Originally Posted by Joe V. (Post 1862599)

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

Originally Posted by Aloha1 (Post 1862626)

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.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862608)

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.

Originally Posted by tophcfa (Post 1862640)

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.

Originally Posted by Joe V. (Post 1862645)

Your system, well, sucks.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862647)

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.

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862646)

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?

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862591)

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?

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862646)

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?

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862573)

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.