• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Colorado Proposition 131, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

Ikari

Ikari

Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2006
Messages
106,764
Reaction score
88,637
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Left

Colorado Proposition 131, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org

Colorado Proposition 131, the Top-Four Primary and Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative, is on the ballot in Colorado as an initiated state statute on November 5, 2024.

A "yes" vote supports establishing top-four primary elections and ranked-choice voting for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, Colorado University board of regents, state board of education, and state legislature.

A "no" vote opposes this initiative, thereby maintaining semi-closed primaries and plurality vote single-winner general elections for U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, governor, attorney general, secretary of state, treasurer, Colorado University board of regents, state board of education, and state legislature.
Click to expand...

I don't know if this will pass or not. I voted for it. IMO, open primaries and ranked voting is the way to go.
 
It's not going to immediately lead to a third party having a chance at presidential elections, but it absolutely is a good step towards third parties strengthening at the state level, possibly to the point where real challenges for the presidency can happen.
 
Mycroft said:
I cancelled your vote by voting no.
Click to expand...

Gotta help the puppetmasters and the globalists you hate so much, the Soroses and the Killaries, and the lawfare. That's why you worked to ensure the two-party system you pretend to rage against?

That sounds downright Mycroftian. A complete rejection of previously stated fake principles designed to serve the only real principle: HELP GOD TRUMP.
___________

At the end of the day, any third party on power parity with the existing two will behave the same. That's human nature. But they're not now so you can't expect them to now. And you - Mycroft - just shat all over what you pretend to support.
 
Ikari said:

Colorado Proposition 131, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org



I don't know if this will pass or not. I voted for it. IMO, open primaries and ranked voting is the way to go.
Click to expand...
If I lived in Colorado I would definitely vote for this. Out of all my political opinions, supporting ranked choice voting might be the one I’m most sure of.

It completely eliminates the dilemma of having to choose between the candidate you most support and the lessor of two evils that actually have a chance to win. It doesn’t require holding a costly second election like with a traditional runoff. I have never been able to find any real downsides.
 
Mycroft said:
???

Oligarchs?

Dude...we are talking about Colorado. Not NYC.
Click to expand...

yes. Oligarchs. The people you pretend to be against, whilst supporting King Shit of Orange Mountain.

(Are you hiding from my comments?)
 
Mycroft said:
???

Oligarchs?

Dude...we are talking about Colorado. Not NYC.
Click to expand...
We're taking about the Main Party trying to maintain control. Oligarchs don't like ranked voting. Thanks for showing who you really are.
 
Anagram said:
Why? What are the negatives you see from this initiative?
Click to expand...

He probably saw Sarah Palin cry after losing to a ranked choice ballot and now assumes it's bad.
 
Anagram said:
If I lived in Colorado I would definitely vote for this. Out of all my political opinions, supporting ranked choice voting might be the one I’m most sure of.

It completely eliminates the dilemma of having to choose between the candidate you most support and the lessor of two evils that actually have a chance to win. It doesn’t require holding a costly second election like with a traditional runoff. I have never been able to find any real downsides.
Click to expand...
Here's a downside: With RCV and open primaries, political parties are irrelevant.
 
Mycroft said:
Here's a downside: With RCV and open primaries, political parties are irrelevant.
Click to expand...
They aren’t irrelevant. The organization, structure, and elections apparatuses of political parties are still going to matter.

But even if it were the case that they were irrelevant, why is that a negative?
 
Ikari said:
We're taking about the Main Party trying to maintain control. Oligarchs don't like ranked voting. Thanks for showing who you really are.
Click to expand...

This is actually a wonderful test for the fraudulence of Mycroft's posts. He claims to stand against this "main party" - nevermind my annoyance at the conflation of policy with fundraising behavior - and yet.....and yet he stands against something that would boost third party chances.

Mycroft said:
Here's a downside: With RCV and open primaries, political parties are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

How is that a bad thing, person who stands against "elites" and "globalists" and "puppetmasters"?

Isn't that an upside for one who take such a stance?
 
Anagram said:
They aren’t irrelevant. The organization, structure, and elections apparatuses of political parties are still going to matter.

But even if it were the case that they were irrelevant, why is that a negative?
Click to expand...
When anybody, no matter what party they belong to...or even if they don't belong to a party...can vote in any party's primary, then that party's actual members lose control over their party. That party becomes irrelevant.
 
4-way ranked choice is not immune from problems. It's possible for the candidate who has the most 1st choices to not win. It's even mathematically possible that the candidate with the second-most or even third-most 1st choices ends up winning.

To the plurality who gave the most 1st choices to a candidate only to see him or her not win, this can look unfair, especially if they really don't like any of the other candidates.
 
Mycroft said:
When anybody, no matter what party they belong to...or even if they don't belong to a party...can vote in any party's primary, then that party's actual members lose control over their party. That party becomes irrelevant.
Click to expand...
Have the parties become irrelevant in the 19 states that have open primaries?
 
eman623 said:
4-way ranked choice is not immune from problems. It's possible for the candidate who has the most 1st choices to not win. It's even mathematically possible that the candidate with the second-most or even third-most 1st choices ends up winning.

To the plurality who gave the most 1st choices to a candidate only to see him or her not win, this can look unfair, especially if they really don't like any of the other candidates.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t really seem like a problem to me.

I would argue it is better for a plurality candidate not to win if they would lose head to heads with the other candidates.
 
Mr Person said:
It's not going to immediately lead to a third party having a chance at presidential elections, but it absolutely is a good step towards third parties strengthening at the state level, possibly to the point where real challenges for the presidency can happen.
Click to expand...
IMO, it's most useful in primary elections -- harder for extremists to win major party nominations simply by getting 20-35% of the vote.
 
Ikari said:

Colorado Proposition 131, Top-Four Ranked-Choice Voting Initiative (2024)

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics
ballotpedia.org ballotpedia.org



I don't know if this will pass or not. I voted for it. IMO, open primaries and ranked voting is the way to go.
Click to expand...

Nah, it's just the left's way of getting around the EC.....they hate it. Ranked voting opens up huge avenues for large blocks of voters working together to control the election process.....it opens pandora's box. Always better yeah, nay, yes or no, this is just more muddled maybe, might, possibly bs.
 
Anagram said:
Have the parties become irrelevant in the 19 states that have open primaries?
Click to expand...
Haley sure tried to make that so during the Republican primaries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom