Ranked choice voting in Maine

[Lord Tammerlain]

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.

Certainly not. Right now in the US a lot of people vote for either one of the two main parties as they do not want their vote to be wasted. With Ranked choice, the option to vote for the third, forth etc candidate as a primary choice works, and will still allow the person to help ensure the Candidate they do not want to win, does not get a "free vote"

Look at this example

Right now, the top two parties get what 95% of the vote. Despite I expect not being the first choice of 95% of the voters. But they vote that way because they really dont want the other primary candidate to win

With Ranked choice, a significant number of people can vote for their primary choice, even if that candidate is not going to win, and choice their secondary choice, while still ensuring the candidate they don't like gets a "free vote". So with ranked choice once the voters become familiar with the system, will have a larger number of primary votes going to parties other than Democrat, or Republican. Once those numbers get to 30% of the votes then you would have truly multi party competitive elections. People will not have to vote against someone, instead of voting for someone, at least for their primary vote choice

 

[Mithros]

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.

There are folks who really dislike both major parties as those parties have a monopoly on our two party system. These folks vote third party against both major party candidates. Rank voting is just another shennanigan, scheme to ensure the two major parties maintain their monopoly.

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.

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.

How were they disenfranchised?

 

[HonestJoe]

I most certainly did.
It is not one person, one vote.

But you've not explained why that is wrong in this context. If every voter has the same opportunity, nobody is being disenfranchised.

 

[Perotista]

That doesn't really make any sense. You don't have to vote for a major party candidate at all if you don't want to. But with this system if you want to vote for a third party candidate but still vote against a major party in the event your third party candidate can't win, then you can.

It's the method that every other state uses that trashes third party votes. We have no idea in most states how many people's first choice was really a non-major candidate, but who felt like they had to pick the lesser of two evils. In Maine, we actually know how many people supported those independents because they could rank them first.

It is so, ridiculously better for non-major party candidates than a simple first past the post system. Why do you think Libertarians, Greens, and Independents overwhelmingly campaigned in Maine for the opportunity to use ranked choice voting?

However you slice it, when it comes to round two and on wards, you either choose a major party candidate or your vote is trashed. You can't get away from that. That is disenfranchisement. If I want only one candidate, then that candidate should be counted as my first, second, third, fourth, fifth and so on. Why force or mandate I vote for someone I don't want, can't stand, and think of that candidate as the devil reincarnated. You're forcing folks to either vote for the devil, someone they don't want or get disenfranchised and your vote trashed.

Get that sign out there, ONLY VOTES FOR THE TWO MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATES WILL BE COUNTED after round one.

 

[Perotista]

Certainly not. Right now in the US a lot of people vote for either one of the two main parties as they do not want their vote to be wasted. With Ranked choice, the option to vote for the third, forth etc candidate as a primary choice works, and will still allow the person to help ensure the Candidate they do not want to win, does not get a "free vote"

Look at this example

Right now, the top two parties get what 95% of the vote. Despite I expect not being the first choice of 95% of the voters. But they vote that way because they really dont want the other primary candidate to win

With Ranked choice, a significant number of people can vote for their primary choice, even if that candidate is not going to win, and choice their secondary choice, while still ensuring the candidate they don't like gets a "free vote". So with ranked choice once the voters become familiar with the system, will have a larger number of primary votes going to parties other than Democrat, or Republican. Once those numbers get to 30% of the votes then you would have truly multi party competitive elections. People will not have to vote against someone, instead of voting for someone, at least for their primary vote choice

Tell me if I vote independent round one, can I still vote independent in round two, three or how many or am I forced into voting for one of the two major party candidates. That is if I want my vote counted or be tossed like 8,000 plus was because they wanted someone else other than a major party candidate?

If I can't mark my ballot Candidate A, first choice round one, Candidate A first choice round two, Candidate A first choice round three etc, what good is it? Just another gimmick to make people vote for the two major party candidates.

It is saying, Okay we'll let you feel good by being able to vote for a third party candidate in round one. But we'll force you into voting for a major party candidate in round two. If you don't, your vote, your ballot goes into the trash.

 

[Perotista]

How were they disenfranchised?

Over 8,000 plus ballots were trashed because they failed to vote for a major party candidate in round two. It was either vote our way or we'll discard your ballot. If I don't want candidate R and I don't want candidate D, I want candidate I, then I should be able to vote for the candidate I want. Not be forced into voting for Candidate R or D regardless of how many rounds of voting are taking place.

 

[Mithros]

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.

I agree with the first part, but less so the second. Evaluating group preferences can actually be quite complicated.

Ranked Choice voting describes a whole set of ways to run an election, not just one. Instant Runoff, Contingent Voting, Supplementary Voting, Sri Lanken Contingent Voting, Borda Count, Modified Borda Count, Dowdall System, Nanson Method, Baldwin Method, and others are all different methods to evaluate a ranked choice election. Add in cardinal scoring and the possibilities are endless.

Ranked choice elections can do a much better job of representing the wishes of a population. I very much prefer them. However, the drawback is that they can be difficult to understand which causes distrust. One of the most important parts of a democracy is that the people in it believe that it's working. So when the candidate with the "most" votes loses and some people have their votes "thrown out" it can cause issues.

 

[Mithros]

Over 8,000 plus ballots were trashed because they failed to vote for a major party candidate in round two. It was either vote our way or we'll discard your ballot. If I don't want candidate R and I don't want candidate D, I want candidate I, then I should be able to vote for the candidate I want. Not be forced into voting for Candidate R or D regardless of how many rounds of voting are taking place.

That happens to everyone who votes for a candidate that doesn't get the most votes.

Also it's exactly expressing your intent. You want to vote for candidate I, and don't want to vote for either candidate R or D. So when they're the only ones on the ballot you effectively sit out... which is what your intent was.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

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.

I don't have any issues with Maine having this type of voting, but in what way can this be described as "more" democratic, objectively or otherwise? How can this even be quantified? Seems like something either is democratic or isn't democratic.

 

[Anagram]

However you slice it, when it comes to round two and on wards, you either choose a major party candidate or your vote is trashed. You can't get away from that. That is disenfranchisement. If I want only one candidate, then that candidate should be counted as my first, second, third, fourth, fifth and so on. Why force or mandate I vote for someone I don't want, can't stand, and think of that candidate as the devil reincarnated. You're forcing folks to either vote for the devil, someone they don't want or get disenfranchised and your vote trashed.

Get that sign out there, ONLY VOTES FOR THE TWO MAJOR PARTY CANDIDATES WILL BE COUNTED after round one.

Why does that matter? Your first choice is counted in round one. Everyone can see it. Everyone can see how many Libertarian/Reform/Green/etc. first choicers there are. If you don't want to vote for someone after that then don't. It's not disenfranchisement.

I don't understand how as someone who supports candidates outside the two main parties you can think it's better to have so many third party supporters feel like they have to vote Democratic or Republican when they would rather not to avoid the spoiler effect, than to actually allow them to select their first choice and have it counted like you do with IRV. Why do you think Libertarians, Greens, Reforms, and the supporters of Independents like the ones who got a ton of votes in Maine's 2nd supported Ranked Choice Voting if it hindered them so much?

 

[Anagram]

Over 8,000 plus ballots were trashed because they failed to vote for a major party candidate in round two. It was either vote our way or we'll discard your ballot. If I don't want candidate R and I don't want candidate D, I want candidate I, then I should be able to vote for the candidate I want. Not be forced into voting for Candidate R or D regardless of how many rounds of voting are taking place.

Do you feel this passionately against runoff elections? It's the same thing except expensive and likely to draw lower turnout. If you don't like the top two in Georgia you either have to vote D or R or sit out the runoff.

 

[Xelor]

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.

There are folks who really dislike both major parties as those parties have a monopoly on our two party system. These folks vote third party against both major party candidates. Rank voting is just another shennanigan, scheme to ensure the two major parties maintain their monopoly.

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.

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.

Red:
No, we would not. For RCV to work, there need only be candidates, voters, votes, a way to cast a vote and vote counters.

Blue:
WTH are you talking about? Please provide a source that indicates some 8K people's votes were thrown in the trash in ME's election.

Pink:
Well, they were always going to get that wish fulfilled, for there weren't ever going to be two or three winners of the election.

Tan:
Clearly you don't understand RCV.

• Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
• How to choose a winner: the mathematics of social choice
• Voting & Social Choice
  • Borda model:
    • Pros:
      • Takes into account full set of preferences
      • Can promote compromise candidates
      • Monotonic
    • Con: Vulnerable to strategic voting
  • Plurality models:
    • Pros:
      • Simple ballot to fill out
      • Transparent results
      • Easy to understand
      • Monotonic
    • Cons:
      • Vote splitting
      • Spoilers
      • Tactical voting
      • Negative campaigning
  • Codorcet: Mathy people love this model because Condorcet winners win in head-to-head contests against each opponent, but not all races have Condorcet winners; thus if a jurisdiction were to adopt a Condorcet model, it'd also have to adopt some way to choose a winner when there is no Condorcet winner. Such a decision model can be as simple or as complicated as one cares to make it. (I have no idea what share/quantity of US elections would have (or not) produced Condorcet winners.
    
    

• Impact of RCV on Representation
• Rank Choice Voting Toolkit

RCV improves the chances of seeing elected a candidate that isn't a major party candidate and who was "voted against" (didn't receive a vote or was ranked lowly) by a material share of the electorate. Most importantly, RCV makes third-party voters/supporters worth paying attention to by major party candidates because even if they don't obtain the third-party voters first rank, they still need to appeal to those voters enough to obtain more of their approbation than does their opponent.



Other:
As a practical matter, it's unsurprising Dems don't much care for RCV: there are more Libertarians ("lean right" people) than there are Green Partiers ("lean left" people). It's also no surprise that Reps don't care for RCV: they are numerically behind Dems overall, which means they'd have to count on "right leaners" to make up the numbers, which may not be mathematically possible if enough "left leaners" simply show up and vote. Also, major parties don't like RCV because it eliminates the "spoiler" effect third-party candidates have.

 

[Bullseye]

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.

Just what we need, more backroom machinations determining the outcomes of elections. Sorry, no. I'll take the hassle and inconvenience of run-offs any day.

 

[Anagram]

Just what we need, more backroom machinations determining the outcomes of elections. Sorry, no. I'll take the hassle and inconvenience of run-offs any day.

What backroom machinations? And why should we waste the taxpayers' money on the extravagant expense of a whole runoff election when we don't have to?

 

[Bullseye]

What backroom machinations? And why should we waste the taxpayers' money on the extravagant expense of a whole runoff election when we don't have to?

I'd rather spend the additional money have an open election and count (except in Florida) and decide the winner that way than have some computer transferring votes to candidates that they weren't cast for and declaring a winner.

 

[concernedpuma]

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.

There are folks who really dislike both major parties as those parties have a monopoly on our two party system. These folks vote third party against both major party candidates. Rank voting is just another shennanigan, scheme to ensure the two major parties maintain their monopoly.

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.

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.

By trashed votes, do you mean those votes who weren't for either of the top two, or is there something else at work here? Were they somehow barred from voting a second round?
Regards,
CP

 

[Anagram]

I'd rather spend the additional money have an open election and count (except in Florida) and decide the winner that way than have some computer transferring votes to candidates that they weren't cast for and declaring a winner.

Transferring votes to a candidate they were cast for. The voter intends that if his first choice was eliminated that his vote be cast for the person he ranked second. Just the same as a runoff but millions of dollars cheaper and with less of a turnout dropoff.

 

[concernedpuma]

Transferring votes to a candidate they were cast for. The voter intends that if his first choice was eliminated that his vote be cast for the person he ranked second. Just the same as a runoff but millions of dollars cheaper and with less of a turnout dropoff.

I'm a bit confused by that. This RTV concept is novel, at least it is to me: Is it the case that the runner-up gets all votes not directed to the winner?
Regards,
CP

 

[Perotista]

That happens to everyone who votes for a candidate that doesn't get the most votes.

Also it's exactly expressing your intent. You want to vote for candidate I, and don't want to vote for either candidate R or D. So when they're the only ones on the ballot you effectively sit out... which is what your intent was.

My intent was to officially register my disdain for both major party candidates. If people are happy voting for the lesser of two evils or the candidate they least want to lose, fine by me. I'm not.

 

[Perotista]

Why does that matter? Your first choice is counted in round one. Everyone can see it. Everyone can see how many Libertarian/Reform/Green/etc. first choicers there are. If you don't want to vote for someone after that then don't. It's not disenfranchisement.

I don't understand how as someone who supports candidates outside the two main parties you can think it's better to have so many third party supporters feel like they have to vote Democratic or Republican when they would rather not to avoid the spoiler effect, than to actually allow them to select their first choice and have it counted like you do with IRV. Why do you think Libertarians, Greens, Reforms, and the supporters of Independents like the ones who got a ton of votes in Maine's 2nd supported Ranked Choice Voting if it hindered them so much?

Yes it is. You're denying me of my choice in favor of one of the two major parties who hold the monopoly on our system. You're mandating I vote the way you want after the first round or not vote at all. Might as well stayed home as I know my vote won't be counted if the rank vote goes to a round two. Are you happy making it mandatory to vote R and or D? Is that right? I think not.

 

[Anagram]

Yes it is. You're denying me of my choice in favor of one of the two major parties who hold the monopoly on our system. You're mandating I vote the way you want after the first round or not vote at all. Might as well stayed home as I know my vote won't be counted if the rank vote goes to a round two. Are you happy making it mandatory to vote R and or D? Is that right? I think not.

You don't have to vote R or D if you don't want to at all. You don't have to vote R or D if an independent/third party is one of the top two vote getters in the first round. And that's something that's several orders of magnitude more likely than an independent/third party getting the most votes in a regular, first past the post election.

 

[Perotista]

Do you feel this passionately against runoff elections? It's the same thing except expensive and likely to draw lower turnout. If you don't like the top two in Georgia you either have to vote D or R or sit out the runoff.

We do have a runoff for Georgia's secretary of state scheduled for 4 Dec. I haven't decided yet which one I'll vote for or if I'll vote at all. I still have time to think about it.

 

[concernedpuma]

Yes it is. You're denying me of my choice in favor of one of the two major parties who hold the monopoly on our system. You're mandating I vote the way you want after the first round or not vote at all. Might as well stayed home as I know my vote won't be counted if the rank vote goes to a round two. Are you happy making it mandatory to vote R and or D? Is that right? I think not.

Wouldn't it be so, that if a third party was in the top 2, they would be in the runoff? If so, wouldn't that enhance their chances? Or is that incorrect?
Regards,
CP

 

[Anagram]

We do have a runoff for Georgia's secretary of state scheduled for 4 Dec. I haven't decided yet which one I'll vote for or if I'll vote at all. I still have time to think about it.

How is this any different than instant runoff voting then except for the month layoff?

First Round Barrow (D) and Raffensberger (R) are the top two vote getters. People who don't vote for one of them in the second round don't have a chance to vote. No chance to vote 3rd party.

Georgia could have done that without the millions of dollars it costs to hold the runoff if they just used Instant runoff voting.

 

[Perotista]

Red:
No, we would not. For RCV to work, there need only be candidates, voters, votes, a way to cast a vote and vote counters.

Blue:
WTH are you talking about? Please provide a source that indicates some 8K people's votes were thrown in the trash in ME's election.

Pink:
Well, they were always going to get that wish fulfilled, for there weren't ever going to be two or three winners of the election.

Tan:
Clearly you don't understand RCV.

• Arrow's Impossibility Theorem
• How to choose a winner: the mathematics of social choice
• Voting & Social Choice
  • Borda model:
    • Pros:
      • Takes into account full set of preferences
      • Can promote compromise candidates
      • Monotonic
    • Con: Vulnerable to strategic voting
  • Plurality models:
    • Pros:
      • Simple ballot to fill out
      • Transparent results
      • Easy to understand
      • Monotonic
    • Cons:
      • Vote splitting
      • Spoilers
      • Tactical voting
      • Negative campaigning
  • Codorcet: Mathy people love this model because Condorcet winners win in head-to-head contests against each opponent, but not all races have Condorcet winners; thus if a jurisdiction were to adopt a Condorcet model, it'd also have to adopt some way to choose a winner when there is no Condorcet winner. Such a decision model can be as simple or as complicated as one cares to make it. (I have no idea what share/quantity of US elections would have (or not) produced Condorcet winners.
    
    

• Impact of RCV on Representation
• Rank Choice Voting Toolkit

RCV improves the chances of seeing elected a candidate that isn't a major party candidate and who was "voted against" (didn't receive a vote or was ranked lowly) by a material share of the electorate. Most importantly, RCV makes third-party voters/supporters worth paying attention to by major party candidates because even if they don't obtain the third-party voters first rank, they still need to appeal to those voters enough to obtain more of their approbation than does their opponent.



Other:
As a practical matter, it's unsurprising Dems don't much care for RCV: there are more Libertarians ("lean right" people) than there are Green Partiers ("lean left" people). It's also no surprise that Reps don't care for RCV: they are numerically behind Dems overall, which means they'd have to count on "right leaners" to make up the numbers, which may not be mathematically possible if enough "left leaners" simply show up and vote. Also, major parties don't like RCV because it eliminates the "spoiler" effect third-party candidates have.

Count the votes,284,455 votes cast, initial round. 275,554 votes cast second round. That's 8,901 votes that were trashed in the second round. If those votes weren't thrown away, where did they go? You just disenfranchised 8,901 voters because they didn't vote the way you wanted.

https://www.nytimes.com/elections/r...&gwh=5001B08AEF49217FE081F6A25CC8DAF3&gwt=pay