• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ranked-Choice Voting

LarianLeQuella

Elf Wino
LarianLeQuella
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
2,084
Most people who post on this forum are smarter than me, so I thought I'd see how people would feel about Ranked-Choice voting in the US. I know a couple states have tried to skirt the Electoral College with the proportional award (ME, NE, and CO are the only ones so far, right?). But Maine also just approved a Ranked-Choice initiative.

Do you agree with this in principle?

How do you think this would have affected the election?

I for one am a bigger fan of Ranked-Choice than just one and done.

I think more people would have made a practical vote followed by a vote of conscience this time around. Not sure if it would have affected the outcome given the mechanics of the EC and that alt-right swell, but it may have.
 
Argumemnon said:
I've just had it explained to me in another thread and I'd like to see it tried at least.
Click to expand...

I did the math. If Stein and Johnson votes went to their second choice, and assuming 100% of Stein votes went to Clinton, Trump needs 53% of the libertarian vote to take a popular vote majority. Would be tough, but I think people who don't follow the party underestimate libertarian dislike of Clinton.
 
BobTheCoward said:
I did the math. If Stein and Johnson votes went to their second choice, and assuming 100% of Stein votes went to Clinton, Trump needs 53% of the libertarian vote to take a popular vote majority. Would be tough, but I think people who don't follow the party underestimate libertarian dislike of Clinton.
Click to expand...

The Trump share of Johnson voters drops to 50% if he somehow captured 20% of Stein voters.
 
Dumb All Over said:
Ranked-Choice will work great when it gets your candidate elected. When it elects the other guy's candidate, it will be time to suggest a change to something else.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Voting systems are a field of study and there has been a lot of research into how different systems function. Some are objectively better than others.
 
Dumb All Over said:
According to...who?
Click to expand...

According to Concordet?

And about Ranked-Choice - why yet another name? The Brits called it Alternative Vote when they held a referendum on it a few years ago, but the canonical name is Instant-runoff voting. Why do I have to remember half a dozen names for the same voting system? :mad:

ETA: to be clear, for electing a single candidate for a single seat, I think IRV is a fine system. Its main attractions over the crude FPTP that the US employs now in virtually every election is that
1) it avoids the spoiler effect of "me too" candidates, where two similar candidates who are still preferred by a majority of the populace, lose out to another because their votes are split
2) it enables third parties greater visibility. You can still vote Nader with Gore as second choice without having to fear that Shrub wins.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
According to Concordet?

And about Ranked-Choice - why yet another name? The Brits called it Alternative Vote when they held a referendum on it a few years ago, but the canonical name is Instant-runoff voting. Why do I have to remember half a dozen names for the same voting system? :mad:
Click to expand...

As we've been using it since 1918, we get to name it: Preferential Voting
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom