In ranked-choice voting, a candidate needs more than 50 percent of the vote to be declared the winner outright. If the front-runner doesn’t have that percentage of the vote, the candidate with the fewest votes that round drops off the ballot, and those who ranked that candidate first will have their votes go to their second choice. The process continues until a candidate has more than 50 percent of the vote.
The state’s special House race election will be the only race with ranked-choice voting on Tuesday, but it will provide a preview of how other candidates running in races such as the state’s Senate election will do in November.
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (90)
sorted by:
Ranked choice needs to be banned. When my state adopted it, thank you dems, I selected my first choice straight down the ticket. Folks that don’t select a second choice ends up not having their vote counted if ranked choice is applicable. It’s just another way for the corrupt to steal an election.
Ranked choice let's you vote for a third party candidate and still express a preference between the Republican and democratic candidate.
The issue is that a well funded backer can increase turnout for their side by running two similar candidates, and then having those candidates tell their supporters to vote for the other candidate as a second choice. How much would this help? Not sure. Look up Condorcet voting for some of the mathematical issues with this type of voting.
Excellent. Can you provide the link for Condorcet voting so that I may get familiar? It sounds interesting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
Thanks, yea I saw this too. I thought maybe you had some 'rich' stuff.
The original system was only 2 candidates, and the votes stayed with the second if the first didn't win.
It was the original method of breaking a two party system, and the first round worked and worked well.
The big problem, like everything else, a couple tweaks and it becomes ranked choice. A completely manipulative, corrupt system that is easily broken.
I agree. It is a nice idea in theory, but it has been manipulated and abused.
If you can figure out a way to do it with machines or people doing math, score voting (or range voting is another name for the same thing) is the ideal voting method.
With RCV you can get a lot of unintended consequences, whereas score voting gives absolute choice to voters without fear of fucking things up.
Imagine this scenario and we will play it out with both RCV and Score Voting:
3 Candidates, 3 Voters
Candidate 1, Candidate 2, Candidate 3
Voter A, Voter B, Voter C (which will have the same preferences for both RCV & Score voting examples below)
Ranked Choice Example:
Voter A: 1, 2, 3
Voter B: 1, 2, 3
Voter C: 3, 2, 1
Winner: Candidate 1
Score Voting Example (let's use 0-9 for simplicity)
Voter A: (Candidate 1: 9, Candidate 2: 8, Candidate 3: 0)
Voter B: (Candidate 1: 9, Candidate 2: 8, Candidate 3: 0)
Voter C: (Candidate 1: 0, Candidate 2: 8, Candidate 3: 9)
Winner: Candidate 2
So why does this happen? If there is a majority (more than 50%) of voters selecting a candidate on their first round then that person is the winner. Candidate 1 got a majority and wins with RCV.
Everyone REALLY likes candidate 2 so with score voting they all gave 2 a nearly perfect score. 2 wins with the best average.
Score voting gives voters more of an opportunity to express themselves and give an honest opinion on their vote. Hell, if a voter hated all the candidates and only kind of liked one... they wouldn't even have to give any candidates a perfect score.
And before anybody says STAR voting is good, it's not. STAR voting still artificially fucks with your vote.
If your first choice doesn't win, and there are only two real options, what difference would it make if it weren't ranked choice?
Its a way to force people to vote for someone they didnt want. It forces votes from lower candidates to the top. Imagine in the NFL if come playoff time they took the wins from the worst team and added those.to the tally for the top team.
Also to add. Dems can flood the field with their candidates. Add in 2-3 RINOS and now We the People have 25%chance of winning instead of 50%
I find that the explanation provided in the original post isn't detailed enough, or else I'd use it to address your concerns.
I'll address the flooding issue as I don't follow the NFL analogy. Even if there were a bunch of RINOs, the conservatives would still vote for your preferred Republican candidate before the Democrat, so sooner or later that R would edge out 51% of the vote before the D (assuming they should have won the race). For example if the D gets 40% of the vote, and six of the R candidates get 10%, eventually the R's would take it 60-40 (assuming the R voters voted all R down the ticket), the most popular of whom would take the seat.
I actually think ranked choice is better in this situation for you, because some people might be nervous about running the "we the people" candidate against the Democrat instead of a "safe" RINO. With this system you would see the true support behind each candidate at the first stage.
Here's a random youtube vid that explains it a bit better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Z2fRPRkWvY
You should watch the recent Veritas expose of how the Murkowski schemed the rank voting system in Alaska. She knows as well as anyone in power that ranked voting favors the incumbent.
Not true in my own personal observation. Where I live, the dems had two candidates, republicans had four, undeclared had 2, and third party each had 1 (Green party and I can't remember).
Vote scoring took 5 or 6 rounds to declare a winner - it came down to 1 of the dems (incumbent) vs. most notable republican on ballot (former mayor). Dem won by 34 votes in a town of around 70,000 registered voters. Republican candidate was leading each round until the last when one of the third party candidates got eliminated.
You're wrong and you did it wrong.
If your argument is that it makes cheating easier, I don't follow your logic at all.
If they're already cheating now, what disadvantage is there to using a system which allows people to vote for the better candidates without the added disadvantage of, "throwing their vote away?"
Obfuscation, it makes it easier to hide riggings in a system no one understands.
A ranked system is incredibly easy to understand, and again, they're already rigging it and fully getting away with it, so what is the argued benefit?