. The whole point of federalism - and of a Congress made of elected representatives - is that all you people who DON'T like pepperoni, you just go somewhere else where people prefer the same thing you do. Or, maybe you stick around and try to convince the pepperoni lovers of the merits of cheese pizza. But regardless, the answer is NOT to try and force your way on the pepperoni lovers because your plurality will have most people settle for what they DON'T actually want.
That is not representative government. That is not government of the people, by the people, and especially not for the people. Not in any way shape or form. The only people who support RCV are those whose candidates can't win over a majority. And that they want to force them over the will of the People, yea brick to the face to anyone like that.
One man. One vote. That's America. Period.
I'm sorry that more people don't take their vote seriously. They should. But that's not a reason to throw out the single-most people-based system of representative government ever known in human history.
No. That’s the majority. That’s what the majority of people want.
If the majority wants a candidate and votes for that candidate, then there is no difference between FPtP and any kind of RCV. The only time there can be a difference is if there is not a majority preference for any one candidate.
Most people want pepperoni pizza. Some will settle for plain cheese. The others can’t really decide what they want, but they kinda default like cheese more than pepperoni. Because you can’t decide what you want, the people who CAN decide should have their “choice” taken away from them?
You're badly misinterpreting the core issue here. It isn't that some people "can't really decide what they want." It is that there isn't a majority for one particular option.
For example, 5 people are going to order an extra large pizza. (There is a good deal on extra large, so everyone is definitely going to want to get that one pizza rather than get their own.) 2 want pepperoni. 2 want sausage, and 1 wants cheese. With no majority for one option, they need to decide. The one that wants cheese definitely shouldn't get their way, since they are the smallest minority. But you can say that they shouldn't get a choice at all now, if you want, but that is the value judgement you are making. If you do think that the choice of pizza type should best reflect the majority view, then that person's second choice between pepperoni and sausage should matter. It also has the virtue of breaking the tie.
No. That’s so fundamentally anti-American, it borders on treasonous. The whole point of federalism – and of a Congress made of elected representatives – is that all you people who DON’T like pepperoni, you just go somewhere else where people prefer the same thing you do. Or, maybe you stick around and try to convince the pepperoni lovers of the merits of cheese pizza. But regardless, the answer is NOT to try and force your way on the pepperoni lovers because your plurality will have most people settle for what they DON’T actually want.
Federalism like this is only relevant for choices between policies that are properly implemented at the state level. For national policies, what state you live in shouldn't matter since moving from one state to another doesn't change one's stake in national policy. Besides, the problems with FPtP would also factor into state politics anyway.
It is hard not to see you taking your point of view because you have the perspective of someone getting what they want as part of a majority or plurality. I don't see many people with minority views thinking that it is right for their opinions to be entirely discarded that way just because only ~5-10% of people have those views as their first choice while there is no choice that gets over 50%. If there is a choice that gets over 50%, of course that is the 'correct choice' for the population. But if there isn't, then finding a compromise that gets to over 50% will require considering the points of view of some subset of the >50% that didn't want the choice with the greatest share.
The only time there can be a difference is if there is not a majority preference for any one candidate.
There’s always a majority.
If we’re voting on pizza, and 40 people say they want pepperoni, and 35 people say they want cheese, and 25 want something else or can’t decide what they want (they just don’t want pepperoni, but would settle for cheese) – then pepperoni wins. That’s what the majority of people want.
Heck, if only 10 people want pepperoni, 5 people want cheese, and then 85 all want something else and something different/specific/unique to them – the pepperoni is STILL the majority. That’s what the majority of people want.
What RCV attempts to do is to reframe the question as “what do you NOT want?” and then claim that somehow that’s a “majority.” Well, sorry, but we don’t vote for what we DON’T want. Or what we’ll settle for. That’s not how representative democracy works. It’s not a choice between “Pepperoni or Not Pepperoni.” It’s a choice between Pepperoni, Cheese, Sausage, Mushrooms, Olives, etc.
The majority isn't >50%. It's the most number of people who can come together in agreement.
And I get why RCV is seductive to people: because, like fools, they believe the lie that our elections are a “binary choice” between two things we don’t want. Usually it’s a “choice” between garbage or worse garbage. And because they’re so afraid of worse garbage, they’ll happily throw their lot in with garbage just to try and keep it away when really, they want something else entirely that they choose – CHOOSE – not to vote for and support.
