Ranked Choice Voting would benefit all voters

(Image because Ranked Choice Voting is hard to explain, I recommend reading this first so that you have context if you don't already.)


Ranked Choice Voting isn't implemented all across America, despite its benefits for voters all across the political spectrum compared to our current system. And over this past year, it has been banned in several states.

To me, this is a nonpartisan issue. Whether you are a communist, a nationalist, a moderate, a libertarian, etc, this will let you have more control over what kind of person you'd like to be in office. So why have we not implemented this?

The answer I'd say is because of the two groups it does benefit: The Democratic Party and the Republican Party (Not to be confused with Republicans and Democrats, I mean the parties themselves). As much as the civilians loyal to the parties would benefit from Ranked Choice Voting, it would also reduce the dependance we have on them.

Despite powerful politicians from the parties lambasting those opposite to them, the Republican and Democratic Parties need each other to stay in power. Conservative voters, afraid of liberal power, vote red because it is their only choice. Liberal voters, afraid of conservative power, vote blue because it is their only choice. I feel that it would be mutually advantageous for voters blue, red, and in-between to demand their leaders to bring Ranked Choice Voting to their states and cities.

What do y'all think?

In order for this method to be used, there must be more than two choices. So, would primaries be eliminated? Or would this be purely used in primaries to determine who would be running in the general election? It is a little confusing and, sorry, but I have a pretty low opinion of a lot of voters right now in their ability to think through problems and issues. And, could this mean that, if used in the primary, the top two candidates might be of the same party if the state has an open primary with people of all parties running for the same office?

I read articles discussing the pros and cons of RCV and would like to see it implemented nationwide for all elections. It requires voters to up their intellectual investment which might be challenging.

dockside said:

In order for this method to be used, there must be more than two choices. So, would primaries be eliminated? Or would this be purely used in primaries to determine who would be running in the general election? It is a little confusing and, sorry, but I have a pretty low opinion of a lot of voters right now in their ability to think through problems and issues. And, could this mean that, if used in the primary, the top two candidates might be of the same party if the state has an open primary with people of all parties running for the same office?

Click to expand...

(Sorry I'm a little bad at explaining this, it's a complicated thing and I want to make sure I word this correctly so I don't accidentally spread misinformation)

Ranked choice voting would not eliminate primaries, as it still benefits parties to find which candidate supporters like the most. It's possible that you could have two candidates of the same party ranked, I'm not sure though, I'd have to do more research.

I'll link a source that words things better here.

SocialDemocrat1993 said:

Despite powerful politicians from the parties lambasting those opposite to them, the Republican and Democratic Parties need each other to stay in power. Conservative voters, afraid of liberal power, vote red because it is their only choice. Liberal voters, afraid of conservative power, vote blue because it is their only choice. I feel that it would be mutually advantageous for voters blue, red, and in-between to demand their leaders to bring Ranked Choice Voting to their states and cities.

What do y'all think?

Click to expand...

I think it doesn't work for me, it doesn't work in our two party system, and even if we could use it, it would not lead to an effective or satisfactory result for anyone.

Australia uses RCV at all levels, but it's only in the Senate (and State equivalents) that more than 2 parties are meaningfully represented. The Senate uses multi-member constituency (12 Senators per State, elected 6 at a time) as well as RCV.

Australia is not a useful model for the US, since 12 Senators per state would be 600. However, Australia shows very clearly that RCV doesn't make much difference if you're still electing single offices (districts or states).

The Liberal Democrats in the UK, had as a major demand of their coalition with the Conservatives, that a referendum would be held on the voting system. Though the referendum did not pass, they didn't bother with the compromise of RCV, but asked for proportional representation.

RCV is arguably better than first-past-the-post, but does not even approximate proportional representation.

SocialDemocrat1993 said:

(Sorry I'm a little bad at explaining this, it's a complicated thing and I want to make sure I word this correctly so I don't accidentally spread misinformation)

Ranked choice voting would not eliminate primaries, as it still benefits parties to find which candidate supporters like the most. It's possible that you could have two candidates of the same party ranked, I'm not sure though, I'd have to do more research.

Click to expand...

I think RCV would work well with jungle primaries. Currently there's a risk that supporters of one party split their vote so widely that NONE of their candidates qualifies for the general election. A general election ballot with two candidates from one party, and no candidate from the other party, still seems wrong to me. "They should vote in primaries then" does not mollify me: why should they have to vote twice?

RCV would remove one failure mode from a jungle primary, but it still seems like a bad system to me.

