Is High Voter turnout only benefiting the Democratic Party an old wives tale?

I have been embroiled in a debate about high voter turnout always helping the Democratic Party. I’ve stated that it was nothing more than an old wives tale. But had nothing to back my stance up. So here is the research result on that. I decided to share it without you all to find out what you think. I used VAP since VEP was only kept track of beginning in 1980.



Average voter turnout since 1960 in presidential elections 55%.

2020 62% high Biden winner

2016 55% average, Trump winner

2012 53% low, Obama winner

2008 57% high, Obama winner

2004 56% high, G.W. Bush winner

2000 51% low, G.W. Bush winner

1996 49% low, Bill Clinton winner

1992 55% average, Bill Clinton winner

1988 50% low, G.H.W. Bush winner

1984 53% low, Reagan winner

1980 53% low, Reagan winner

1976 53% low, Carter winner

1972 55% average Nixon winner

1968 61% high Nixon winner

1964 61% LBJ winner

1960 63% JFK winner



4 Democratic and 2 Republican winners when there was a high voter turnout, above average. 4 Democratic and 3 Republican winners when the voter turnout was low or below average. 1 Democrat and 2 republican winners when the voter turnout was average. Presidential wise, I see little difference between high and low voter turnout.



Midterm House elections. The average turnout for midterms is 40%

2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats

2014 38% low, Republicans gained 8 seats

2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats

2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats

2002 40% average, Republicans gained 8 seats

1998 37% low, Democrats gained 3 seats

1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats

1990 38% low, Democrats gained 7 seats

1986 38% low, democrats gained 5 seats

1982 43% high, democrats gained 27 seats

1978 39% low, Republicans gained 7 seats

1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats

1970 48% high, Democrats gained 12 seats

1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats

1962 46% high, republicans gained 4 seats



I still don’t see a correlation between high and low turnout benefiting one or the other party. What I see is when the house changed hands, control 1994, 2010 and 2018, turnout was high. But in 2006 when the democrats took control of the house with a net gain of 33 seats, turnout was low. Finally, I looked back at gains of one party or the other of 30 or more seats to compare that to voter turnout in the midterms.



2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats

2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats

2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats

1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats

1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats

1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats



4 with high voter turnout, 2 with low voter turnout. Interesting to note that in 3 of the 4 high voter turnout midterm elections, it was the republicans who gained 30 or more seats vs. 1 for the Democrats. The two elections that had low voter turnout, the democrats picked up 30 plus seats in both of those.



My conclusion, high voter turnout only benefiting the Democratic Party is an old wives tale that we all had bought into.

 

[Luther]

I have been embroiled in a debate about high voter turnout always helping the Democratic Party. I’ve stated that it was nothing more than an old wives tale. But had nothing to back my stance up. So here is the research result on that. I decided to share it without you all to find out what you think. I used VAP since VEP was only kept track of beginning in 1980.



Average voter turnout since 1960 in presidential elections 55%.

2020 62% high Biden winner

2016 55% average, Trump winner

2012 53% low, Obama winner

2008 57% high, Obama winner

2004 56% high, G.W. Bush winner

2000 51% low, G.W. Bush winner

1996 49% low, Bill Clinton winner

1992 55% average, Bill Clinton winner

1988 50% low, G.H.W. Bush winner

1984 53% low, Reagan winner

1980 53% low, Reagan winner

1976 53% low, Carter winner

1972 55% average Nixon winner

1968 61% high Nixon winner

1964 61% LBJ winner

1960 63% JFK winner



4 Democratic and 2 Republican winners when there was a high voter turnout, above average. 4 Democratic and 3 Republican winners when the voter turnout was low or below average. 1 Democrat and 2 republican winners when the voter turnout was average. Presidential wise, I see little difference between high and low voter turnout.



Midterm House elections. The average turnout for midterms is 40%

2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats

2014 38% low, Republicans gained 8 seats

2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats

2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats

2002 40% average, Republicans gained 8 seats

1998 37% low, Democrats gained 3 seats

1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats

1990 38% low, Democrats gained 7 seats

1986 38% low, democrats gained 5 seats

1982 43% high, democrats gained 27 seats

1978 39% low, Republicans gained 7 seats

1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats

1970 48% high, Democrats gained 12 seats

1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats

1962 46% high, republicans gained 4 seats



I still don’t see a correlation between high and low turnout benefiting one or the other party. What I see is when the house changed hands, control 1994, 2010 and 2018, turnout was high. But in 2006 when the democrats took control of the house with a net gain of 33 seats, turnout was low. Finally, I looked back at gains of one party or the other of 30 or more seats to compare that to voter turnout in the midterms.



2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats

2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats

2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats

1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats

1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats

1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats



4 with high voter turnout, 2 with low voter turnout. Interesting to note that in 3 of the 4 high voter turnout midterm elections, it was the republicans who gained 30 or more seats vs. 1 for the Democrats. The two elections that had low voter turnout, the democrats picked up 30 plus seats in both of those.



My conclusion, high voter turnout only benefiting the Democratic Party is an old wives tale that we all had bought into.

Its who the independents side with

 

[Perotista]

Correct.

But VEP is still the best option to compare turnouts now, both in the US and with other countries.

Even though only annual ACS data can be used to filter out the non-citizens.

Anyway, a lot of US states have low turnouts because they are non-competetive for decades such as OK or WV.

A lot of states also don't offer automatic voter registration or same-day registration like almost all European countries do.

Which leaves many potential voters out in the dark.

Most states have voter registration cutoff deadlines weeks ahead of an election, meaning late-deciding voters who are not registered can't vote ...

Exactly. Nationally, there are just a few swing states. Usually around 8, most others are known whom they'll go for. Now and then, you get surprised like Massachusetts electing a GOP governor or Montana a Democratic senator. Most of those that happen, happen during a midterm or off year election. Not in a presidential year.

I do think Trump had everything to do with the high voter turnout for 2020. One either loves him or hates him. I expected 2016 to be a low voter turnout year due to the dislike of both major party candidates. 2016 turned out to be more average turnout than low rather one went by VAP or VEP.

One in Four Americans Dislike Both Presidential Candidates

In the U.S., one in four view Trump and Clinton unfavorably, much higher than the percentage who disliked both candidates in 2012 or 2008. But this doesn't mean turnout will be low or a third-party candidate will be successful.

news.gallup.com

I do think when voters are angry at the party in power or dissatisfied with the president that leads to high voter turnout.

High voter turnout years
2020, it was Trump, he lost
2018 anger and the dislike of Trump again led to the Democratic take over of congress
2010 anger at both Obama and the Democratic congress lead to a 63 seat pick up by the Republicans
2008 perhaps not anger so much, but dissatisfaction with G.W. Bush, his wars and the recession led to an Obama victory and a 23 seat house pickup for the Democrats.
1994 anger at the Democratic congress and Bill Clinton, the tax increases, the secret health care task force among other things lead to a GOP take over of congress for the first time in 40 years.

High voter turnout benefited the Republicans in 1994 and 2010 while in the other three years it benefited the Democrats. Governors in those years
1994 the GOP picked up 8 governors
2008 Neither party gained or lost a governor
2010 Republicans picked up 5 governors
2018 Democrats picked up 7 governors
2020 GOP picked up 1 governor

House and Senate in high voter turnout years
1994 Republicans picked up 54 house seats and 9 senate seats
2008 Democrats picked up 23 house seats and 8 senate seats
2010 Republicans picked up 63 house seats and 6 senate seats
2018 Democrats picked up 40 house seats and 2 senate seats
2020 Democrats lost 13 house seats but picked up 3 senate seats.

Still, nothing to prove high voter turnout benefits the Democratic Party only. there's one question I haven't asked or researched. Does years when we have high voter turnout mean more independents get off their butts and go vote or is it more of the party faithful that make it to the polls?

 

[bearpoker]

That's because there is no correlation, and no causal link.

This myth is decades old (two of the articles linked below are from the 80s), and is likely based in the racist anti-democratic impulse of the right wing.

Some additional evidence and discussion....

