Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   The Villages, Florida, Non Villages Discussion (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/)
-   -   Ranked Choice Voting (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/villages-florida-non-villages-discussion-93/ranked-choice-voting-313187/)

WindyCityzen 11-19-2020 08:14 AM

Reversed by what body? Why?

babcab22 11-19-2020 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill14564 (Post 1862539)
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 11-19-2020 08:15 AM

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 11-19-2020 08:17 AM

Rcv
 
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 11-19-2020 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stargirl (Post 1862805)
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 11-19-2020 08:41 AM

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 11-19-2020 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maggie1 (Post 1862774)
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 11-19-2020 08:44 AM

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 11-19-2020 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by babcab22 (Post 1862803)
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 11-19-2020 09:00 AM

Top two
 
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 11-19-2020 09:04 AM

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 11-19-2020 09:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domenick (Post 1862835)
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 11-19-2020 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862604)
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 11-19-2020 10:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by meridian5850 (Post 1862822)
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. 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

Quote:

..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

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

blueash 11-19-2020 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mydavid (Post 1862885)
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 11-19-2020 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe V. (Post 1862588)
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 11-19-2020 10:54 AM

Commendation
 
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. 11-19-2020 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petiteone (Post 1862902)
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 11-19-2020 11:03 AM

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

72lions 11-19-2020 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862555)
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 11-19-2020 12:14 PM

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 11-19-2020 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe V. (Post 1862913)
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. 11-19-2020 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862988)
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 11-19-2020 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862525)
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 11-19-2020 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe V. (Post 1862529)
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 11-19-2020 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862555)
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 11-19-2020 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe V. (Post 1862588)
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. 11-19-2020 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenoc7 (Post 1863023)
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. 11-19-2020 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenoc7 (Post 1863014)
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 11-19-2020 02:53 PM

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

GoPacers 11-19-2020 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe V. (Post 1863038)
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. 11-19-2020 07:13 PM

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

OrangeBlossomBaby 11-19-2020 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noslices1 (Post 1862743)
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 11-20-2020 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blueash (Post 1862628)
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 11-20-2020 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J1ceasar (Post 1862804)
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 11-20-2020 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adagio43 (Post 1862758)
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 11-20-2020 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 1863140)
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 11-20-2020 04:49 PM

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

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 11-20-2020 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aloha1 (Post 1863499)
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 11-20-2020 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aloha1 (Post 1863501)
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:57 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.