|
Reversed by what body? Why?
|
Quote:
So, if so, one could simply not vote for an alternative candidate, if the alternative was not acceptable to the voter. |
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. |
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!
|
Quote:
They could it there was Federal standard and states don’t get to make it their own rules. |
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. |
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. |
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. |
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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? |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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.
|
Quote:
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. |
This is true! I just left Maine a few years ago and my friends who live there really hate rank choice voting!!!
|
Quote:
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. |
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.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
You guys are so funny on how you twist and squirm to present falsehoods. |
Quote:
|
We first have to get honest transparent election
Before we start doing changes |
Quote:
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? |
One man, one vote. It’s not one man, multiple choices.
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:06 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.