But again, that’s not representative democracy. Let’s put it in plain terms: a good (and dangerous) portion of Democrats do not want Kamala. She’s a gibbering retard whose record is one of incompetence, failure, and destruction. But they hate/fear Trump. (Feel free to flip the script for a Republican POV.) And they (mistakenly) feel like it’s one or the other. They want a third option, but they refused at every step create one for themselves, so now they want to meddle with the definition of “majority” – and take it AWAY from the actual majority – in order to try and pretend that their uniformity among what they hate/fear, even if they can’t figure out what the actually want, constitutes a majority that should be recognized as such.
It doesn’t.
RCV is ultimately bet-hedging. You don't want to vote for a person - you want to vote for a general policy direction. If your party has no shot, you want that vote then redistributed to [Candidate Who Cares] so long as they're more in your direction on the political spectrum. But again, that's so fundamentally anti-American on account of how it abdicates one's civic duty to participate in representative government. It's your job to help get YOUR candidate elected (or ballot issue passed). If you can muster a majority for that candidate, great. If you can't, then you can't. But if you can't, then it doesn't mean your vote should automatically be retallied on someone else's total count.
That's fundamentally anti-American.
Again: the majority isn't >50%. It's the most number of people who agree.
But you can say that they shouldn’t get a choice at all now
They still get a choice. It’s cheese. They’re outnumbered. So what? That doesn’t mean their choice has been taken away.
If you do think that the choice of pizza type should best reflect the majority view, then that person’s second choice between pepperoni and sausage should matter. It also has the virtue of breaking the tie.
But it doesn’t matter. They don’t want pepperoni or sausage. They want >cheese. That’s their vote. Which, when asked to break the tie, they continue to cast for cheese. Since cheese is what they want.
You’re basically suggesting that since pepperoni or sausage won’t budge, that now cheese should be entitled (if not obligated) to a second vote and HAVE to cast it for something they don’t want.
That’s the wholly anti-American anti-Democracy aspect of it all.
If the votes are deadlocked in a tie, then EVERYONE should get a second vote where cheese is no longer an option. That’s what a runoff election is. And it gives EVERYONE the option to reconsider or re-evaluate what they want now that their choices have been narrowed down. Maybe even some pizza-lovers who didn’t weigh in the first time around will decide to cast their lot. Either way, it preserves the majority will rather than redefining it.
For national policies, what state you live in shouldn’t matter since moving from one state to another doesn’t change one’s stake in national policy
You’re also free to expat the nation if it starts whitewashing ALL the states with objectionable policy. For example, a Constitutional ban on (or right) to abortion (which would require majority approval of all the states and all its peoples) would probably have a lot of people leaving the country. So be it.
The problem is that Americans have been conditioned to having their cake and eating it too. (And they gave the federal government way too much power and importance, which will be a real pain in the butt to get back.) RCV isn’t the solution to that. It’s not the solution to anything, except overtly depriving the People of their Will of the People.
But if there isn’t, then finding a compromise that gets to over 50% will require considering the points of view of some subset of the >50% that didn’t want the choice with the greatest share.
Their point of view was already considered. Few else shared it. There’s no need nor obligation to “compromise” with them. They’re the odd-men out. If they don’t like it, they’re free to relocate to somewhere with more shared values.
If we’re voting on pizza, and 40 people say they want pepperoni, and 35 people say they want cheese, and 25 want something else or can’t decide what they want (they just don’t want pepperoni, but would settle for cheese) – then pepperoni wins. That’s what the majority of people want.
That is not what the word "majority" means. Majority is more than half. It always means that in the context of voting, elections, or representation. Plurality is the word for when the greatest share of the votes, seats in a legislature, or whatever is less than half.
You’re basically suggesting that since pepperoni or sausage won’t budge, that now cheese should be entitled (if not obligated) to a second vote and HAVE to cast it for something they don’t want.
This again shows how you aren't understanding the situation. RCV would allow people to "budge" in order to get a result that they prefer rather than having just one shot at getting what they want. Imagine that the voters are in a room and are able to discuss with each other, and have the ability to know how popular everyone's first choice is. Someone that wants Candidate F that has 8% support would be foolish to insist on sticking with that choice if switching to Candidate C, who they prefer over all of the other options besides F, would help make C the winner.
If the votes are deadlocked in a tie, then EVERYONE should get a second vote where cheese is no longer an option. That’s what a runoff election is.