SocialDemocrat1993 said:

I'll link a source that words things better here.

Click to expand...

They give the example of Maine. Someone else might want to dig further, but I note that the 2020 election went to Biden by a majority state-wide and a majority in district 1, while Trump got a majority in district 2, so no RCV counting was necessary.

Oh gosh, I just discovered Maine's RCV does not apply to President. I wonder why not. Collins in 2020 and King in 2018 both won outright majorities.

MamboDervish said:

I think it doesn't work for me, it doesn't work in our two party system, and even if we could use it, it would not lead to an effective or satisfactory result for anyone.

Click to expand...

I can understand that view point. I think it would be complicated with the binary political spectrum we have now, and primaries would have to be set up a little differently. I think if we had a system that was more welcoming to various parties (the current, voting independent risks that you won't get the safer (depending on view point of course) candidate. I think at the very least we should have the post-primary vote be ranked so that people can choose their favorite candidate without the risk of an unfavorable candidate gaining a benefit directly from it.

Ug make hammer said:

I think RCV would work well with jungle primaries. Currently there's a risk that supporters of one party split their vote so widely that NONE of their candidates qualifies for the general election. A general election ballot with two candidates from one party, and no candidate from the other party, still seems wrong to me. "They should vote in primaries then" does not mollify me: why should they have to vote twice?

RCV would remove one failure mode from a jungle primary, but it still seems like a bad system to me.



They give the example of Maine. Someone else might want to dig further, but I note that the 2020 election went to Biden by a majority state-wide and a majority in district 1, while Trump got a majority in district 2, so no RCV counting was necessary.

Oh gosh, I just discovered Maine's RCV does not apply to President. I wonder why not. Collins in 2020 and King in 2018 both won outright majorities.

Click to expand...

Whatever we end up doing, we definitely need to make a change to our current system. I know this is a common complaint but we definitely need non-party-affiliated experts to carve out American districts to prevent gerrymandering (and not taking a dig at any party in particular, red and blue both do it, and I have no doubt that if there was any other party in power, they would likely do it if they had the ability).

Ranked Choice Voting would benefit all voters​

No, it benefits incumbents, the last people we should benefit.

fmw said:

Ranked Choice Voting would benefit all voters​

No, it benefits incumbents, the last people we should benefit.

Click to expand...

Why do you think that?

Argent said:

I read articles discussing the pros and cons of RCV and would like to see it implemented nationwide for all elections. It requires voters to up their intellectual investment which might be challenging.

Click to expand...

Yep, and it would do away with the ridiculous option of ‘straight ticket’ voting.

MamboDervish said:

I think it doesn't work for me, it doesn't work in our two party system, and even if we could use it, it would not lead to an effective or satisfactory result for anyone.

Click to expand...

It would make it possible for a Progressive party to gain power.

fmw said:

Ranked Choice Voting would benefit all voters​

No, it benefits incumbents, the last people we should benefit.

Click to expand...

The current system benefits incumbents, thus the over 90% re-election rate for congress critters.

ttwtt78640 said:

It would make it possible for a Progressive party to gain power.

Click to expand...

There's no evidence of that.

ttwtt78640 said:

It would make it possible for a Progressive party to gain power.

Click to expand...

Only if you can convince a majority of voters to choose a "Progressive" candidate. Which is kinda the point of elections, right?

Doug64 said:

Only if you can convince a majority of voters to choose a "Progressive" candidate. Which is kinda the point of elections, right?

Click to expand...

A Progressive can only win if a majority of voters put them anything but last.

The theoretical minimum number of #1 votes to get elected is very low. However, that requires the candidate to get an improbable number of 2 (or 3, etc) votes. In practice (in Australia) a good rule of thumb is that a candidate has to come at least 3rd on #1 votes, to avoid being eliminated and their #2 votes distributed.

Another thing to note is that if no-one ranks candidates beyond #1, ranked choice voting is logically identical to first-past-the-post. Any government introducing ranked choice should consider that a lot of posters are not going to use their new voting power, so a decision has to be made whether to require #2, #3 etc votes, and how many to require.

Ug make hammer said:

Why do you think that?

Click to expand...

Because incumbents get two shots at the office. One in the primary and the other in the general election assuming they do well enough in the primary.

fmw said:

Because incumbents get two shots at the office. One in the primary and the other in the general election assuming they do well enough in the primary.

Click to expand...

So you think that combining primary with general elections (not a necessary element of ranked choice btw) that more incumbents will be overturned?

