[banjobob]

Originally Posted by blueash

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.

Sounds as though chaos would become a nightmare nationwide if implemented.

[Windguy]

I like the idea because it doesn’t force me to vote for the lesser of evils. I could use my primary vote for the person who aligns with my principles the best and use my second place vote for the lesser of evils.

With ranked choice, would Bush #1 have won the 1992 election over Clinton instead of Ross Perot splitting the Republic ticket? Would Gore have won in 2000 if Ralph Nader had been eliminated by ranked choice. Ranked choice is not a partisan issue.

[noslices1]

Originally Posted by tvbound

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.

Have you been watching the news at all? There have been thousands of votes that were found to be changed or not even counted.

[Adagio43]

Originally Posted by Joe V.

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.

I don’t understand how winning the majority of the vote can be considered, “mob rule.”

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by ithos

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.

He also wrote....

"And you have a member of antifa on the far left, hated by more mainstream Dems but adored by 15% of the electorate."

That to me seems a pretty balanced statement overall, unless of course the part you left out in your response did not fit your agenda?

[Adagio43]

Originally Posted by Aloha1

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.

Did you just equate one, person one vote with the electoral college?

[maggie1]

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.[/QUOTE]

You had me until your equations "makes Trump the winner"

[maggie1]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

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.

Makes great sense to me! That would exclude all the high-income people who are currently finding ways to pay "zero" income tax.

[jbrown132]

Originally Posted by blueash

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.

Thai reminds me every few years when the try new math in schools only a year or two later to find out it was a total disaster. What ever happened to the tried and true method of voting by either absentee ballot or at the polls. You show an ID you get a ballot, you vote. Has worked pretty well go a long time. I don’t like the idea of rank choice voting because it gets away from the principal of one person one vote. Under this system you could actually get two votes if you’re candidate is eliminated. I do not think that is a fair and equitable way for voting.

[Dilligas]

Originally Posted by Joe V.

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.

It seems like it worked perfectly. The 49%er was not the “entire” people’s’ choice when one was removed from the race.

[WindyCityzen]

Reversed by what body? Why?

[babcab22]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by stargirl

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.