That is not how runoffs work, because a runoff election happens when no candidate gets more than 50%. In Georgia 2020, for instance, one of the Senate races occurring ended up with the GOP candidate getting 2,462,617 votes (49.73%), the Democrat getting 2,374,519 votes (47.95%) and the Libertarian getting 115,039 votes (2.32%). Georgia requires the winner of a Senate race to get >50%, so there was a runoff. In the runoff, the Democrat got 2,269,923 votes compared to the 2,214,979 votes the Republican got.
Based on what you've been saying in this thread, you would rather that there hadn't been a runoff at all. The runoff was "anti-American" and "anti_Democracy" because you would have said that the Republican actually got a majority of votes the first time. You seem to complain about people voting strategically for the lesser of two evils candidate rather than picking their first choice, but you insist that doing anything about that decision it is wrong. With FPtP, anyone that prefers a minor party or independent candidate with no chance to win would literally have no effect on the outcome to vote for their preference. Only by picking one of the two with a chance to win will their vote matter.
I would think that people wouldn't ever make group decisions with a FPtP (aka plurality) method when another option is available. We only do it that way (in most of the U.S.) for exactly the obvious reason. It suits the two major parties and their loyal voters to do it that way because they are more likely to get what they want when they can't get an actual majority on their side.
That is not what the word “majority” means. Majority is more than half.
No, it doesn't. Majority means the highest total out of a group.
This is it. This is your disconnect.
I have three designs for a widget, A B and C. I can only build one widget. Which will maximize my profits?
4 people want widget A.
3 people want widget B.
2 people want widget C.
1 person wants a hamburger.
The majority is for widget A. Because the most people out of that group said they wanted A. What B, C, and D(on't care) want collectively is irrelevant. They could not overcome the majority. Their combined, fractured, incoherent "don't want" is irrelevant in the face of the unified and in one voice "does want."
Literally any argument to the contrary, Jason, is an argument against representative government and democracy.
RCV would allow people to “budge” in order to get a result that they prefer rather than having just one shot at getting what they want.
Exactly. You've nailed the most anti-American anti-Democracy anti-Representative Government aspect of it all to the letter.
We pick what we want and we go all-in on it. That IS representative democracy. What represents us. Not this, "fine, I guess I'll go with whatever who cares so long as maybe I get some scraps" RCV model.
That's what RCV voters are. Dogs, begging for scraps at the table.
With FPtP, anyone that prefers a minor party or independent candidate with no chance to win would literally have no effect on the outcome to vote for their preference.
Their preference is the minor party or independent candidate. Maybe they should make more of an effort to make them a real ballot contender.
If they want to have an effect on the outcome, they need to put in the work to make them a contender. If they can't be bothered to do so, or have convincing enough an argument to get other people to help them, that's their problem.
It suits the two major parties and their loyal voters to do it that way because they are more likely to get what they want when they can’t get an actual majority on their side.
Again, your entire platform falls apart with this simple fact: You do not know what the word 'majority' means.
Or, worse, you're intentionally denying its definition, in an effort to try to redefine it.
Or, worse, you’re intentionally denying its definition, in an effort to try to redefine it.
How about you ask people what majority means. Or spend 20 seconds looking it up.
Saved you the trouble:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/election-political-science/Plurality-and-majority-systems
I have three designs for a widget, A B and C. I can only build one widget.
4 people want widget A.
3 people want widget B.
2 people want widget C.
1 person wants a hamburger.
Tell me the majority. Which widget should be built to satisfy the majority of people.
There is no majority. Your requirement that the widget should be built to satisfy the majority cannot be met. A different method of deciding which widget to build will have to be used.
Plurality voting won't always elect what the majority wants since the largest share of the vote when there are more than 2 candidates can be less than half. Some people are fine with that. It doesn't change what the word majority means to hold elections that way, but you insist on changing the definition of a majority from what everyone else uses. Feel free to continue doing that, but I don't expect many people to agree with you.
There is no majority.
Yes there is. It's widget A. 40% of people will buy widget A. It's the one that will give the most people what they want.
Give the people what they ask for. Not try to hodgepodge something that they'll settle for but don't actually really want (and therefore won't actually really represent them).
Continue to insist that a triangle is the same thing as a square all you want. It won't make it so.
Put these numbers in order of majority, from majority to minority:
40, 25, 15, 10, 5, 3, 2.
I'm not sold on Ranked Choice. As demonstrated in Alaska; it just makes the whole process more confusing and opens doors for more corruption. When 21% lost their vote because they didn't "rank choice" and a 60% lead turned into a loss was that really voter-representation or voter-confusion?
