Ranked Choice Voting
 

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.

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.

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)?

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.

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

Boaty McBoatface - Wikipedia

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Your system, well, sucks.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

Why complicate things?

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.

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

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.

What?
 

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

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

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?

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

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"

Great idea!
 

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

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.

It seems like it worked perfectly. The 49%er was not the “entire” people’s’ choice when one was removed from the race.