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960636?seq=1

https://www.jstor.org/stable/1960868?seq=1

Republicans, Stop Believing Your Own Election Myth

Recent polls show that more than half of Republicans still believe that the 2020 election was stolen. Republican officeholders feel intense pressure to match the furious outrage that the activist

www.commentarymagazine.com

The same goes for absentee voting:

Research Shows Mail-In Voting Doesn’t Favor Democrats or Republicans

This November will be one of the first presidential elections in recent memory where voters cast their ballots during a global pandemic, and many will be doing so by mail.

www.courthousenews.com

Mandatory mail-in voting doesn't favor Democrats or Republicans | Science News

A new study suggests that requiring people to cast mail-in ballots actually leads to a slightly increased turnout for both political parties.

www.sciencenews.org

Perotista's evidence is quite an eye opener. At this point I'd say that it is a Republican myth born of their contempt for the common man or woman. These are their fellow citizens. Sad.

 

[Perotista]

Perotista's evidence is quite an eye opener. At this point I'd say that it is a Republican myth born of their contempt for the common man or woman. These are their fellow citizens. Sad.

Myths and old wives tales become ingrained in most folks mind. I don't know who started it, but from what I've seen, both major parties believe it with all their hearts and souls. Every eligible citizen should have the right and opportunity to vote. Whether they do or not is entirely up to them, but there shouldn't be a single thing to hinder anyone who wants to vote.

 

[mrjurrs]

I have been embroiled in a debate about high voter turnout always helping the Democratic Party. I’ve stated that it was nothing more than an old wives tale. But had nothing to back my stance up. So here is the research result on that. I decided to share it without you all to find out what you think. I used VAP since VEP was only kept track of beginning in 1980.



Average voter turnout since 1960 in presidential elections 55%.

2020 62% high Biden winner

2016 55% average, Trump winner

2012 53% low, Obama winner

2008 57% high, Obama winner

2004 56% high, G.W. Bush winner

2000 51% low, G.W. Bush winner

1996 49% low, Bill Clinton winner

1992 55% average, Bill Clinton winner

1988 50% low, G.H.W. Bush winner

1984 53% low, Reagan winner

1980 53% low, Reagan winner

1976 53% low, Carter winner

1972 55% average Nixon winner

1968 61% high Nixon winner

1964 61% LBJ winner

1960 63% JFK winner



4 Democratic and 2 Republican winners when there was a high voter turnout, above average. 4 Democratic and 3 Republican winners when the voter turnout was low or below average. 1 Democrat and 2 republican winners when the voter turnout was average. Presidential wise, I see little difference between high and low voter turnout.



Midterm House elections. The average turnout for midterms is 40%

2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats

2014 38% low, Republicans gained 8 seats

2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats

2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats

2002 40% average, Republicans gained 8 seats

1998 37% low, Democrats gained 3 seats

1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats

1990 38% low, Democrats gained 7 seats

1986 38% low, democrats gained 5 seats

1982 43% high, democrats gained 27 seats

1978 39% low, Republicans gained 7 seats

1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats

1970 48% high, Democrats gained 12 seats

1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats

1962 46% high, republicans gained 4 seats



I still don’t see a correlation between high and low turnout benefiting one or the other party. What I see is when the house changed hands, control 1994, 2010 and 2018, turnout was high. But in 2006 when the democrats took control of the house with a net gain of 33 seats, turnout was low. Finally, I looked back at gains of one party or the other of 30 or more seats to compare that to voter turnout in the midterms.



2018 50% high, Democrats gained 44 seats

2010 42% high, Republicans gained 63 seats

2006 38% low, Democrats gained 33 seats

1994 42% high, Republicans gained 54 seats

1974 39% low, Democrats gained 39 seats

1966 47% high, Republicans gained 47 seats



4 with high voter turnout, 2 with low voter turnout. Interesting to note that in 3 of the 4 high voter turnout midterm elections, it was the republicans who gained 30 or more seats vs. 1 for the Democrats. The two elections that had low voter turnout, the democrats picked up 30 plus seats in both of those.



My conclusion, high voter turnout only benefiting the Democratic Party is an old wives tale that we all had bought into.

Imo, high voter turnout benefits America.

 

[Perotista]

Imo, high voter turnout benefits America.

Believe it or not, I've heard from members of both parties when in a high turnout election their candidates lose, it was due to ill informed or ignorant voters. That the higher the turnout, the more ill informed, misinformed as in relations to the issues, just voting for the best liked or the most charismatic candidate.

 

[mrjurrs]

Believe it or not, I've heard from members of both parties when in a high turnout election their candidates lose, it was due to ill informed or ignorant voters. That the higher the turnout, the more ill informed, misinformed as in relations to the issues, just voting for the best liked or the most charismatic candidate.

There is no ballot provision for keeping ill informed voters out of the booth. That seems like the politicos fault. Personally, I'd like to see mandatory voting with second chance methods on every election in America. Tax credit for voting, tax penalty for passing on the civic responsibility.

 

[Perotista]

There is no ballot provision for keeping ill informed voters out of the booth. That seems like the politicos fault. Personally, I'd like to see mandatory voting with second chance methods on every election in America. Tax credit for voting, tax penalty for passing on the civic responsibility.

No on the mandatory voting. We average 45% of all Americans who don't vote in presidential elections. They don't care. Making them vote would be tantamount to letting those who don't give one iota of a care decide elections. I may like or may not like the results of any election, but I know the results was caused by those who cared enough to get out and vote for one candidate or the other. It wasn't decided by those not caring individual who voted only because they had to, went in and marked a bunch of boxes not even knowing who they were voting for.

Now I been pushing for none of the above to be on the ballot. None of the above might even won in 2016. Both were disliked that much by America as a whole. If none of the above won, then we have a redo election without the candidates for that office who lost to none of the above. New candidates would have to run for any office none of the above won.

Our two party system really limits the choices one has. A lot of times the choice is between evil A and evil B. I get around choosing between the lesser of two evils by voting third party. 9 million voters did in 2016. Think about that, 9 million people voted for someone they didn't know, who had no money, no media attention, no one knew what he stood for, wasn't in the presidential debates, no name recognition, no nothing. 9 million people voted for someone only because their last name wasn't Trump nor Clinton. Who that person was, didn't matter as long as it wasn't Trump nor Clinton.

 

[Antiwar]

I remain dedicated to reducing the voting pool, but, my argument has always been that we should do so not because Democrats are terrible, but because People are terrible.

Wow.

 

[mrjurrs]

No on the mandatory voting. We average 45% of all Americans who don't vote in presidential elections. They don't care. Making them vote would be tantamount to letting those who don't give one iota of a care decide elections. I may like or may not like the results of any election, but I know the results was caused by those who cared enough to get out and vote for one candidate or the other. It wasn't decided by those not caring individual who voted only because they had to, went in and marked a bunch of boxes not even knowing who they were voting for.

Now I been pushing for none of the above to be on the ballot. None of the above might even won in 2016. Both were disliked that much by America as a whole. If none of the above won, then we have a redo election without the candidates for that office who lost to none of the above. New candidates would have to run for any office none of the above won.

Our two party system really limits the choices one has. A lot of times the choice is between evil A and evil B. I get around choosing between the lesser of two evils by voting third party. 9 million voters did in 2016. Think about that, 9 million people voted for someone they didn't know, who had no money, no media attention, no one knew what he stood for, wasn't in the presidential debates, no name recognition, no nothing. 9 million people voted for someone only because their last name wasn't Trump nor Clinton. Who that person was, didn't matter as long as it wasn't Trump nor Clinton.

I disagree with your first paragraph for two reasons. First, requiring a vote could cause a percentage of these to become informed voters. Second, I reject your intimation that the other 55% are informed. Some % vote strictly party with no knowledge, some % vote by cable channel watched, some for other reasons. And a big % of them vote based on incorrect media driven portrayals.

I don't think none of the above would work. Too expensive and there are constitutionally driven dates to meet. I'd like ranked choice voting better.

3rd party candidates in our current system? Sounds to me like mostly you are describing uninformed voters. Ranked choice would make those votes count more.

 

[Perotista]

I disagree with your first paragraph for two reasons. First, requiring a vote could cause a percentage of these to become informed voters. Second, I reject your intimation that the other 55% are informed. Some % vote strictly party with no knowledge, some % vote by cable channel watched, some for other reasons. And a big % of them vote based on incorrect media driven portrayals.

I don't think none of the above would work. Too expensive and there are constitutionally driven dates to meet. I'd like ranked choice voting better.

3rd party candidates in our current system? Sounds to me like mostly you are describing uninformed voters. Ranked choice would make those votes count more.