But the real issue is an UN-LIMITED tyrannical and authoritarian Nazi government instead of a USA. Election skepticism always resides in such over-bearing nations because there is just too much at steak. Government shouldn't have so much influence over our lives that every election ends up being a cold civil-war. The POWER needs to get CUT by written dictation (US Constitution) / "the peoples" Supreme Law over politicians.
They didn't lose their vote, they just abstained between the remaining candidates. Which is perfectly legitimate. If you have no preference once certain candidates are knocked out, what's left to count? Only those who do care.
They didn’t abstain. Abstaining means they didn’t vote. When, incontrovertibly, you have a ballot in hand with a vote on it. You’re saying they abstained in order to press downward on the vote count you whimsically inflated so that you can say “They won the majority.”
Again, you’re conflating abstaining, protest votes, etc. in order to pretend that it’s 1 man, 1 vote, when it fundamentally cannot be. Why lie?
I’m not sold on Ranked Choice.
The more exposure I get to it, the more obvious of a lie or fraud it becomes.
A lot like income taxes actually. To the point that it's interesting that people, rightly, complain about the complexity of the tax code but then assert voting should be more complicated.
They'll even go so far as to insult people and try to shame them into a more complicated voting scheme when, again, if the same were switched to taxation or other, their idiocy would be self-evident.
A: We should just have a universal flat tax.
B: You only want that because you're a moron who can't figure out their taxes.
A: Uh... I didn't say I couldn't figure out my taxes. I said it should be more simple. That makes them more transparent; makes signals about fraud, waste, spending, and desirable and undesirable behavior more clear. None of us exist to file and pay taxes. A complicated and burdensome tax code only furthers that end.
B: But it's so simple! You just don't understand the rules.
A: Listen, I've been polite, you're starting to seem like a dishonest *and* rude shithead. I didn't say I don't understand the rules. The rules are not enforcement. Rather the opposite, rules made that aren't enforced are only going to be broken. So, either you're talking about a more complicated system where more people are going to have to sit down more often and sift through more convoluted situations where the rules were broken, or we go with a simple system where any fraud or rule violations would be as obvious as 2+2=5. Moreover, all of this is moot anyway if spending continues to rise and leaders already declare themselves as having a mandate if they win with 51% of the vote or even just have a pen and a phone.
lol... well said +1000000.
Why did everybody stop referring to IRV by that name and start using RCV? IRV is only one of at least 2 ways to resolve RCV and it vexes me when we lose language specificity like this.
Ranked choice is the voter interface. Instant runoff is the works as described here, although Borda method can be used as another method of resolution.
Why the freaking fuck would any polity institute first a top-4 election and then a second stage of IRV?! Somebody must see some advantage for hir faction. As long as you're doing runoffs of some kind, why not do the election in a single round? Like instead of selecting top 4 from one effectively nonpartisan balloting, just select 1 via IRV.
...or top 5, same goofiness.
I would support ranked choice if ballot access was the same for every single party with zero preferred access by any party.
This means that if there is a requirement that 25k signatures are required, that the Democrats and Republicans also have to collect 25k signatures.
The problem is that the Democrats and Republicans are part of the hidden uni-party that is designed to prevent a 3rd, 4th, or 5th party to establish. Instead we have two schizophrenic major parties that put forth horrible candidates and spread fear that you should vote against one of the horrible candidates by voting for the other horrible candidate.
Some people simply don't vote, which I personally believe is a bad decision. Instead these people who don't vote should vote, but not for either horrible candidate. Instead either write in someone or pick one of the minor party candidates which is effectively voting against both horrible candidates.
In my case, with ranked choice, I would not list either of the two horrible candidates in any of the choices.
“Ranked Choice Voting” is just a euphemism for Instant Runoff Voting. Like our current FPP system, IRV over-weights 1st-place votes, so (also like our current system), it induces tactical voting, suffers from bandwagon effect and leads to 2-party polarization (see Australia). Thus RCV is a sham.
For true voting reform, either go all the way to Condorcet (same ballot as RCV but difficult to explain the tabulation) or else at least switch to Approval Voting (AV), which is dirt simple yet vastly superior to RCV.
See https://electionscience.org/
Why is it a euphemism? You think that phrase is more attractive?
Why is it a euphemism?
Because there are other ranked choice methods, but no one uses them.
You think that phrase is more attractive?
Yes. RCV is more attractive than RCV-IRV or RCV-RRT or RCV-PWC, again, especially considering nobody uses the other two methods.
Of note: I don't oppose Condorcet or Approval voting. However, they too can/do violate the 'one man, one vote' policies, despite any given retarded courts' ruling that the policy doesn't specifically circumscribe plurality voting. Courts that are similarly free to declare there are more than two genders or any other thing they wish even if it violates factual and mathematical/scientific axioms.
However, they too can/do violate the ‘one man, one vote’ policies, despite any given retarded courts’ ruling that the policy doesn’t specifically circumscribe plurality voting.
This argument that RCV gives extra votes to some people is silly. What you mean is that it doesn't favor a candidate that can get a plurality short of a majority. For voters, first-past-the-post allows voters that aren't in the majority to 'win' by having their preferred candidate elected despite that candidate not having the support of a majority. Plurality winners means that candidates can take office and the power that comes with it when a majority of voters wanted someone else to fill that role. It is the people that voted for that candidate that are getting more voting power than they should have. RCV has its own share of imperfections, but giving some voters more than their share of political power is not one of them.
What we have seen in the U.S. over time is that a voting bloc that is 40-49% of the electorate can get their way by being unified. They don't need to expand their arguments to try and increase support to a larger share of the population. They can stick to their guns and eek out narrow victories in elections and then wield disproportionate power. That is what we should be trying to change. Political power should be wielded by those that can garner support from a solid and durable majority of the people.
No system takes account of how badly a voter wants a certain candidate or wants to avoid another; not even pairwise comparisons give you that, although the big macher of Market Facts (a survey firm) thought he devised a way of extracting cardinal data out of ordinal rankings.
He didn't say anything about "how badly" and, in bringing it up, you acknowledge that pairwise comparison gives you *something* that IRV doesn't. So, the question becomes, why do you bring up something nobody mentioned except to deflect from the fact that you're pimping a method you know (or should) to be less informative, complete, and even-handed?
Once again, RCV advocates cite problems with FPTP that RCV *does not fix* or doesn't even address and, in citing it's superiority, ignore the fact that for a couple hundred years, the flaws of both systems have been known, better systems have been devised, and that the move from FPTP to RCV is a lateral move at best.
Again EZPZ:
Plurality voting: A district has 1000 voters. 5 candidates. One candidate got 300 votes, 3 candidates got 100 votes, one candidate got zero votes. Who's the winner? How much of the electorate did they win? How much of the voting public did they win?
RCV voting: A disctrict has 1000 voters. 5 candidates. One candidate got 300 votes, 3 candidates got 100 votes, one candidate got zero votes. Who's the winner? (A: It depends on the order in which the votes were cast/ranked and tabulated.) How much of the electorate did they win? How much of the voting public did they win?
Again, this has all been known and understood and relatively obvious for over 100 yrs. why pretend otherwise except to deceive others or demonstrate your stupidity?
"The blanket primary takes away your right to nominate your own candidates,"
But that matters only in cases where the party's most favored candidate would be unelectable in the general election anyway. Don't think of the blanket primary as a primary, think of it as a nonpartisan election in which candidates are allowed to have their party affiliation listed on the ballot.
Ranked Choice Voting will help fix what ails us as it will reduce the strategic effectiveness of negative campaigning.
A candidate who slings mud at his chief opponent risks turning off that opponents' supporters, reducing the likelihood he's their second or third choice.
A candidate who slings mud at his chief opponent risks turning off that opponents’ supporters, reducing the likelihood he’s their second or third choice.
It might help with that. The problems with our electoral system run pretty deep and start with the attitudes of many voters, in my opinion, as I explain in detail above. RCV is one of many options we should consider to improve how our government responds to what people really want.
Ranked-choice voting may or may not be an improvement over the current district-based winner-takes-all representative election system, but by itself it will not do anything to eliminate the two-party system. If every state elected representatives to the state legislatures and to Congress at-large with ranked-choice voting the two-party system would disappear overnight. With that system a likely outcome would be fifteen percent Libertarian representatives, 35% Republican representatives and 45% Democrats and 5% "others." Whether you think that would be an improvement in the legislative function of our government or not, it's the only workable alternative to the self-destructive, dysfunctional system we have now.
Maybe the two-party system exist for exactly the same reason there isn't 10 football teams on the field at the Super bowl.
Maybe if you want your team to win you have to get them to win the preliminary games first.