Ranked Choice Voting

[blueash]

Alaska has voted to adopted ranked choice voting going forward for state and federal offices. It's an interesting idea. In Florida and most other states the person with the most votes is the winner. So in a three person race if A gets 40% and the other two, B and C get 35 and 25%, the winner is A the 40% vote getter.

In the real world we recognize that perhaps the 60% who split their votes between B and C may be politically aligned voters who if B or C had dropped out of the race then A had no chance of winning. This exact situation happened in NY in a US Senate contest.

In ranked choice voting the process works as follows. When you vote you rank your choice. Example: My first choice is C, second B and third A. I can vote that order or vote first choice only or first two choices only.

The candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and his votes are distributed to those voters' second choice if they listed one. So if C got the fewest votes, my vote now goes to candidate B. This process continues until one candidate gets 50% plus 1 of the votes.

The idea is elect people who have the greatest overall support. Sounds like a good idea. It also eliminates runoffs like they are having in Georgia where that state requires 50% for a winner but does not have ranked choice.

Alaska also adopted a top four primary system. All primaries for state and federal office will now be open to all voters. Candidates can run with a party label or no party label. The top four vote getters, not ranked choice, advance to the general election.

In a high school the election for class president had three candidates, the football team star, the head cheerleader, and a guy who was best known to the student body as someone who could get you weed on demand. Ranked choice voting will elect either the football or cheerleader. Regular voting just might get you the candy man.

The best argument for ranked choice is that it moderates the elected winners as you need to appeal not just to a fringe but to a broader range of voters.

This system does not favor either major party rather it seems to provide that the candidate with the most support actually wins.

[Joe V.]

Alaska has voted to adopted ranked choice voting going forward for state and federal offices. It's an interesting idea. In Florida and most other states the person with the most votes is the winner. So in a three person race if A gets 40% and the other two, B and C get 35 and 25%, the winner is A the 40% vote getter.

In the real world we recognize that perhaps the 60% who split their votes between B and C may be politically aligned voters who if B or C had dropped out of the race then A had no chance of winning. This exact situation happened in NY in a US Senate contest.

In ranked choice voting the process works as follows. When you vote you rank your choice. Example: My first choice is C, second B and third A. I can vote that order or vote first choice only or first two choices only.

The candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and his votes are distributed to those voters' second choice if they listed one. So if C got the fewest votes, my vote now goes to candidate B. This process continues until one candidate gets 50% plus 1 of the votes.

The idea is elect people who have the greatest overall support. Sounds like a good idea. It also eliminates runoffs like they are having in Georgia where that state requires 50% for a winner but does not have ranked choice.

Alaska also adopted a top four primary system. All primaries for state and federal office will now be open to all voters. Candidates can run with a party label or no party label. The top four vote getters, not ranked choice, advance to the general election.

In a high school the election for class president had three candidates, the football team star, the head cheerleader, and a guy who was best known to the student body as someone who could get you weed on demand. Ranked choice voting will elect either the football or cheerleader. Regular voting just might get you the candy man.

The best argument for ranked choice is that it moderates the elected winners as you need to appeal not just to a fringe but to a broader range of voters.

This system does not favor either major party rather it seems to provide that the candidate with the most support actually wins.

Wrong. Just one example: there’s strong evidence RCV risks distorting voters’ actual will. In Maine, Rep. Bruce Poliquin had apparently won re-election, but with under 50% of the vote. Maine’s ranked-choice system kicked in, eliminating an independent candidate, whose second choice votes were re-allocated.

The election-night results were reversed, and the congressman’s top challenger was awarded that seat.

[alwann]

Regular voting just might get you the candy man.

You think? That's how a new British ship almost came to be named Boaty MCBoatface.

[Bill14564]

Wrong. Just one example: there’s strong evidence RCV risks distorting voters’ actual will. In Maine, Rep. Bruce Poliquin had apparently won re-election, but with under 50% of the vote. Maine’s ranked-choice system kicked in, eliminating an independent candidate, whose second choice votes were re-allocated.

The election-night results were reversed, and the congressman’s top challenger was awarded that seat.

Can you expand on what you say is wrong? In your example it seems RCV worked as intended; there were more voters who did not want Poliquin to be reelected but their votes were split between two candidates. When RCV kicked in and removed one of the two opponents, the votes were no longer split and the majority selected the challenger.

In that case, how did RCV not operate exactly as intended and provide the result that the majority of the voters desired without the need for a runoff (like the mess that's about to happen in GA)?

[blueash]

Wrong. Just one example: there’s strong evidence RCV risks distorting voters’ actual will. In Maine, Rep. Bruce Poliquin had apparently won re-election, but with under 50% of the vote. Maine’s ranked-choice system kicked in, eliminating an independent candidate, whose second choice votes were re-allocated.

The election-night results were reversed, and the congressman’s top challenger was awarded that seat.

That is an excellent example which you seem to believe was a theft of office. The original vote totals:
Bruce Poliquin 46.33% 134,184
Jared Golden 45.58% 132,013
Tiffany Bond 5.71% 16,552
Will Hoar 2.37% 6,875

Final result after re-allocation of Hoar then Bond votes:

Jared Golden 50.6 142,440
Bruce Poliquin 49.4 138,931

This means that Golden was the second choice of over 10,000 of the voters while Poliquin was second choice of about 4000. Had only those two been on the ballot, Golden was the preferred choice and he ended up winning. Seems like a good system to me. Obviously some voters did not list a second [or third] choice.

[Bjeanj]

Isn’t that one of the amendments we just voted on?

[blueash]

Regular voting just might get you the candy man.

You think? That's how a new British ship almost came to be named Boaty MCBoatface.

Boaty McBoatface - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boaty_McBoatface)

While the lead ship whose name was the subject of the online poll was instead named RRS Sir David Attenborough, they did use the name for one of the submirsibles on the mother ship.

[blueash]

Isn’t that one of the amendments we just voted on?

What the defeated amendment did was propose a top two open primary system, not ranked voting. If it had passed then the primary for Florida offices, not federal offices, would have been open to all voters and candidates with top two going on to the general election.
Example if 10 people qualified to run for governor then all 10 names would be on the primary ballot with top two going on. The problem with not using ranked voting in this open primary system is that you may not get the most preferred options. Say you have a far right wing candidate, hated by more mainstream GOP but adored by the Proud Boys and neo fascists with support of 15% of the electorate and hated by the other 85%. And you have a member of antifa on the far left, hated by more mainstream Dems but adored by 15% of the electorate. And the other 8 candidates split the 70% of the remaining voters each getting about 9% of the primary vote.
The two candidates in the general election are now the most extreme. If you had rank choice voting in the primary then neither of the extremists would make the final ballot.

This is why Alaska went to a top four from the primary to lessen the chance of fringe candidates getting through. I'd support a top four with ranked voting primary followed by a ranked voting general election.

[Joe V.]

That is an excellent example which you seem to believe was a theft of office. The original vote totals:
Bruce Poliquin 46.33% 134,184
Jared Golden 45.58% 132,013
Tiffany Bond 5.71% 16,552
Will Hoar 2.37% 6,875

Final result after re-allocation of Hoar then Bond votes:

Jared Golden 50.6 142,440
Bruce Poliquin 49.4 138,931

This means that Golden was the second choice of over 10,000 of the voters while Poliquin was second choice of about 4000. Had only those two been on the ballot, Golden was the preferred choice and he ended up winning. Seems like a good system to me. Obviously some voters did not list a second [or third] choice.

Your use of second bites at the apple is not founded on principles of a Constitutional Republic. Just another tactic to bring in mob rule.

[blueash]

Your use of second bites at the apple is not founded on principles of a Constitutional Republic. Just another tactic to bring in mob rule.

So you contend that dropping a low vote candidates and making the final decision be between more favored candidates by re-distributing their support is mob rule and contrary to the Constitution? Do I understand your argument correctly?

[Bogie Shooter]

Some voters today, have trouble finding the polling place, knowing how to register and trouble filling out the ballot.
Now you want them to learn how this new system works......good luck with that.

[Hape2Bhr]

Believe it or not, this system was resoundly defeated (fortunately) in Massachusetts. I would not put it past any party from entering numerous candidates merely to prevent someone from receiving 50% +1.
Let the top vote getter be the winner...easy.

[Joe V.]

So you contend that dropping a low vote candidates and making the final decision be between more favored candidates by re-distributing their support is mob rule and contrary to the Constitution? Do I understand your argument correctly?


Their support was on the losing side of the four person race. Period. It really is a simple concept.

[blueash]

Believe it or not, this system was resoundly defeated (fortunately) in Massachusetts. I would not put it past any party from entering numerous candidates merely to prevent someone from receiving 50% +1.
Let the top vote getter be the winner...easy.

You're not understanding how it works. If one party wants to run numerous candidates it does not prevent a winner.

Say 6 GOP run in Sumter Co for commissioner equally dividing the GOP vote and 1 Dem. Under our present system if the Dem gets 30% of the vote he wins even though the GOP candidates got 70%. Rank choice voting means one of the GOP candidates will win.

In the 2020 Georgia senate races, Perdue got 49.7% of the votes and a Libertarian got 2.3% with the Democrat getting 48.0 %. Under rank voting the Libertarian is eliminated and the second option of his voters is used. Likely 80% Republican meaning the election is over and Perdue wins.

In the other Georgia race there were 21 candidates who received 0.3% of the vote or more. But the leading two Democrats received 40% of the votes while the top two Republicans received 46% of the votes. If you total all the votes by party there were more cast for GOP than DEM. But the leading vote getter in the election by a 33% to 26% margin was a Democrat. Under the system in almost every other state he would be Senator elect. Under ranked choice voting it is more likely one of the Republicans would win.

In this year's Presidential election in the swing states that remain close, rank choice voting possibly makes Trump the winner
In Georgia Trump has 49.2 % and the Libertarian has 1.2 %
In Arizona Trump has 49.1% and the Libertarian has 1.5%
Wisconsin also would be in play with ranked choice.
That's 37 electoral votes.

[tvbound]

Interesting concept. It could be really interesting, if my second choice is the most moderate candidate of a different party than my first choice. I could possibly be persuaded by it as long as it is done as well as this election, which was more secure than any U.S. election ever before. Our biggest concern for future elections however, should be toward those who seem to want to lower the bar to that of the Ufraudastans around the world.

[blueash]

Their support was on the losing side of the four person race. Period. It really is a simple concept.

You said it was mob rule and contrary to a constitutional republic. I understand the concept of plurality deciding an election. I propose a better option than plurality rule and it is majority rule which you derided as mob rule and anti-democratic [small d].

As you didn't respond to my request for why it is mob rule and contrary in some way to the Constitution, I'll point out that in fact the US Constitution has a form of rank choice voting in its method of selecting the President. If no person gets a majority of the electoral votes only the top three vote getters are then submitted to the House. The lower persons are dropped and the House then votes for the remaining candidates. The person who initially got the most electoral votes is absolutely not automatically the POTUS.

In 1824 there were four men who had electoral votes. Andrew Jackson had the most electoral votes and the most citizen votes. In the house the fourth place finisher was eliminated and all his support went to the second place finisher which made John Q Adams the President. This is an example of ranked choice. Entirely Constitutional and supported by our Founding Fathers.

[Aloha1]

Count me as an emphatic NO. Ranked Choice along with eliminating the Electoral College are both nicely packaged subterfuges by the "progressives" to make sure their candidates get elected. The will of the voter is thwarted under both schemes. One person, one vote, for one candidate, PERIOD.

[blueash]

Count me as an emphatic NO. Ranked Choice along with eliminating the Electoral College are both nicely packaged subterfuges by the "progressives" to make sure their candidates get elected. The will of the voter is thwarted under both schemes. One person, one vote, for one candidate, PERIOD.

Please explain to me how ranked choice favors the Democrats? I have multiple posts in this thread showing how with real examples it favors the GOP in Sumter Co and in Georgia. Eliminating the Electoral College is a different issue and yes it would mean that we would have majority rule in electing the POTUS, Some people support majority rule, some don't.

[tophcfa]

My proposal would be that every person should get one vote for every dollar of taxes they pay. Those paying for things should be the ones that get a say in how the money is spent.

[skyking]

I favor keeping 'the one with the most votes wins". Let's not encourage 10 (or more) candidate elections.

[Joe V.]

You said it was mob rule and contrary to a constitutional republic. I understand the concept of plurality deciding an election. I propose a better option than plurality rule and it is majority rule which you derided as mob rule and anti-democratic [small d].

As you didn't respond to my request for why it is mob rule and contrary in some way to the Constitution, I'll point out that in fact the US Constitution has a form of rank choice voting in its method of selecting the President. If no person gets a majority of the electoral votes only the top three vote getters are then submitted to the House. The lower persons are dropped and the House then votes for the remaining candidates. The person who initially got the most electoral votes is absolutely not automatically the POTUS.

In 1824 there were four men who had electoral votes. Andrew Jackson had the most electoral votes and the most citizen votes. In the house the fourth place finisher was eliminated and all his support went to the second place finisher which made John Q Adams the President. This is an example of ranked choice. Entirely Constitutional and supported by our Founding Fathers.

Your system, well, sucks.

[blueash]

My proposal would be that every person should get one vote for every dollar of taxes they pay. Those paying for things should be the ones that get a say in how the money is spent.

So you would support everyone having to report how much tax they paid so the election office would know how many votes they get? The US Constitution's 24th Amendment disagrees with you. But the remnants of the Confederacy and the segregationists agreed with your general belief. Did you run your family that only the breadwinner had any say in the home? Wife doesn't earn money, she gets no vote. Right?

[blueash]

Your system, well, sucks.

And there is an excellent example of being immune to reasoned thought or supporting their argument. I thank you for your contribution to this thread, nonetheless.

[Joe V.]

And there is an excellent example of being immune to reasoned thought or supporting their argument. I thank you for your contribution to this thread, nonetheless.


Better things to do then write 5 paragraph responses when a few words suffice.

[tophcfa]

So you would support everyone having to report how much tax they paid so the election office would know how many votes they get? The US Constitution's 24th Amendment disagrees with you. But the remnants of the Confederacy and the segregationists agreed with your general belief. Did you run your family that only the breadwinner had any say in the home? Wife doesn't earn money, she gets no vote. Right?

News flash! Everyone already reports how much tax they paid, it’s called a tax return, and they are required annually. It’s already in a government run database.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

If I'm understanding it right, then I don't like the idea at all.

I don't want my 1st or 2nd choice votes to go FOR anyone OTHER than my 1st or 2nd choice votes. And if I don't select a third choice, it's because I don't want anyone else to win. If I voted libertarian, it would've been because I did NOT want either Dem or GOP to win. I wanted Libertarian to win. If Libertarian isn't going to win, then I don't want MY vote being stuck in favor of anyone else.

Or am I not understanding this right?

[Topspinmo]

So you contend that dropping a low vote candidates and making the final decision be between more favored candidates by re-distributing their support is mob rule and contrary to the Constitution? Do I understand your argument correctly?

Those votes should not count cause they voted for someone else. Geez, another way to steal elections.

[Topspinmo]

So you would support everyone having to report how much tax they paid so the election office would know how many votes they get? The US Constitution's 24th Amendment disagrees with you. But the remnants of the Confederacy and the segregationists agreed with your general belief. Did you run your family that only the breadwinner had any say in the home? Wife doesn't earn money, she gets no vote. Right?


I would like it career politicians would paid there taxes on time or the can’t hold public office. Lead by example, not hide behind congress.

[Joe C.]

Why complicate things?

[ithos]

What the defeated amendment did was propose a top two open primary system, not ranked voting. If it had passed then the primary for Florida offices, not federal offices, would have been open to all voters and candidates with top two going on to the general election.
Example if 10 people qualified to run for governor then all 10 names would be on the primary ballot with top two going on. The problem with not using ranked voting in this open primary system is that you may not get the most preferred options. Say you have a far right wing candidate, hated by more mainstream GOP but adored by the Proud Boys and neo fascists with support of 15% of the electorate and hated by the other 85%. And you have a member of antifa on the far left, hated by more mainstream Dems but adored by 15% of the electorate. And the other 8 candidates split the 70% of the remaining voters each getting about 9% of the primary vote.
The two candidates in the general election are now the most extreme. If you had rank choice voting in the primary then neither of the extremists would make the final ballot.

This is why Alaska went to a top four from the primary to lessen the chance of fringe candidates getting through. I'd support a top four with ranked voting primary followed by a ranked voting general election.

Can you make your arguments without violating the rules of this forum?

"right wing candidate, hated by more mainstream GOP but adored by the Proud Boys and neo fascists"

If this message is acceptable to the moderator then I will provide a response to refute your vitriolic assumptions.

[banjobob]

Alaska has voted to adopted ranked choice voting going forward for state and federal offices. It's an interesting idea. In Florida and most other states the person with the most votes is the winner. So in a three person race if A gets 40% and the other two, B and C get 35 and 25%, the winner is A the 40% vote getter.

In the real world we recognize that perhaps the 60% who split their votes between B and C may be politically aligned voters who if B or C had dropped out of the race then A had no chance of winning. This exact situation happened in NY in a US Senate contest.

In ranked choice voting the process works as follows. When you vote you rank your choice. Example: My first choice is C, second B and third A. I can vote that order or vote first choice only or first two choices only.

The candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and his votes are distributed to those voters' second choice if they listed one. So if C got the fewest votes, my vote now goes to candidate B. This process continues until one candidate gets 50% plus 1 of the votes.

The idea is elect people who have the greatest overall support. Sounds like a good idea. It also eliminates runoffs like they are having in Georgia where that state requires 50% for a winner but does not have ranked choice.

Alaska also adopted a top four primary system. All primaries for state and federal office will now be open to all voters. Candidates can run with a party label or no party label. The top four vote getters, not ranked choice, advance to the general election.

In a high school the election for class president had three candidates, the football team star, the head cheerleader, and a guy who was best known to the student body as someone who could get you weed on demand. Ranked choice voting will elect either the football or cheerleader. Regular voting just might get you the candy man.

The best argument for ranked choice is that it moderates the elected winners as you need to appeal not just to a fringe but to a broader range of voters.

This system does not favor either major party rather it seems to provide that the candidate with the most support actually wins.

Sounds as though chaos would become a nightmare nationwide if implemented.

[Windguy]

I like the idea because it doesn’t force me to vote for the lesser of evils. I could use my primary vote for the person who aligns with my principles the best and use my second place vote for the lesser of evils.

With ranked choice, would Bush #1 have won the 1992 election over Clinton instead of Ross Perot splitting the Republic ticket? Would Gore have won in 2000 if Ralph Nader had been eliminated by ranked choice. Ranked choice is not a partisan issue.

