Ranked choice voting in Maine

[Perotista]

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

Basically yes. It was either vote the way I want or we'll not count your votes.

 

[Perotista]

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

It boils down to either count my vote for whom I vote for, first, second, third or how many rounds, just count it. No more shenanigans or schemes.

 

[concernedpuma]

It boils down to either count my vote for whom I vote for, first, second, third or how many rounds, just count it. No more shenanigans or schemes.

I do cherish and will protect the value of each vote. What I was wondering about, is the possibility of say Libertarian A getting the second most votes; wouldn't that candidate stand against the first place vote getter? And by extension, give them the chance to pick up votes from one of the major party's that were eliminated. Doesn't that seem more likely to improve their chances, rather than as today, folks being afraid to wastetheir vote?
Regards,
CP

 

[Perotista]

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.

Bad example as I voted for one of them. But even if I hadn't, voted third party, I'd still be at peace with the runoff. I did vote third party, Metz for governor. If that race went to a runoff, I'd have four weeks to think about it. Do I want Kemp or Abrams, decide which one to vote for or not vote at all. On election day I knew whom I wanted, whom I didn't want and voted that way. I had no second choice then, not Abrams, not Kemp.

 

[Anagram]

Bad example as I voted for one of them. But even if I hadn't, voted third party, I'd still be at peace with the runoff. I did vote third party, Metz for governor. If that race went to a runoff, I'd have four weeks to think about it. Do I want Kemp or Abrams, decide which one to vote for or not vote at all. On election day I knew whom I wanted, whom I didn't want and voted that way. I had no second choice then, not Abrams, not Kemp.

So you're ok with a real runoff costing several millions of dollars but you're not ok with an instant runoff, simply because with a real runoff gives you time to think about which of the R or the D you would prefer?

That seems incredibly costly for no real reason. Election season is long enough you should be able to decide who, if anyone, you'd want to vote for in a runoff should your preferred candidate not make it in the top 2.

 

[Xelor]

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

According to the figures on the NY Times site you've referenced, 8,898 votes (we don't know how many ballots were submitted -- in rank voting, votes cast <> ballots submitted) were cast whereby they:

• Were invalid
  • Oh, well....
• Appeared on ballots specifying Bond or Hoar in "rank 1", but didn't rank anyone as second and/or third; thus these votes don't get "reallocated."
  • For such voters, this behavior will yield the same outcome as if there were no ranked voting. --> Their 1st choice candidate (Hoar or Bond) loses and someone for whom they didn't vote wins.
  • Voters who don't want their vote to help any candidate for whom they didn't vote, not casting a 2nd, 3rd, etc. vote is the way to make that happen.
• Did designate a second and/or third rank choice for someone who didn't receive any 1st choice votes and thus didn't make it past round 1.
  • For such voters, this behavior will yield the same outcome as if there were no ranked voting. --> Their 1st choice candidate (Hoar or Bond) loses and someone for whom they didn't vote wins.
  • Voters who want their vote to help the people whom they designate as 2nd or 3rd, provided that person makes it past/into round 1 by getting at least one 1st rank vote, but not help anyone else, this is the way to make that happen.

 

[Perotista]

I do cherish and will protect the value of each vote. What I was wondering about, is the possibility of say Libertarian A getting the second most votes; wouldn't that candidate stand against the first place vote getter? And by extension, give them the chance to pick up votes from one of the major party's that were eliminated. Doesn't that seem more likely to improve their chances, rather than as today, folks being afraid to wastetheir vote?
Regards,
CP

Until the Libertarian Party begins paying attention to the grass roots, it isn't going anywhere. Running a candidate for president, some for the senate, a couple for governor and the like isn't going to expand their base. They need to start down at the county level, city, local. Run some folks for county commissioner, for mayor, state legislature.

The Libertarian Party doesn't seem to be interested in trying to expand what little base they have.

 

[Helix]

Ranked choice voting in Maine

i think that i'd prefer it. i listened to a podcast which explains the concept pretty well :

https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/how-ranked-choice-voting-works.htm

 

[Perotista]

So you're ok with a real runoff costing several millions of dollars but you're not ok with an instant runoff, simply because with a real runoff gives you time to think about which of the R or the D you would prefer?

That seems incredibly costly for no real reason. Election season is long enough you should be able to decide who, if anyone, you'd want to vote for in a runoff should your preferred candidate not make it in the top 2.

to each his own. On election day I vote for the candidate I want to win. If there's a runoff, fine. If not, fine also. I don't go vote on election for a candidate I want to lose. There again, if voting for a candidate you don't want is fine and good for you, so be it. Why not make it simple then and vote for whom you don't want to begin with?

I just thought of something hilarious. What if we had your rank voting for president in 2016. I can see the first round Clinton 48%, Trump 46%, Johnson 2%, Stine 2%, Castle 1%. Since no one received 50% plus one, go to round two. Since Trump supporters wouldn't vote for Clinton and Clinton voters won't vote for Trump, their number two choice would be Johnson and Stein. You could end up with Stine at 50% since she would be the second choice of all Clinton voters and Johnson at 48%, viola, Stine is President.

 

[Perotista]

According to the figures on the NY Times site you've referenced, 8,898 votes (we don't know how many ballots were submitted -- in rank voting, votes cast <> ballots submitted) were cast whereby they:

• Were invalid
  • Oh, well....
• Appeared on ballots specifying Bond or Hoar in "rank 1", but didn't rank anyone as second and/or third; thus these votes don't get "reallocated."
  • For such voters, this behavior will yield the same outcome as if there were no ranked voting. --> Their 1st choice candidate (Hoar or Bond) loses and someone for whom they didn't vote wins.
  • Voters who don't want their vote to help any candidate for whom they didn't vote, not casting a 2nd, 3rd, etc. vote is the way to make that happen.
• Did designate a second and/or third rank choice for someone who didn't receive any 1st choice votes and thus didn't make it past round 1.
  • For such voters, this behavior will yield the same outcome as if there were no ranked voting. --> Their 1st choice candidate (Hoar or Bond) loses and someone for whom they didn't vote wins.
  • Voters who want their vote to help the people whom they designate as 2nd or 3rd, provided that person makes it past/into round 1 by getting at least one 1st rank vote, but not help anyone else, this is the way to make that happen.

Is reallocation another word for trashing their votes? you didn't count them as you should have. Not everyone has a second or third choice. You disenfranchised them for round two. If you had 284,455 or whatever the final count was for round one, you need to have that same number of votes for round two, three or however many rounds. Failure to do that is throwing those ballots into the waste can. You choose not to count their votes because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to.

 

[concernedpuma]

Until the Libertarian Party begins paying attention to the grass roots, it isn't going anywhere. Running a candidate for president, some for the senate, a couple for governor and the like isn't going to expand their base. They need to start down at the county level, city, local. Run some folks for county commissioner, for mayor, state legislature.

The Libertarian Party doesn't seem to be interested in trying to expand what little base they have.

I only intended that as an example. I am not promoting any group. I just thought there might be a time and place where a third party might benefit from a race where 1 and 2 were pitted. In todays climate, a party with good ideas might be elected in a run-off, regardless of their party. I am beginning to tire of the same tripe from both large party's, aren't you?
Regards,
CP

 

[Marvan Buren]

I do cherish and will protect the value of each vote. What I was wondering about, is the possibility of say Libertarian A getting the second most votes; wouldn't that candidate stand against the first place vote getter? And by extension, give them the chance to pick up votes from one of the major party's that were eliminated. Doesn't that seem more likely to improve their chances, rather than as today, folks being afraid to wastetheir vote?
Regards,
CP

Yes, yes, and yes.This eliminates the "wasted" vote problem and allows a voter to have his/her vote count twice. First, FOR their favorite candidate. Second, AGAINST, the major party candidate who they hate the most. Ranked voting won't change things overnight but as voters get used to it, I think we'll see the number of votes received by third and fourth party candidates go up with each election cycle until they get within range of challenging the major parties. I agree with the comment that the Libertarian Party must start taking itself seriously but, if it does, IRV (for Instant Runoff Voting) would put them in an excellent position to pick up anti-Trump Republicans.

 

[concernedpuma]

Yes, yes, and yes.This eliminates the "wasted" vote problem and allows a voter to have his/her vote count twice. First, FOR their favorite candidate. Second, AGAINST, the major party candidate who they hate the most. Ranked voting won't change things overnight but as voters get used to it, I think we'll see the number of votes received by third and fourth party candidates go up with each election cycle until they get within range of challenging the major parties. I agree with the comment that the Libertarian Party must start taking itself seriously but, if it does, IRV (for Instant Runoff Voting) would put them in an excellent position to pick up anti-Trump Republicans.

As a Conservative, I must add, or pick up anti-socialist votes. But I am with you. I'm in for the whole ride, either way the country goes. It is surely possible I might not understand the reason's people vote different than I, but am prepared to go forward with the elected government.
Regards,
CP

 

[Perotista]

I only intended that as an example. I am not promoting any group. I just thought there might be a time and place where a third party might benefit from a race where 1 and 2 were pitted. In todays climate, a party with good ideas might be elected in a run-off, regardless of their party. I am beginning to tire of the same tripe from both large party's, aren't you?
Regards,
CP

I've been tired of it for a long time. The thing is that we have a two party electoral system. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing the two major parties agree on, it is that no viable third party will ever arise.

