- Joined
- May 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,908
- Reaction score
- 489
- Location
- Colorado
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It still is, it’s just that your one vote is an order of preference. It makes perfect sense when you have more than two candidates.Get rid of it.
One person, one vote.
Get rid of it.
One person, one vote.
This midterm election was the first in which the state of Maine held ranked choice voting (also known as instant runoff voting or alternative voting). This is the result of question 5, a ballot measure which introduced this method of voting for governor, state legislators, and congressmen.
Maine's senate and gubernational elections both saw one candidate win a majority in the first round so the system didn't go into effect.
The house elections were a bit more interesting. The state has two districts and the first saw one candidate win by a majority. In the second district, the incumbent republican Bruce Poliquin won the initial round with 46.4% of the vote. But once the two independent candidates were eliminated, the democrat Jared Golden won a bare majority with 50.53% of the vote.
In the state legislature, the republicans made gains in both chambers and gained a majority in the house (the democrats currently hold a majority in both chambers).There are a few independents in the house but this was true before question 5 passed.
The state of Maine typically leans democrat and the state already has a few independents. It would be really interesting to see RTV at work in a swing state.
Ranked choice voting is objectively more democratic and makes third party and independent candidates more viable. It largely eliminates the "lesser of two evils" voting strategy that is the worst cancer of American politics. With it Americans can vote for the candidate they really want without worrying about spoiling or splitting the vote and letting an unpopular mainstream candidate to win. I think we dramatically need this.
Rubbish. They’re no more disenfranchised that anyone who doesn’t vote for the winner in First Past The Post voting. With ranked voting, every voter has exactly the same opportunity to rank as many or as few candidates as they want to and the winner in the one who gains most overall support.For this to work, we would need a viable third and possible a fourth political parties. When this went to the second round, over 8,000 voters were disenfranchised. Their votes were thrown into the trash. It is as if they never voted. Why, they only wanted one candidate to win. They didn't want two or three candidates to win if the one they chose wasn't the winner.
Exactly the opposite. Ranked voting allows people to choose an independent or third party candidate as their first choice but still express a preference between the leading candidates. The third candidate won’t necessarily win first time around but the number of first choices they receive will give a more realistic image of the established support and thus a stronger basis for fighting future elections. It also means that if they successfully split the mainstream vote, the have a chance of winning on the basis of being the least worst choice of the loosing candidate, thus encouraging more moderate candidates over partisan extremists.How dare you not vote for one of the two major party candidates. If you do, by ranked voting we'll just trash your vote. We won't count them. Next time you better vote as we tell you, if not, we'll trash you vote again. Just stay home if you don't want one of the two major party candidates to win. Don't you dare cast a vote against them. We'll fix you. Maine did just that to over 8,000 voters in round two. Only because they didn't want either of the two major party candidates to win.
Actually, one of the most common arguments against this kind of system is that voters aren’t smart enough to work it out, which is kind of what you’re saying too. Voters do need to think about their vote more carefully under this system and not just blindly go for whoever is standing for the “right” party but I can only see that push as a positive thing for democracy.It's like being told, you are stupid voters, you don't know how or whom to vote for. We'll teach you, we just won't count your stupid vote. Get lost, stay away from the polls unless you vote for whom we want you to vote for.
It does just the opposite. It makes independents and third party candidates less viable. It ensures the winner will be one of the two major party candidates. It also trashes anyone's vote who didn't want either of the two major party candidates to win and hence didn't make them their second or third choice. What ranked voting did was disenfranchise some 8,000 voters in round two, it trashed their votes. Votes against both major party candidates were no longer counted. Stupid voters ought to know better than to vote for someone who isn't an R or a D.
This shenanigan of ranked voting is just a way of teaching those who vote against both major parties a lesson. The lesson, either vote R or D or we'll just throw your vote in the waste basket and not count it.
No, it actually is not.It still is, it’s just that your one vote is an order of preference. It makes perfect sense when you have more than two candidates.
Thank you for providing an example as to why the negativity is so high these days. You could have chosen any number of other responses than the negative one you chose to go with. But as everyone can see, you chose to go with personal negativity from the get. Sad. It is also hilarious in that you are wrong.Thank you for proving you have absolutely no idea what ranked choice voting is.
Unbreakable monopoly? :lamoPlease do not ever complain about the unbreakable monopoly the GOP and Dems have on American power. With people like you that only look at issues superficially before ****ting on them we'll never improve.
It does just the opposite. It makes independents and third party candidates less viable. It ensures the winner will be one of the two major party candidates. It also trashes anyone's vote who didn't want either of the two major party candidates to win and hence didn't make them their second or third choice. What ranked voting did was disenfranchise some 8,000 voters in round two, it trashed their votes. Votes against both major party candidates were no longer counted. Stupid voters ought to know better than to vote for someone who isn't an R or a D.
This shenanigan of ranked voting is just a way of teaching those who vote against both major parties a lesson. The lesson, either vote R or D or we'll just throw your vote in the waste basket and not count it.
Thank you for providing an example as to why the negativity is so high these days. You could have chosen any number of other responses than the negative one you chose to go with. But as everyone can see, you chose to go with personal negativity from the get. Sad. It is also hilarious in that you are wrong.
So you get in return that which you give. Thank you for proving, that as usual, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Unbreakable monopoly? :lamo
Sounds like a whambulance is in order.
It’s still one vote – you even said “the vote cast” yourselfNo, it actually is not.
It is allowing the vote cast by one individual to have multiple choices and effect.
Isn’t that debatable if one candidate gets more votes than any other individually but fewer votes than the total who voted against them? Should winning only a third or quarter of the votes cast be sufficient for a win? I’m not saying this is a definitive answer but I am saying the question is perfectly valid.Perfect sense? That is hilarious. If you intend to deny the person receiving the most votes from taking office, sure that makes sense.
No. InInstant-runoff voting, this person, if not, then this person, is multiple votes being cast.It’s still one vote – you even said “the vote cast” yourself. You’ve not explained why you believe it’s fundamentally bad and wrong for a vote to involve more than a simple binary option anyway.
In state and local elections the person receiving the most votes is acceptable. Always has been. Only those dissatisfied what to change it.Isn’t that debatable if one candidate gets more votes than any other individually but fewer votes than the total who voted against them? Should winning only a third or quarter of the votes cast be sufficient for a win? I’m not saying this is a definitive answer but I am saying the question is perfectly valid.
And yet third parties run all the time. Go figure. So no.Our political system is specifically designed to be two and only two parties and to shut out all of the others.
That you do not recognize the significance of what I said does not mean it is "some dumbass strawman". It just shows you are trapped in your own thoughts.You don't have any actual arguments against ranked choice voting, you just make up some dumbass strawman of "one person, one vote", which is still what ranked choice voting is.
Everyone gets their chance.Also, you're one of the least civil posters on this forum, so spare me the indignation, kid.
We’ll have to differ on that matter of terminology. You’ve still not explains what’s actually wrong with that process though.No. InInstant-runoff voting, this person, if not, then this person, is multiple votes being cast.
Yes, because it continues to feed the corrupt two-party state that exists in the US at the moment. I would be dissatisfied if I lived somewhere that made it almost impossible for anyone to reach political office without being backed by one of two political parties. You might as well scrap having candidates at all, just make every election a simple “R” or “D”.In state and local elections the person receiving the most votes is acceptable. Always has been. Only those dissatisfied what to change it.
I most certainly did.You’ve still not explains what’s actually wrong with that process though.
No.Yes,
There you have it folks. Corrupt thought processes.because it continues to feed the corrupt
Rubbish. They’re no more disenfranchised that anyone who doesn’t vote for the winner in First Past The Post voting. With ranked voting, every voter has exactly the same opportunity to rank as many or as few candidates as they want to and the winner in the one who gains most overall support.
Exactly the opposite. Ranked voting allows people to choose an independent or third party candidate as their first choice but still express a preference between the leading candidates. The third candidate won’t necessarily win first time around but the number of first choices they receive will give a more realistic image of the established support and thus a stronger basis for fighting future elections. It also means that if they successfully split the mainstream vote, the have a chance of winning on the basis of being the least worst choice of the loosing candidate, thus encouraging more moderate candidates over partisan extremists.
Actually, one of the most common arguments against this kind of system is that voters aren’t smart enough to work it out, which is kind of what you’re saying too. Voters do need to think about their vote more carefully under this system and not just blindly go for whoever is standing for the “right” party but I can only see that push as a positive thing for democracy.
It certainly doesn’t make third parties and independents less viable. It gives voters who prefer those candidates every reason to rank them number one when under a regular system they’d be pressured to vote Republican or Democratic to prevent the one they like least winning. Under Ranked Choice voting you get more people voting for third parties.
What it did in Maine’s 2nd was give 23,000 voters a reason to show their preference for third parties when they’d otherwise be pressured to vote only for one of the main two.
This makes absolutely no sense. People who vote for third party candidates already have their votes thrown in the trash, every single election for the entire history of this country. Americans have convinced themselves that they shouldn't vote for the candidate that best represents their values, they should vote for the mainstream candidate they hate the least. The two parties in power have a death grip on our government and no matter how low their approval slips, they still get near 100% of the vote. That is total bull**** and apparently something you support.
Our political system is specifically designed to be two and only two parties and to shut out all of the others. You don't have any actual arguments against ranked choice voting, you just make up some dumbass strawman of "one person, one vote", which is still what ranked choice voting is.
Also, you're one of the least civil posters on this forum, so spare me the indignation, kid.
It all boils down to having to vote for one of the major party's candidate or have your vote trashed. It's like saying it's okay to vote against both major party candidates, but if you don't want to be disenfranchised, you will have to, we'll make it mandatory for you to vote for one or the other major party candidate. You have no choice in the matter. Either vote major party candidate or we'll trash your vote. Just another shenanigan to ensure voters only vote major party in the end.
So what you're saying is that 8 million of us who voted against both Trump and Clinton in 2016, should just stay home and not show our disdain for both major party candidates. I have a better idea than ranked voting. Have None of the Above on the ballot. If none of above wins, then the major parties must nominate two new candidates and have another election.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?