[noslices1]

Interesting concept. It could be really interesting, if my second choice is the most moderate candidate of a different party than my first choice. I could possibly be persuaded by it as long as it is done as well as this election, which was more secure than any U.S. election ever before. Our biggest concern for future elections however, should be toward those who seem to want to lower the bar to that of the Ufraudastans around the world.

Have you been watching the news at all? There have been thousands of votes that were found to be changed or not even counted.

[Adagio43]

Your use of second bites at the apple is not founded on principles of a Constitutional Republic. Just another tactic to bring in mob rule.
I don’t understand how winning the majority of the vote can be considered, “mob rule.”

[Two Bills]

Can you make your arguments without violating the rules of this forum?

"right wing candidate, hated by more mainstream GOP but adored by the Proud Boys and neo fascists"

If this message is acceptable to the moderator then I will provide a response to refute your vitriolic assumptions.

He also wrote....

"And you have a member of antifa on the far left, hated by more mainstream Dems but adored by 15% of the electorate."

That to me seems a pretty balanced statement overall, unless of course the part you left out in your response did not fit your agenda?

[Adagio43]

Count me as an emphatic NO. Ranked Choice along with eliminating the Electoral College are both nicely packaged subterfuges by the "progressives" to make sure their candidates get elected. The will of the voter is thwarted under both schemes. One person, one vote, for one candidate, PERIOD.
Did you just equate one, person one vote with the electoral college?

[maggie1]

In this year's Presidential election in the swing states that remain close, rank choice voting possibly makes Trump the winner
In Georgia Trump has 49.2 % and the Libertarian has 1.2 %
In Arizona Trump has 49.1% and the Libertarian has 1.5%
Wisconsin also would be in play with ranked choice.
That's 37 electoral votes.[/QUOTE]

You had me until your equations "makes Trump the winner"

[maggie1]

My proposal would be that every person should get one vote for every dollar of taxes they pay. Those paying for things should be the ones that get a say in how the money is spent.

Makes great sense to me! That would exclude all the high-income people who are currently finding ways to pay "zero" income tax.

[jbrown132]

Alaska has voted to adopted ranked choice voting going forward for state and federal offices. It's an interesting idea. In Florida and most other states the person with the most votes is the winner. So in a three person race if A gets 40% and the other two, B and C get 35 and 25%, the winner is A the 40% vote getter.

In the real world we recognize that perhaps the 60% who split their votes between B and C may be politically aligned voters who if B or C had dropped out of the race then A had no chance of winning. This exact situation happened in NY in a US Senate contest.

In ranked choice voting the process works as follows. When you vote you rank your choice. Example: My first choice is C, second B and third A. I can vote that order or vote first choice only or first two choices only.

The candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and his votes are distributed to those voters' second choice if they listed one. So if C got the fewest votes, my vote now goes to candidate B. This process continues until one candidate gets 50% plus 1 of the votes.

The idea is elect people who have the greatest overall support. Sounds like a good idea. It also eliminates runoffs like they are having in Georgia where that state requires 50% for a winner but does not have ranked choice.

Alaska also adopted a top four primary system. All primaries for state and federal office will now be open to all voters. Candidates can run with a party label or no party label. The top four vote getters, not ranked choice, advance to the general election.

In a high school the election for class president had three candidates, the football team star, the head cheerleader, and a guy who was best known to the student body as someone who could get you weed on demand. Ranked choice voting will elect either the football or cheerleader. Regular voting just might get you the candy man.

The best argument for ranked choice is that it moderates the elected winners as you need to appeal not just to a fringe but to a broader range of voters.

This system does not favor either major party rather it seems to provide that the candidate with the most support actually wins.
Thai reminds me every few years when the try new math in schools only a year or two later to find out it was a total disaster. What ever happened to the tried and true method of voting by either absentee ballot or at the polls. You show an ID you get a ballot, you vote. Has worked pretty well go a long time. I don’t like the idea of rank choice voting because it gets away from the principal of one person one vote. Under this system you could actually get two votes if you’re candidate is eliminated. I do not think that is a fair and equitable way for voting.

[Dilligas]

Wrong. Just one example: there’s strong evidence RCV risks distorting voters’ actual will. In Maine, Rep. Bruce Poliquin had apparently won re-election, but with under 50% of the vote. Maine’s ranked-choice system kicked in, eliminating an independent candidate, whose second choice votes were re-allocated.

The election-night results were reversed, and the congressman’s top challenger was awarded that seat.
It seems like it worked perfectly. The 49%er was not the “entire” people’s’ choice when one was removed from the race.

[WindyCityzen]

Reversed by what body? Why?

[babcab22]

Can you expand on what you say is wrong? In your example it seems RCV worked as intended; there were more voters who did not want Poliquin to be reelected but their votes were split between two candidates. When RCV kicked in and removed one of the two opponents, the votes were no longer split and the majority selected the challenger.

In that case, how did RCV not operate exactly as intended and provide the result that the majority of the voters desired without the need for a runoff (like the mess that's about to happen in GA)?

Ranked choice does not require one to vote for a second or third candidate, does it?
So, if so, one could simply not vote for an alternative candidate, if the alternative was
not acceptable to the voter.

[J1ceasar]

this is why Florida primaries are so screwy .. If your a dem, you can vote in the republican primaries and vote in the least favorite candidate and vice a versa...

This is bad enough, with a rank system .. I much prefer a runoff election.

[stargirl]

Interesting concept, but I don’t think it would work in the US, it seems we are unable to tally up even single votes!

[Topspinmo]

Interesting concept, but I don’t think it would work in the US, it seems we are unable to tally up even single votes!


They could it there was Federal standard and states don’t get to make it their own rules.

[meridian5850]

Those who push ranked-choice voting (RCV) make over-the-top claims for it, as we have seen in Massachusetts recently. The ads claim RCV will lead to consensus candidates and remove the impact of spoiler candidates. Not so fast. Stop and ask yourself: Why is RCV being pushed by a group that advocates changes to election laws to help elect liberal candidates? Clearly, they see an advantage beyond the first-mover advantage.

