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.

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.

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 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.

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 kenoc7 (Post 1863023)

Complete balderdash - it gets the result that the majority of the voters wanted.

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.

Originally Posted by Joe V. (Post 1863038)

You guys are so funny on how you twist and squirm to present falsehoods.

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.

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.

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.