I think it depends on the district or state. In a safe state, incumbents are more likely to be disrupted by a primary challenge, but on the other hand in a swing state, the primary replacement without incumbent advantage is more likely to turn over to the other party.

Republicans suffered that kind of turnover in 2010, and how much of the "new" party agenda ever happened? It was spending cuts, just to refresh your memory. The Tea Party sold out for tax cuts, and their first agenda item of deficit reduction crashed and burned.

Another thing is that all the expertise of Congress is in committees. Practically none of them are doctors or veterans or spies; practically all of them have developed their expertise while sitting on a committee.

Altogether, I wish you luck if your party is the Republican party. No party of mine should be hobbled by the patently false idea that a newcomer can do the job just as well as a veteran of politics.

Ug make hammer said:

So you think that combining primary with general elections (not a necessary element of ranked choice btw) that more incumbents will be overturned?

Click to expand...

No I said the opposite. They get two bites of the apple as long as they finish in the top 2.

fmw said:

No I said the opposite. They get two bites of the apple as long as they finish in the top 2.

Click to expand...

They also have outside (tax funded) income while they spend (full?) time campaigning and the ability to ‘make news’ while acting in their official capacity. Most also receive additional funding from a (major) political party and already have name recognition.

ttwtt78640 said:

They also have outside (tax funded) income while they spend (full?) time campaigning and the ability to ‘make news’ while acting in their official capacity. Most also receive additional funding from a (major) political party and already have name recognition.

Click to expand...

We need a law to limit federal office holders to a single term in office.

Ug make hammer said:

Another thing to note is that if no-one ranks candidates beyond #1, ranked choice voting is logically identical to first-past-the-post. Any government introducing ranked choice should consider that a lot of posters are not going to use their new voting power, so a decision has to be made whether to require #2, #3 etc votes, and how many to require.

Click to expand...

Fair enough, there are people that I will never vote for, even if ranked voting is used--and in the US system we vote for candidates, not parties (however much parties might wish otherwise). The Alaska election with Sarah Palin is a good example, she lost because thousands of Republican voters (as indicated by their #1 votes for the other Republicans) either refused to vote for a #2 at all or actually voted for her Democratic opponent! However much Palin might scream about how Ranked Voting stole her victory, the problem was actually her. One possibility I like about Ranked Voting is its encouragement of civility. After all, if you offend the supporters of an ideological cousin competing with you too badly, they might not vote for you for #2 even if you're a better fit than other possible #2 candidates.

So here's the Washington Times's overview of Ranked Choice Voting in the 2022 elections:


One interesting note is that the Democrat that won Alaska's House seat did so when the Libertarian votes were redistributed. So now Alaskan Republicans know who they need to appeal to....

Doug64 said:

So here's the Washington Times's overview of Ranked Choice Voting in the 2022 elections:

Ranked choice election process gains popularity nationwide

Midterm races from Alaska to Maine were decided this year by ranked choice, a system that’s designed to lift up candidates with broad appeal instead of fringe candidates who eke out wins by carving up the electorate.

www.washingtontimes.com

One interesting note is that the Democrat that won Alaska's House seat did so when the Libertarian votes were redistributed. So now Alaskan Republicans know who they need to appeal to....

Click to expand...

Unsurprisingly, the Washington Times got that wrong. The libertarian second votes were not enough to get Peltola elected: Al Gross was the leading Libertarian in primaries, and would have been on the ballot (with one Dem and two Pubs) except he dropped out. In the primary he only got about a thousand votes (0.65%). And in any case, all write-ins combined only amounted to 1.58%

What actually got Peltola over the line were transfers from the second-running Republican Nick Begich.

It would be good to know how the Libertarian vote actually did split, but I can't find that. I can say definitively that Peltola on 39.66% of the first round vote, absolutely needed Begich votes but didn't need Libertarian ones.

As is often the case, a picture tells the story best:



(Wikipedia)

I think the large increase in "invalid/inactive" votes after the distribution, would be because those (Begich) voters did not give a second or third preference. Of the Begich-1 votes which did not become inactive, Palin got 63.6% and Peltola only got 36.4%. BUT that was enough, given Peltola's first vote lead.

Republicans should not take from this, that their extreme candidates will always lose districts or states with RCV. It could have gone differently if Palin had run third on first votes (and Libertarians etc). Preferences would have flowed much more strongly from her to Begich, than they did from Begich to her. Then Republicans would at least keep the state their color, if not quite as extreme as they would like.