RCV is really a get-out-the-vote strategy. The New York Times reported that a progressive candidate ran in this year’s Maine Senate race to help throw the race into an RCV decision: “Lisa Savage, a progressive running as an independent in the race, has urged her supporters to list [Sara] Gideon second. . . . Savage emphasized that she was not looking to undercut Gideon in her bid to unseat [Sen. Susan] Collins, but instead to help attract otherwise reluctant, young and first-time voters who were discomfited by the bitter campaign and wary that Ms. Gideon was not liberal enough.”

Before we change to this system, shouldn’t we ask if we want a dozen (or more) fringe candidates on the ballot who run not to win or to advance a cause but rather to manipulate an election system whose outcome few can understand and fewer can explain? Look at the official election results for the San Francisco mayor’s race in 2011 which had 16 candidates and went 12 rounds. Transparency isn’t a feature of RCV, and it will lead to more polarization, not consensus, as the parties figure out how to win RCV elections.

[blueash]

In this year's Presidential election in the swing states that remain close, rank choice voting possibly makes Trump the winner
In Georgia Trump has 49.2 % and the Libertarian has 1.2 %
In Arizona Trump has 49.1% and the Libertarian has 1.5%
Wisconsin also would be in play with ranked choice.
That's 37 electoral votes.

You had me until your equations "makes Trump the winner"[/QUOTE]

Well, in 2000 if you did the same sort of calculation then Gore wins Florida as the third party candidates in that election in Florida took more votes from the Democrats than the GOP. As I wrote initially, it does not favor either party.

[meridian5850]

From the Wall Street Journal
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 2, 2020


Electoral reforms often don’t have the results proponents foresee—witness campaign-finance rules that empower wealthy candidates, or “independent” redistricting bodies that also gerrymander. So it is with ranked-choice voting (RCV), an idea that has taken hold in two dozen mostly liberal cities. On Nov. 3, RCV will face its biggest electoral test to date as voters in Alaska and Massachusetts decide whether to adopt it statewide.

As the name implies, ranked-choice voting means voters rank candidates in order of preference. Less intuitive is how this produces a single winner. It works like this: The counting proceeds in a number of “rounds.” In the first round, the candidate who has the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. For voters who ranked that candidate first, their second choice becomes their first choice. A second round of counting follows, and the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated again. The process is over when one candidate has a majority of first-place votes.

Got it? It’s confusing. But proponents claim a host of benefits. First, they appeal to moderates by arguing RCV races would be less divisive as the winning candidate would need to have broader appeal.

They also appeal to more ideological voters—especially on the left—by arguing that they can express their views with more precision in a ranked-choice system. If states used ranked-choice voting in presidential elections, for example, left-wing alternatives like Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016 would be less threatening to Democrats. Their votes would presumably have gone to Al Gore and Hillary Clinton in the second round.

No one knows for sure the long-term impact of RCV on federal or state general elections. Maine was the first state to use it at that level in 2018. Democratic challenger Jared Golden trailed the Republican incumbent in Maine’s 2nd Congressional District by 2,000 votes in the initial tally, but won by about 3,000 votes when third and fourth choice candidates were included.

We don’t need empirical evidence to know RCV would make elections more difficult to navigate when trust in democratic institutions is already low. Columbia computer scientist Stephen Unger has highlighted some of the “bizarre outcomes” the iterated counting system delivers. For example, in a three-candidate race, it’s possible that it if all supporters of candidate A listed him first, he would lose in the second round—but if some of them strategically listed him third, he would win, because a different candidate would be knocked out in the first round.

Whether such cases would occur often in practice is less relevant than the effect the complex system would have on voter confidence. For a 2017 paper in the journal Politics and Policy, political scientist Lindsay Nielson had volunteers do mock traditional and ranked-choice elections and surveyed them about the experience. She found “weak support for the supposition that RCV rules could increase support for election winners.” She also found respondents were significantly less likely to say RCV was “fair” than plurality voting.

As for the idea that RCV will moderate politics, San Francisco State University political scientist Jason McDaniel followed mayoral voting patterns in cities that adopted RCV and those that didn’t. RCV led to “greater racial divisions at the ballot box between white and Asian voters, and quite possibly also between white and Black voters,” he wrote in a 2018 paper for the California Journal of Politics and Policy. Faced with a more confusing set of options, voters may be “more likely to rely on candidate traits.”

In a 2019 paper, Mr. McDaniel also found RCV leads to a “significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3-5 percentage points in RCV cities.” College-educated progressives may appreciate the chance to list more choices. But for voters who favor one candidate but don’t spend as much time gaming out political possibilities, it is a burden they would rather avoid.

There is research pointing in both directions on RCV, and there may be circumstances where it makes sense—such as within parties in crowded primaries.

But rather than make U.S. politics kinder and gentler, we worry the effect of wider adoption would be to tear at existing divides. Major parties could be weakened to the benefit of more extreme candidates. Pressure groups and the most sophisticated slices of the electorate could increase their dominance. And political legitimacy would suffer at a time we can’t afford it.

[blueash]

Ranked choice does not require one to vote for a second or third candidate, does it?
So, if so, one could simply not vote for an alternative candidate, if the alternative was
not acceptable to the voter.

You are exactly correct. If you strongly feel that only one person fits your thinking then you just vote for that one person and don't list any other candidate.

Here's a trivial example. Mrs Blueash asks what vegetable do I want for dinner tomorrow as she is heading out the door to shop. There are many choices. I can say first choice green beans, second choice sweet potato, third choice pea pods. That way I'll get something I like even if it's not my favorite it will be acceptable. Had I only said green beans and the store didn't have green beans then she might buy broccoli which I dislike. So ranked choice makes the final result better for me than if I only got to mention one vegetable which might not have been available.

But if I felt strongly that I wanted green beans and all the other veggie choices were equally ok then I'd just mention green beans and leave what to select up to her if that weren't an option.

[Domenick]

Some people have a hard time making an informed decision on two candidates. I can’t believe that people would take the time to learn the actual views on multipliable candidates. I would prefer to just compare the top two candidates in a runoff election.

[leeannske]

That is not true in Florida. When registering to vote, you have to select a party or register as an independent. Democrats can only vote in the Democratic primary, Republicans in the Republican primary, and Independents can't vote in either primary.

[blueash]

Some people have a hard time making an informed decision on two candidates. I can’t believe that people would take the time to learn the actual views on multipliable candidates. I would prefer to just compare the top two candidates in a runoff election.

I don't know where you live but almost no places in the US have runoff elections. Georgia does which is why you are hearing about it.

Some have gone to open primaries where all candidates of all parties [or no party] appear on a primary ballot in the spring or summer. Then the top two vote getters in the primary are the only choices in November.

If Georgia were like almost all the other states in not having run off elections then the two Senator-elects would be Perdue who got 49% and Warnock who got 33%. Yes, 33% was the plurality winner in the second Senate race.

[mydavid]

You're not understanding how it works. If one party wants to run numerous candidates it does not prevent a winner.

Say 6 GOP run in Sumter Co for commissioner equally dividing the GOP vote and 1 Dem. Under our present system if the Dem gets 30% of the vote he wins even though the GOP candidates got 70%. Rank choice voting means one of the GOP candidates will win.

In the 2020 Georgia senate races, Perdue got 49.7% of the votes and a Libertarian got 2.3% with the Democrat getting 48.0 %. Under rank voting the Libertarian is eliminated and the second option of his voters is used. Likely 80% Republican meaning the election is over and Perdue wins.

In the other Georgia race there were 21 candidates who received 0.3% of the vote or more. But the leading two Democrats received 40% of the votes while the top two Republicans received 46% of the votes. If you total all the votes by party there were more cast for GOP than DEM. But the leading vote getter in the election by a 33% to 26% margin was a Democrat. Under the system in almost every other state he would be Senator elect. Under ranked choice voting it is more likely one of the Republicans would win.

In this year's Presidential election in the swing states that remain close, rank choice voting possibly makes Trump the winner
In Georgia Trump has 49.2 % and the Libertarian has 1.2 %
In Arizona Trump has 49.1% and the Libertarian has 1.5%
Wisconsin also would be in play with ranked choice.
That's 37 electoral votes. This is reason enough not to have ranked voting.:boom:

[blueash]

From the Wall Street Journal
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 2, 2020


...

As for the idea that RCV will moderate politics, San Francisco State University political scientist Jason McDaniel followed mayoral voting patterns in cities that adopted RCV and those that didn’t. RCV led to “greater racial divisions at the ballot box between white and Asian voters, and quite possibly also between white and Black voters,” he wrote in a 2018 paper for the California Journal of Politics and Policy. Faced with a more confusing set of options, voters may be “more likely to rely on candidate traits.”

In a 2019 paper, Mr. McDaniel also found RCV leads to a “significant decrease in voter turnout of approximately 3-5 percentage points in RCV cities.” College-educated progressives may appreciate the chance to list more choices. But for voters who favor one candidate but don’t spend as much time gaming out political possibilities, it is a burden they would rather avoid.

...

The article mentioned in WSJ is available online (https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2gm5854x). It is NOT an analysis of whether ranked choice moderates political extremes, rather it is focused entirely on a different question. McDaniel writes that in the two cities he studied, Oakland and San Fran, the mayoral elections tend to be racially polarized.. whites vote for the white, Asians for the Asian etc. He wanted to know if ranked choice changed that dynamic and that dynamic only. It did not. Here is the actual conclusion to his work

..assessing whether a relatively new electoral reform adopted in several California cities, Ranked-Choice Voting, could lead to a reduction in racially polarized voting. The results presented here suggest that the hopes of reformers for the potential of RCV to reduce polarized voting are misplaced. Racially polarized voting did not decrease due to the implementation of RCV. Racial competition at the ballot box persists, and voters continue to use their vote choices to express their racial group identity interests.



This is the same Jason McDaniel who authored this article

Economic Anxiety Didn’t Make People Vote Trump, Racism Did (https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/economic-anxiety-didnt-make-people-vote-trump-racism-did/)

How do you feel now about his political analysis of voting behaviors?

[blueash]

This is reason enough not to have ranked voting.:boom:

ranked choice might have favored the GOP in 2020, but it would have favored the Dem in 2000 where Gore would have defeated Bush and possibly in 2016 where Hillary might have defeated Trump. As I have written before. RCV does not benefit either party, it benefits the will of the people to have a more supported candidate beat a less supported candidate.

[petiteone]

Your use of second bites at the apple is not founded on principles of a Constitutional Republic. Just another tactic to bring in mob rule.

Or instead, the lesser voted candidates should be able to give their votes to which ever candidate they choose.

[brick010207]

I want to commend all the commenters. This was a well done discourse and ALMOST no snarky comments. This is a great example of disagreeing without being disagreeable and made reading all four pages worth the time. Can't say the same for most of what I see on TOTV.

[Joe V.]

Or instead, the lesser voted candidates should be able to give their votes to which ever candidate they choose.


Nonsense. So one party has 4 people run. The other party has 1 candidate and that 1 candidate gets 44% of the vote who was the opposing party candidate. The other 4 then choose who they want to win over a clear winner. One party rule. Move to a parliamentarian government country if you want.

[sooziesoul]

This is true! I just left Maine a few years ago and my friends who live there really hate rank choice voting!!!

[72lions]

That is an excellent example which you seem to believe was a theft of office. The original vote totals:
Bruce Poliquin 46.33% 134,184
Jared Golden 45.58% 132,013
Tiffany Bond 5.71% 16,552
Will Hoar 2.37% 6,875

Final result after re-allocation of Hoar then Bond votes:

Jared Golden 50.6 142,440
Bruce Poliquin 49.4 138,931

This means that Golden was the second choice of over 10,000 of the voters while Poliquin was second choice of about 4000. Had only those two been on the ballot, Golden was the preferred choice and he ended up winning. Seems like a good system to me. Obviously some voters did not list a second [or third] choice.

So what if he was the second choice. Let’s elect the first choice. Why should two candidates receiving 8% control an election. What is the problem with a run off?

Florida, by the way, does not have run offs in the primaries, which I believe is a mistake. DeSantis beat a weak candidate who received less than 50% of the primary vote. There is some evidence that Former Senator and Governor Bob Graham’s daughter would have won the run off and likely beaten DeSantis.

[seoulbrooks]

States can not get a simple count correct and you think this will work? Need a system that makes sure citizens are voting only, and they vote once. When that gets figured out maybe we can look at something else.

[blueash]

Nonsense. So one party has 4 people run. The other party has 1 candidate and that 1 candidate gets 44% of the vote who was the opposing party candidate. The other 4 then choose who they want to win over a clear winner. One party rule. Move to a parliamentarian government country if you want.

To use your example. If the only Democrat running gets 44% of the vote but the Republicans split the other 56%, you believe the best outcome is that the Democrat wins even though the majority wanted Republican rule? I believe that if 56% of voters want a Republican to win, then one of those 4 Republicans should win unless the Democrat was the second choice. An example using your 4 to 1 would be, 1 moderate Democrat is running and 1 moderate Republican, and 3 Proud Boys. It may well be that enough of those GOP moderates would like the Dem moderate as second choice pushing him over 50%. So it's not entirely about party, it is also about governance.

[Joe V.]

To use your example. If the only Democrat running gets 44% of the vote but the Republicans split the other 56%, you believe the best outcome is that the Democrat wins even though the majority wanted Republican rule? I believe that if 56% of voters want a Republican to win, then one of those 4 Republicans should win unless the Democrat was the second choice. An example using your 4 to 1 would be, 1 moderate Democrat is running and 1 moderate Republican, and 3 Proud Boys. It may well be that enough of those GOP moderates would like the Dem moderate as second choice pushing him over 50%. So it's not entirely about party, it is also about governance.

Forget it. Done playing your games. Semantics is all you have. Play your cheap political games with others.

[kenoc7]

Alaska has voted to adopted ranked choice voting going forward for state and federal offices. It's an interesting idea. In Florida and most other states the person with the most votes is the winner. So in a three person race if A gets 40% and the other two, B and C get 35 and 25%, the winner is A the 40% vote getter.

In the real world we recognize that perhaps the 60% who split their votes between B and C may be politically aligned voters who if B or C had dropped out of the race then A had no chance of winning. This exact situation happened in NY in a US Senate contest.

In ranked choice voting the process works as follows. When you vote you rank your choice. Example: My first choice is C, second B and third A. I can vote that order or vote first choice only or first two choices only.

The candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated and his votes are distributed to those voters' second choice if they listed one. So if C got the fewest votes, my vote now goes to candidate B. This process continues until one candidate gets 50% plus 1 of the votes.

The idea is elect people who have the greatest overall support. Sounds like a good idea. It also eliminates runoffs like they are having in Georgia where that state requires 50% for a winner but does not have ranked choice.

Alaska also adopted a top four primary system. All primaries for state and federal office will now be open to all voters. Candidates can run with a party label or no party label. The top four vote getters, not ranked choice, advance to the general election.

In a high school the election for class president had three candidates, the football team star, the head cheerleader, and a guy who was best known to the student body as someone who could get you weed on demand. Ranked choice voting will elect either the football or cheerleader. Regular voting just might get you the candy man.

The best argument for ranked choice is that it moderates the elected winners as you need to appeal not just to a fringe but to a broader range of voters.

This system does not favor either major party rather it seems to provide that the candidate with the most support actually wins.
It is the method that has been used for the House of Representatives in Australia since 1901. If you have three candidates in first past the post one candidate can with with 33.4 % of the vote while 66.6% voted against. Ranked/Preferential voting ensures that the majority gets their first or second choice.

[kenoc7]

Wrong. Just one example: there’s strong evidence RCV risks distorting voters’ actual will. In Maine, Rep. Bruce Poliquin had apparently won re-election, but with under 50% of the vote. Maine’s ranked-choice system kicked in, eliminating an independent candidate, whose second choice votes were re-allocated.

The election-night results were reversed, and the congressman’s top challenger was awarded that seat.
Which is excatly how it is supposed to work - and it did!

[kenoc7]

That is an excellent example which you seem to believe was a theft of office. The original vote totals:
Bruce Poliquin 46.33% 134,184
Jared Golden 45.58% 132,013
Tiffany Bond 5.71% 16,552
Will Hoar 2.37% 6,875

Final result after re-allocation of Hoar then Bond votes:

Jared Golden 50.6 142,440
Bruce Poliquin 49.4 138,931

This means that Golden was the second choice of over 10,000 of the voters while Poliquin was second choice of about 4000. Had only those two been on the ballot, Golden was the preferred choice and he ended up winning. Seems like a good system to me. Obviously some voters did not list a second [or third] choice.
You are making a wrong assumption - if there had only the top two candidates in the first place 4000 would have voted for the eventual winner and he would have won outright..

[kenoc7]

Your use of second bites at the apple is not founded on principles of a Constitutional Republic. Just another tactic to bring in mob rule.
Complete balderdash - it gets the result that the majority of the voters wanted.

[Joe V.]

Complete balderdash - it gets the result that the majority of the voters wanted.


You guys are so funny on how you twist and squirm to present falsehoods.

[Joe V.]

It is the method that has been used for the House of Representatives in Australia since 1901. If you have three candidates in first past the post one candidate can with with 33.4 % of the vote while 66.6% voted against. Ranked/Preferential voting ensures that the majority gets their first or second choice.

Move to Australia then. Geez.

[Tom2172]

We first have to get honest transparent election
Before we start doing changes

[GoPacers]

You guys are so funny on how you twist and squirm to present falsehoods.

A form of ranked choice voting is used very successfully in many other areas. MLB Hall of Fame, Heisman trophy winners, College Sports rankings, etc. In all cases the system is engineered to ensure the best candidates are those that are recognized (selected or elected).

It's an incredibly simple concept.

Most position papers that I have read come to the conclusion that the best overall candidate is more likely to win in such a scenario, and is more biased towards moderate candidates as opposed to extreme left or right.

Isn't that what we should be asking for in our elections - that the best overall candidate wins?

[Joe C.]

One man, one vote. It’s not one man, multiple choices.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Have you been watching the news at all? There have been thousands of votes that were found to be changed or not even counted.

Have YOU been watching the news at all? Those "thousands of votes that were found to be changed or not even counted" turned out to be fake news.

Recounts, audits, and governors of the mostly-GOP states in question have already determined that the end result of their state's votes are the same, even after accounting for a few minor glitches.

It wasn't thousands of votes. It was dozens. And even switching those all to EITHER party - would not have any change in the outcome. The person who won those states, won them by enough votes that those glitches had no impact at all on the outcome.

[Aloha1]

Please explain to me how ranked choice favors the Democrats? I have multiple posts in this thread showing how with real examples it favors the GOP in Sumter Co and in Georgia. Eliminating the Electoral College is a different issue and yes it would mean that we would have majority rule in electing the POTUS, Some people support majority rule, some don't.