I hate rank choice. Prime example is 2016. I didn't want neither Clinton nor Trump within a million miles of the White House. I voted third party, Johnson which was the only other name on my ballot. With rank choice, I'd be forced to choose a candidate I didn't want, really despised, totally disgusted with, thought either one would hurt this country. No thank you. I wanted to officially register my vote as being against both Trump and Clinton. That we me plus 9 million other voters. Let others decide on which candidate who is the least evil among the remaining two, who they wanted to lose the least, not win, but lose the least. Let them decide who's the worst of the worst.

Now that I got that rant out of the way, for ranked choice to work, you have to have more than just two viable candidates. It won't work in general elections. Primaries are different, with multiple choices, more than three. Of course in primaries, they're for the most part limited to just Republicans voting in one primary and Democrats in the other. How either party does their primaries is up to them.

But come general elections, between two viable candidate with automatic ballot access, with billions of dollars to spend on the media, with name recognition, only having the two major party candidates allowed in the presidential debates, plus a million other advantages, for me ranked choice voting is nothing more than a scheme to get everyone to choose between the R and the D. That choice doesn't matter if it's the first choice, the second choice or the third, etc. If one dislikes and doesn't want either major party candidate, even with ranked choice voting, he might as well stay home. He'll be forced to choose one which is exactly what each major party wants. Ranked choice is just another scheme to get everyone to vote for a major party candidate.

 

[mrjurrs]

I hate rank choice. Prime example is 2016. I didn't want neither Clinton nor Trump within a million miles of the White House. I voted third party, Johnson which was the only other name on my ballot. With rank choice, I'd be forced to choose a candidate I didn't want, really despised, totally disgusted with, thought either one would hurt this country. No thank you. I wanted to officially register my vote as being against both Trump and Clinton. That we me plus 9 million other voters. Let others decide on which candidate who is the least evil among the remaining two, who they wanted to lose the least, not win, but lose the least. Let them decide who's the worst of the worst.

Now that I got that rant out of the way, for ranked choice to work, you have to have more than just two viable candidates. It won't work in general elections. Primaries are different, with multiple choices, more than three. Of course in primaries, they're for the most part limited to just Republicans voting in one primary and Democrats in the other. How either party does their primaries is up to them.

But come general elections, between two viable candidate with automatic ballot access, with billions of dollars to spend on the media, with name recognition, only having the two major party candidates allowed in the presidential debates, plus a million other advantages, for me ranked choice voting is nothing more than a scheme to get everyone to choose between the R and the D. That choice doesn't matter if it's the first choice, the second choice or the third, etc. If one dislikes and doesn't want either major party candidate, even with ranked choice voting, he might as well stay home. He'll be forced to choose one which is exactly what each major party wants. Ranked choice is just another scheme to get everyone to vote for a major party candidate.

Sec. Clinton had perhaps the best resume for President since G Washington. She failed the interview. In our current environment, a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. You can have rank choice with three candidates, it would give third party voters a chance to express their desire for another candidate or their disgust for the top two. Even in a 3 candidate race, the tone of the campaign would be different. Most voters say they don't like to see candidates personally attack other candidates.

 

[Felis Leo]

Sec. Clinton had perhaps the best resume for President since G Washington. She failed the interview. In our current environment, a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. You can have rank choice with three candidates, it would give third party voters a chance to express their desire for another candidate or their disgust for the top two. Even in a 3 candidate race, the tone of the campaign would be different. Most voters say they don't like to see candidates personally attack other candidates.

Surely you are being ironic with that statement, mrjurrs. I mean, I would understand your statement if she had governed a state into an era of prosperity, or led the successful effort in passing key legislation benefiting most Americans, or organized and commanded a successful war effort. Leaving aside my partisanship for a moment, while she was a perfectly competent Senator and Secretary of State, she was hardly some kind of titan who set the bar for governance in her field. While she certainly had a better resume than Donald Trump for the position of the Presidency and was undoubtedly more qualified than him, I cannot see how anyone can claim she was the most qualified person for the office except in comparison to Trump.