With rank voting, one party or the other or both saw it as a way to ensure their monopoly in our two party system. You can bet your bottom dollar that neither party would sign off on it if they thought it in any way jeopardized their hold on our two party system. It's like gerrymandering. When the Republicans do it, the Democrats raise holy Hades and shout at the top of their lungs gerrymandering should be done away with. When Democrats do it, then republicans are hollering. Yet, neither party is willing to do away with gerrymandering. It would take the party in power to pass legislation to do away with it, but the party in power has the power of gerrymandering.

Rank voting is nothing more than a newly devised way to throw away third party votes.

 

[polgara]

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.

Greetings, Pero. :2wave:

Is "ranked choice" even legal? There goes any chance of a third party win, which many seem to want, so I have a difficult time believing half the stuff I read..... :wow:

 

[concernedpuma]

I've been tired of it for a long time. The thing is that we have a two party electoral system. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing the two major parties agree on, it is that no viable third party will ever arise.

With rank voting, one party or the other or both saw it as a way to ensure their monopoly in our two party system. You can bet your bottom dollar that neither party would sign off on it if they thought it in any way jeopardized their hold on our two party system. It's like gerrymandering. When the Republicans do it, the Democrats raise holy Hades and shout at the top of their lungs gerrymandering should be done away with. When Democrats do it, then republicans are hollering. Yet, neither party is willing to do away with gerrymandering. It would take the party in power to pass legislation to do away with it, but the party in power has the power of gerrymandering.

Rank voting is nothing more than a newly devised way to throw away third party votes.

You may be right, but it seems like a start, something we haven't had in quite some time. Where else do you see a sliver of hope?
Bull Moose is chomping at the bit to be reborn!
Regards,
CP

 

[Marvan Buren]

I've been tired of it for a long time. The thing is that we have a two party electoral system. Republicans and Democrats write our election laws and they do so as a mutual protection act. If there is one thing the two major parties agree on, it is that no viable third party will ever arise.

With rank voting, one party or the other or both saw it as a way to ensure their monopoly in our two party system. You can bet your bottom dollar that neither party would sign off on it if they thought it in any way jeopardized their hold on our two party system. It's like gerrymandering. When the Republicans do it, the Democrats raise holy Hades and shout at the top of their lungs gerrymandering should be done away with. When Democrats do it, then republicans are hollering. Yet, neither party is willing to do away with gerrymandering. It would take the party in power to pass legislation to do away with it, but the party in power has the power of gerrymandering.

Rank voting is nothing more than a newly devised way to throw away third party votes.

Your reasoning may be right but I disagree with your conclusion. Remember that Angus King, former Governor and current Senator from Maine is an Independent. Perhaps Maine was the first state to use this system in order to make sure that third party candidates will always have a chance to win. If, as you say, Instant Runoff Voting helps the two major parties, why haven't all the other states adopted it as well? The reason is that once voters get used to the system, they'll realize that they finally do have the power to upend the 2 party oligarchy.

Last but not least, if you look at the official returns from Maine 2, you'll see that the first round is what is listed. The votes for the third party candidates are shown and the Republican is shown as having received the most votes. However, since a strong majority of those third party voters preferred the Democrat, he was declared the winner. Far from having their votes thrown away, those who cast votes for third parties, effectively had their vote count twice. Once for their candidate, and second against the Republican.

 

[concernedpuma]

Yes, yes, and yes.This eliminates the "wasted" vote problem and allows a voter to have his/her vote count twice. First, FOR their favorite candidate. Second, AGAINST, the major party candidate who they hate the most. Ranked voting won't change things overnight but as voters get used to it, I think we'll see the number of votes received by third and fourth party candidates go up with each election cycle until they get within range of challenging the major parties. I agree with the comment that the Libertarian Party must start taking itself seriously but, if it does, IRV (for Instant Runoff Voting) would put them in an excellent position to pick up anti-Trump Republicans.

M...I'm sorry. I just noticed that you fairly new here. Your post seemed more like a frequent visitor. I welcome you and your view's! Wherever they lead!
Regards,
CP

 

[concernedpuma]

Your reasoning may be right but I disagree with your conclusion. Remember that Angus King, former Governor and current Senator from Maine is an Independent. Perhaps Maine was the first state to use this system in order to make sure that third party candidates will always have a chance to win. If, as you say, Instant Runoff Voting helps the two major parties, why haven't all the other states adopted it as well? The reason is that once voters get used to the system, they'll realize that they finally do have the power to upend the 2 party oligarchy.

Last but not least, if you look at the official returns from Maine 2, you'll see that the first round is what is listed. The votes for the third party candidates are shown and the Republican is shown as having received the most votes. However, since a strong majority of those third party voters preferred the Democrat, he was declared the winner. Far from having their votes thrown away, those who cast votes for third parties, effectively had their vote count twice. Once for their candidate, and second against the Republican.

That seems too open to manipulation. If a vote were cast one way or the other, that ought to be an end to it. If a runoff were called for, so be it, but don't assume a tilt.
Regards,
CP

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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.