You can always cherry pick a few locations where it might appear that one party might benefit. The point is, a vote is a vote. YOU decide who you want. You do not decide to let some algorithm cheapen or cancel your vote because "it doesn't reflect the will of the people". One legal voter, one vote. PERIOD.

[Aloha1]

this is why Florida primaries are so screwy .. If your a dem, you can vote in the republican primaries and vote in the least favorite candidate and vice a versa...

This is bad enough, with a rank system .. I much prefer a runoff election.

No, you can't. You must register as a member of a party in order to vote in their primary.

[Aloha1]

Did you just equate one, person one vote with the electoral college?

We are a Constitutional Republic, which means we vote for representatives to make decisions for us, the body politic. In a Presidential election you are actually voting for Electors who will render their vote in the Electoral College based on your vote and those of your fellow citizens in the State. Whatever candidate is determined to have received the most votes is who they will cast their ballot for as per the Constitution. So yes, one person, one vote, as it has been since our founding.

[Aloha1]

Have YOU been watching the news at all? Those "thousands of votes that were found to be changed or not even counted" turned out to be fake news.

Recounts, audits, and governors of the mostly-GOP states in question have already determined that the end result of their state's votes are the same, even after accounting for a few minor glitches.

It wasn't thousands of votes. It was dozens. And even switching those all to EITHER party - would not have any change in the outcome. The person who won those states, won them by enough votes that those glitches had no impact at all on the outcome.

Oh, so the over 5,000 ballots found in GA that were not counted is fake news? Don't you have a TV?

[Bill14564]

Here is an example where RCV could have prevented what seems to be a case of intentionally misleading voters:

Florida investigating third-party candidate who ran for state Senate | TheHill (https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/526915-florida-investigating-third-party-candidate-who-ran-for-florida-state)

There is also a long article in the Washington Post but you might need a subscription to read it.

Quick summary: The Republican candidate was running against the Dem candidate Jose Rodriguez. Late in the game, Alex Rodriguez filed to run as an independent. The Rep won with 48% of the vote and a margin of just 34 votes. Alex Rodriguez, the independent, took more than 6,000 votes. Based on no history in politics, no backing, and a change in affiliation from Rep to Ind in order to run, it appears that Alex Rodriguez ran simply to confuse voters and take votes from the Dem candidate with the same name... and it worked.

Since only a plurality is required, the Rep will take office but was this really the will of the people? If a majority was required than a runoff would be held at some considerable expense. If RCV was used, the Ind candidate would be dropped and his votes distributed according to the individual voters' designated second choice.

If this was just a successful dirty trick then RCV could have cured it. As it stands, it appears that what appears to be a clever attempt at misleading voters was rewarded.

[Bill14564]

No, you can't. You must register as a member of a party in order to vote in their primary.

Not always, there is a special case in FL where voters of both parties can vote in a primary. Easy enough to look up, you can even refer to the recent Sumter County Commissioner's race for more info, but not what this thread is about.

[Bill14564]

We are a Constitutional Republic, which means we vote for representatives to make decisions for us, the body politic. In a Presidential election you are actually voting for Electors who will render their vote in the Electoral College based on your vote and those of your fellow citizens in the State. Whatever candidate is determined to have received the most votes is who they will cast their ballot for as per the Constitution. So yes, one person, one vote, as it has been since our founding.

I believe you will find that there is nothing that requires the Electors to vote according to the popular vote in the State. Some States (Maine and Nebraska) split their Electoral votes. Other States have agreed choose their Electors based on the National popular vote regardless of their State's vote.

[GoPacers]

I believe you will find that there is nothing that requires the Electors to vote according to the popular vote in the State. Some States (Maine and Nebraska) split their Electoral votes. Other States have agreed choose their Electors based on the National popular vote regardless of their State's vote.

You should fact check what you read/hear. Same states do require electors to vote for the winning candidate in that state. Not all, but some.

No states allocate their electoral votes based on the national popular vote at this time. They have agreed to do so only if the states in the "pact" control 270 electoral votes. It's questionable at best if that would ever happen.

[jacksonbrown]

I've been following this "nonpolitical" thread, nonpolitical in the sense that it affects all U.S. citizens, regardless of political affiliation.

Particularly troubling is the method by which votes are counted.

For local and state officials to commission (and pay for) a suite of computers, where counting algorithms are programmed by a handful of individuals is nonsensical AND criminal.

Not to mention (yes, a stupid idiom often used by politicians) that the machines are connected to the internet, or thumb drives, or wi-fi networks, or LAN's during the vote counting process.

Even PBS agrees, click here (https://www.reddit.com/r/inthemorning/comments/jw4o4g/pbs_public_broadcasting_systems_does_a_deep_dive/).

[Bill14564]

You should fact check what you read/hear. Same states do require electors to vote for the winning candidate in that state. Not all, but some.

No states allocate their electoral votes based on the national popular vote at this time. They have agreed to do so only if the states in the "pact" control 270 electoral votes. It's questionable at best if that would ever happen.

Half-full or half-empty, I believe we can both agree that the statement

Whatever candidate is determined to have received the most votes is who they will cast their ballot for as per the Constitution.

is not accurate.

[Topspinmo]

I don’t understand how winning the majority of the vote can be considered, “mob rule.”

Very simple , as we witnessed in this election. Mail votes still coming in after election over. Mail voter’s had plenty time to mail in vote, there NO reason mail in votes being received after Election Day, they should of been cutoff week before election. That way couldn’t back door districts when election is close at end of day to manufacture thousands of votes after election time dead line. And it you didn’t think it happen very very naive.

[Topspinmo]

Yes it is fake news.

There were 2755 missing ballots found. Of those 2755, 449 of them were for the current person occupying the oval office. The rest of them were for Biden.

They WERE counted, because they had to be counted once they were discovered. The outcome was no different, however it does speak to the paranoia and conspiracy theories created by the left, that the right is intentionally obscuring ballots nationwide.

Because, y'know - if it was the left obscuring ballots nationwide, the vast majority of those "missing" votes would've been for the current occupant of the oval office.

I mean why would the left hide, destroy, or otherwise obscure votes for their own guy?


So, why was ballots coming in after election was over. not allow observation and put cardboard up on glass, why was there fake police at entry blocking entry? This election was stolen weeks and months before Election Day.