 

[mrjurrs]

Surely you are being ironic with that statement, mrjurrs. I mean, I would understand your statement if she had governed a state into an era of prosperity, or led the successful effort in passing key legislation benefiting most Americans, or organized and commanded a successful war effort. Leaving aside my partisanship for a moment, while she was a perfectly competent Senator and Secretary of State, she was hardly some kind of titan who set the bar for governance in her field. While she certainly had a better resume than Donald Trump for the position of the Presidency and was undoubtedly more qualified than him, I cannot see how anyone can claim she was the most qualified person for the office except in comparison to Trump.

Executive branch experience (Sec of State), Legislative branch experience (Senator), Judicial Branch experience (not a judge, but a lawyer). Start going back among the President's and tell me when you think you have a more experienced politician elected to the Presidency. She was not elected because she ran a horrible campaign. Underlying that, she is a woman, and sexism imo, is probably the strongest 'ism' in America.

 

[Perotista]

Sec. Clinton had perhaps the best resume for President since G Washington. She failed the interview. In our current environment, a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. You can have rank choice with three candidates, it would give third party voters a chance to express their desire for another candidate or their disgust for the top two. Even in a 3 candidate race, the tone of the campaign would be different. Most voters say they don't like to see candidates personally attack other candidates.

The results is your vote is tossed in the trash. without ranked voting we know that 9 million people were disgusted enough with the two major parties choices that they voted for a candidate that was basically unknown to them, that didn't have any money to get his message out, had no name recognition, was out spent by the two major parties approximately 2 billion to 3 million dollars. They voted for a third name on the ballot only because that third name wasn't Trump nor Clinton. A way of officially registering their disdain for the choices provided. With ranked voting, that all goes away. One is forced to choose someone you don't want. A win for the two major parties. A way of saying 100% of all Americans supported one or the other major party candidates.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

He won the election, but lost the money race. Trump raised half the money that Clinton raised throughout the cycle. Here’s how it was spent in the last days.

www.bloomberg.com

If ranked choice was the law,in 2016, I'd of stayed home before giving my vote to either major party candidate. ranked choice is just a scheme thought up by the two major parties to eliminate any viable challenge to them. It's nothing more than make the voter in the end choose either the R or the D. I'm surprised more haven't seen through this farce. I suppose only allowing Republicans and Democrats on the ballot, no one else would give the appearance of ballot manipulation. Rank choice is accomplishing this manipulation with the facade of giving the voters more than two choices. In the end, that is what it all boils down to with no protest votes allowed, no officially registering one's disdain for both major party candidates, on must vote for one of them. No other choice whether it's on the first choice or second choice or third choice.

I bet the Republicans and democrats are laughing their butts off.

 

[mrjurrs]

The results is your vote is tossed in the trash. without ranked voting we know that 9 million people were disgusted enough with the two major parties choices that they voted for a candidate that was basically unknown to them, that didn't have any money to get his message out, had no name recognition, was out spent by the two major parties approximately 2 billion to 3 million dollars. They voted for a third name on the ballot only because that third name wasn't Trump nor Clinton. A way of officially registering their disdain for the choices provided. With ranked voting, that all goes away. One is forced to choose someone you don't want. A win for the two major parties. A way of saying 100% of all Americans supported one or the other major party candidates.

Tracking the 2016 Presidential Money Race

He won the election, but lost the money race. Trump raised half the money that Clinton raised throughout the cycle. Here’s how it was spent in the last days.

www.bloomberg.com

If ranked choice was the law,in 2016, I'd of stayed home before giving my vote to either major party candidate. ranked choice is just a scheme thought up by the two major parties to eliminate any viable challenge to them. It's nothing more than make the voter in the end choose either the R or the D. I'm surprised more haven't seen through this farce. I suppose only allowing Republicans and Democrats on the ballot, no one else would give the appearance of ballot manipulation. Rank choice is accomplishing this manipulation with the facade of giving the voters more than two choices. In the end, that is what it all boils down to with no protest votes allowed, no officially registering one's disdain for both major party candidates, on must vote for one of them. No other choice whether it's on the first choice or second choice or third choice.

I bet the Republicans and democrats are laughing their butts off.

I disagree with your premise. I think the vast majority of third party voters are single issue voters, their issue just doesn't rise to the level of national prominence as the R&D parties. Vote totals in rank choice are declared after the initial vote, how does that equate to throwing your vote in the trash? Why do those parties need a scheme to maintain their stranglehold on American voters? They already have an unbreakable one.

 

[Perotista]

I disagree with your premise. I think the vast majority of third party voters are single issue voters, their issue just doesn't rise to the level of national prominence as the R&D parties. Vote totals in rank choice are declared after the initial vote, how does that equate to throwing your vote in the trash? Why do those parties need a scheme to maintain their stranglehold on American voters? They already have an unbreakable one.

I've been reading the three articles in the link. When someone's second, third or fourth choices can win out put a candidate over the top over a candidate that normally would have won on just first choice votes, that pretty much seals my opposition. So it very possible to have a majority first choice winner lose because of lower round choices. Dumb.

New York City mayoral race grows more uncertain after new vote count

(Reuters) -New vote totals released on Tuesday in New York City's Democratic mayoral contest sharply narrowed the lead for Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, leaving the outcome even more uncertain with thousands of absentee ballots still to be counted over the coming weeks. Kathryn...

www.yahoo.com

I'd rather see a runoff between the top two finishers if neither one receives a majority, 50% plus one vote. Have a jungle primary with all candidates listed, if no one receives a majority, go to a runoff. With New York's rank choice voting for mayor taking weeks to figure out a winner, that seems to spell something is amiss, shenanigans seems to be taking place.

I live in Georgia, no skin in the game in New York. But reading this, something doesn't seem right. A candidate who received 19.5% of the vote could actually win this thing.

 

[mrjurrs]

I've been reading the three articles in the link. When someone's second, third or fourth choices can win out put a candidate over the top over a candidate that normally would have won on just first choice votes, that pretty much seals my opposition. So it very possible to have a majority first choice winner lose because of lower round choices. Dumb.

New York City mayoral race grows more uncertain after new vote count

(Reuters) -New vote totals released on Tuesday in New York City's Democratic mayoral contest sharply narrowed the lead for Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, leaving the outcome even more uncertain with thousands of absentee ballots still to be counted over the coming weeks. Kathryn...

www.yahoo.com

I'd rather see a runoff between the top two finishers if neither one receives a majority, 50% plus one vote. Have a jungle primary with all candidates listed, if no one receives a majority, go to a runoff. With New York's rank choice voting for mayor taking weeks to figure out a winner, that seems to spell something is amiss, shenanigans seems to be taking place.

I live in Georgia, no skin in the game in New York. But reading this, something doesn't seem right. A candidate who received 19.5% of the vote could actually win this thing.

I think you misunderstand. Rank choice only occurs when the leading candidate has a plurality, the election is over when a candidate achieves the majority of the vote (I think). I have no skin in this game either, but if the 19.5% vote getter wins, it will be over a 31% vote getter (without the expense of a second election that will likely have lower turnout).

 

[Perotista]

I think you misunderstand. Rank choice only occurs when the leading candidate has a plurality, the election is over when a candidate achieves the majority of the vote (I think). I have no skin in this game either, but if the 19.5% vote getter wins, it will be over a 31% vote getter (without the expense of a second election that will likely have lower turnout).

So the voters decided who they wanted to win 31-19. But the ultimate winner will be the candidate who the rest of the voters who didn't vote for one of these two, will decide the election via selecting the candidate they least want to lose, but not win. So the next Mayor of New York will be a candidate that was least wanted to lose, not win.

First everyone votes for the candidate they want to win, then it goes to further rounds to decide the winner by voting for the candidate they least want to lose, not win. Where's the logic? You're liable to end up with a winner or in this case a Mayor that 80.5% of the people voted against when they were voting for candidates they wanted to be Mayor. You'll be able to call the next Mayor, old 19.5.

Oh well, if it happens, I suppose New York City deserves to have a Mayor 80.5% of the people didn't want.

 

[uptower]

If it’s not the case why not let as many Americans as possible vote?

Oh, yeah,...wait, riiiight.

 

[Perotista]

If it’s not the case why not let as many Americans as possible vote?

Oh, yeah,...wait, riiiight.

I think the numbers prove it's not the case. Whenever we have a high voter turnout, it's caused by anger at one party or individual, some legislation a majority of Americans opposed and got their dander up, distrust and dislike of a particular candidate or both. The thing is emotions among those who usually don't vote kicked in for some reason to get them to the polls. Usually, what one sees is a higher percentage of those who vote in a high turnout election year are independents with the party's base vote remaining fairly steady.

since it is for the most part, not always, independents, swing voters or the non-affiliated that turnout more than usual in high voter turnout elections, they don't benefit either major party. They tend to vote against the party in power because something made them angry enough to get off their duffs and go vote. If things are going well, no need to vote and usually the party in power remains in power.

 

[mrjurrs]

So the voters decided who they wanted to win 31-19. But the ultimate winner will be the candidate who the rest of the voters who didn't vote for one of these two, will decide the election via selecting the candidate they least want to lose, but not win. So the next Mayor of New York will be a candidate that was least wanted to lose, not win.

First everyone votes for the candidate they want to win, then it goes to further rounds to decide the winner by voting for the candidate they least want to lose, not win. Where's the logic? You're liable to end up with a winner or in this case a Mayor that 80.5% of the people voted against when they were voting for candidates they wanted to be Mayor. You'll be able to call the next Mayor, old 19.5.

Oh well, if it happens, I suppose New York City deserves to have a Mayor 80.5% of the people didn't want.

Not sure how you are hanging your hat on this. A minority of voters want the 31% candidate to win. Second choice is who you want to win if your first choice doesn't. They take the second choice of the bottom candidate and apply those second choice votes. This process continues until one candidate has 50% plus 1 vote. Can you clarify the idea of voting for the candidate 'they least want to lose'?

 

[uptower]

I think the numbers prove it's not the case. Whenever we have a high voter turnout, it's caused by anger at one party or individual, some legislation a majority of Americans opposed and got their dander up, distrust and dislike of a particular candidate or both. The thing is emotions among those who usually don't vote kicked in for some reason to get them to the polls. Usually, what one sees is a higher percentage of those who vote in a high turnout election year are independents with the party's base vote remaining fairly steady.

since it is for the most part, not always, independents, swing voters or the non-affiliated that turnout more than usual in high voter turnout elections, they don't benefit either major party. They tend to vote against the party in power because something made them angry enough to get off their duffs and go vote. If things are going well, no need to vote and usually the party in power remains in power.

I covered this elsewhere. Usually in a democracy high turnout is bad for the incumbents. Because the Republicans have undemocratic tendencies, then when they’re in power they tend to make greater efforts to stay there by undermining voter turnout.

 

[Perotista]

Not sure how you are hanging your hat on this. A minority of voters want the 31% candidate to win. Second choice is who you want to win if your first choice doesn't. They take the second choice of the bottom candidate and apply those second choice votes. This process continues until one candidate has 50% plus 1 vote. Can you clarify the idea of voting for the candidate 'they least want to lose'?

Forget all of that, there's much more going on in New York.

Confusion grips New York City mayoral Democratic primary after vote 'discrepancy'​

New York City mayoral race grows more uncertain after new vote count

(Reuters) -New vote totals released on Tuesday in New York City's Democratic mayoral contest sharply narrowed the lead for Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, leaving the outcome even more uncertain with thousands of absentee ballots still to be counted over the coming weeks. Kathryn...

www.yahoo.com

This is just the Democratic Primary, if rank choice is having this much problems, I certainly don't want to see it in a general election. It seems these folks don't know what they're counting, sample ballots to test the system, 140,000 ballots appearing out of the blue and more. I sure wouldn't trust the outcome.

 

[mrjurrs]

Forget all of that, there's much more going on in New York.

Confusion grips New York City mayoral Democratic primary after vote 'discrepancy'​

New York City mayoral race grows more uncertain after new vote count

(Reuters) -New vote totals released on Tuesday in New York City's Democratic mayoral contest sharply narrowed the lead for Eric Adams, the Brooklyn borough president, leaving the outcome even more uncertain with thousands of absentee ballots still to be counted over the coming weeks. Kathryn...

www.yahoo.com

This is just the Democratic Primary, if rank choice is having this much problems, I certainly don't want to see it in a general election. It seems these folks don't know what they're counting, sample ballots to test the system, 140,000 ballots appearing out of the blue and more. I sure wouldn't trust the outcome.

It's not a big issue, and it's not an issue with rank choice. Human error, test ballots were added into the count. They will be removed. The system works when mistakes are found and corrected.