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.

Originally Posted by tvbound (Post 1862606)

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.

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.

Originally Posted by ithos (Post 1862719)

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.

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 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 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.

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.

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)?

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!