No, ranked choice gives you a realistic option of voting third party. You do know that you can write one party if you want right? You don't need more than one.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

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.

Because our current system is specifically designed to allow two and only two candidates, and those candidates are from two private parties that can do or nominate anyone they choose. No matter how unpopular the GOP and Dems get, they will always hmget near 100% of the vote. Why don't you explain to me how that's democracy. In other countries parties rise and fall based on popularity. Not here.

 

[Xelor]

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

According to the figures on the NY Times site you've referenced, 8,898 votes (we don't know how many ballots were submitted -- in rank voting, votes cast <> ballots submitted) were cast whereby they:

• Were invalid
  • Oh, well....
• Appeared on ballots specifying Bond or Hoar in "rank 1", but didn't rank anyone as second and/or third; thus these votes don't get "reallocated."
  • For such voters, this behavior will yield the same outcome as if there were no ranked voting. --> Their 1st choice candidate (Hoar or Bond) loses and someone for whom they didn't vote wins.
  • Voters who don't want their vote to help any candidate for whom they didn't vote, not casting a 2nd, 3rd, etc. vote is the way to make that happen.
• Did designate a second and/or third rank choice for someone who didn't receive any 1st choice votes and thus didn't make it past round 1.
  • For such voters, this behavior will yield the same outcome as if there were no ranked voting. --> Their 1st choice candidate (Hoar or Bond) loses and someone for whom they didn't vote wins.
  • Voters who want their vote to help the people whom they designate as 2nd or 3rd, provided that person makes it past/into round 1 by getting at least one 1st rank vote, but not help anyone else, this is the way to make that happen.

Is reallocation another word for trashing their votes? you didn't count them as you should have. Not everyone has a second or third choice. You disenfranchised them for round two. If you had 284,455 or whatever the final count was for round one, you need to have that same number of votes for round two, three or however many rounds. Failure to do that is throwing those ballots into the waste can. You choose not to count their votes because they didn't vote the way you wanted them to.

Red:
No.

Blue:

• Voters are/were free to indicate (or not) their first, second, third, etc. choice candidate for each position.
• Were Mainers informed of how ME would tabulate their votes? Yes. (Resources for Ranked-choice Voting)
• Who's "fault" is it that certain voters chose as their top one or two choices candidates who didn't make it to round two?
  • The voters who so chose.
    1. The knew going-in that the candidates whom they ranked highest weren't among the favorites.
    2. They knew or should have known that the RCV model ME used would mean their votes would stop counting after round one if (1) they didn't designate one of the favorites as their second and third choices or (2) the "long shots" whom they ranked first and/or second didn't make it to tabulation round 2.
  • The choices they made, given the tabulation method and the fact that the 3rd party candidates didn't engender enough support to make it past round one, are what resulted in their votes not being reallocated to a candidate who did make it past round one. That has nothing to do with me.

Prink:
Yes, I did, but insofar as you obviously don't understand how the allocation works, or you aren't trying to, and I'm not here to educate you (or anyone else), there's no point in my illustrating the math I performed.

 

[HonestJoe]

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.

That’s definitely a valid concern but I think the benefits can outweigh the risks. Once a specific system has been agreed upon, it should be possible to explain how it works in clear terms that most people can understand. There will always be some confusion and misinformation (unintended or not) and there will always be people who will never really understand how it all works but that’s true under any system, including current ones. After all, I expect part of this idea being raised again is due to the various confusion and disputes in various areas in the US midterms.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Because our current system is specifically designed to allow two and only two candidates, and those candidates are from two private parties that can do or nominate anyone they choose. No matter how unpopular the GOP and Dems get, they will always hmget near 100% of the vote. Why don't you explain to me how that's democracy. In other countries parties rise and fall based on popularity. Not here.

I didn't realize we would be debating the meaning of democracy since you said that Ranked voting was "more" democratic. Not just "more" but "objectively" more. At best, you have described "subjectively" more. Democracy is about the people doing the selecting, not the choices they are presented. There are several states experimenting with different systems and that isn't a bad thing, but I would be totally against imposing any one system on any, nor especially, all states.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

I didn't realize we would be debating the meaning of democracy since you said that Ranked voting was "more" democratic. Not just "more" but "objectively" more. At best, you have described "subjectively" more. Democracy is about the people doing the selecting, not the choices they are presented. There are several states experimenting with different systems and that isn't a bad thing, but I would be totally against imposing any one system on any, nor especially, all states.

The government being designed in such a way to limit the choices of the people is objectively less democratic than otherwise. We have two and only two parties, and they're private organizations that can do whatever they want and serve us up their candidates completely without our input. Being offered two choices you had no input on narrowing down is not a real democracy. It's like Russia serving up Putin every election and pretending it's democracy, we just have one more.