On-Topic Ranked Choice Voting

[TickTockMan]

What are your thoughts on ranked choice voting?



For info:
https://www.rankedchoicevoting.org/

 

[ChickenGuy]

They use a variation of this over here for the Northern Ireland Assembly elections, although when you're talking about seven or eight political parties it becomes an arcane and convoluted process of re-counting and re-counting over and over again as each furthest-down candidate is eliminated in turn, and a new re-count takes place to re-distribute the next-preference votes.

They use another variation of this for those members (roughly a third) elected this way to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly under the Additional Member System. It 're-balances' the potentially skewed results of the first-past-the-post system. It means that you have two votes - one for a constituency and one for the region. Minor parties benefit, as do areas or regions where previously only one party always dominated.

I'm not sure it's relevant for the United States since you have only two parties. On the other hand, the benefit I could see is where there is a strong third candidate, because it would avoid the need for 'run-off' elections which I understand are common in the U.S.

In fact, you could say here that the run-off is essentially included in the same ballot. So there in benefit in expediting the process, and with less cost.

 

[TickTockMan]

I'm not sure it's relevant for the United States since you have only two parties. On the other hand, the benefit I could see is where there is a strong third candidate, because it would avoid the need for 'run-off' elections which I understand are common in the U.S.

In fact, you could say here that the run-off is essentially included in the same ballot. So there in benefit in expediting the process, and with less cost.

We do have some strong third parties, just not for national. Ranked voting would make them stronger by letting people vote their conscience and for the more than likely candidate.

 

[gsdx]

We experimented with it in a few cities this past provincial election. Federally, it becomes complicated. We currently have 8 parties in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

 

[TickTockMan]

We experimented with it in a few cities this past provincial election. Federally, it becomes complicated. We currently have 8 parties in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

Yeah I think it would take a while to fine tune, but I think it would be better for every country to have it.

 

[gsdx]

^ We're experimenting on a municipal and provincial level an the 'experiment' is voluntary. Otherwise, the elections remain 'first past the post'. It may be some time before we take it to the federal level.

 

[willhunt]

I sent this to a couple of members by pm. I thought it was too long to post in the general forum. Here goes. It's an hour long. If you have the time, it's worth a listen.

 

[inbed]

^ I got this from BCH and H1. Take the time to hear this. It's also a podcast. This is already happening in the US. Personally, I'm for paper ballots and lots of eyeballs in the room. It's worth the effort. I love radiolab and this is a very good example.

 

[frankfrank]

^ YES! Manual paper ballots ALL THE WAY...and, SO WHAT if it takes two days to find out who the new President is? They don't inaugurate until more than two months after the election anyway.

And...RANKED CHOICE VOTING would be wonderful! I used to hear it called as "Instant Runoff voting" which is actually somewhat more descriptive of the mechanism that it uses.

I wonder how many people, who couldn't vote for Clinton, would have had her as their second choice behind Jill Stein or whoever the other prominent third-party candidate was (I already forget).

 

[willhunt]

^^^^ It makes one wonder where the "Never Trumpers" would have turned up.

 

[TickTockMan]

^ YES! Manual paper ballots ALL THE WAY...and, SO WHAT if it takes two days to find out who the new President is? They don't inaugurate until more than two months after the election anyway.

And...RANKED CHOICE VOTING would be wonderful! I used to hear it called as "Instant Runoff voting" which is actually somewhat more descriptive of the mechanism that it uses.

If we got vote by mail, paper ballots and ranked choice voting would be the only way I could see myself being happy getting rid of the EC, which I think we should.

I wonder how many people, who couldn't vote for Clinton, would have had her as their second choice behind Jill Stein or whoever the other prominent third-party candidate was (I already forget).

^^^^ It makes one wonder where the "Never Trumpers" would have turned up.

As a never Hillary or Trump with RCV I would have voted Stein, Mickey Mouse, Clinton.

So by default she would have got my vote. Many in the progressive groups I am in said by default Clinton would have got theirs as well so this would help everyone. I could see it scare the two big parties though by giving third parties a chance.

 

[NotHardUp1]

Methinks that serves to merely deodorize the skunk. It's still a skunk.

The two parties don't have to be scared. They both are hard at work every year controlling state legislatures to ensure gerrymandering serves them and kills any infant third party in the egg.

You said you have strong third parties, but not nationally. Which is it? If it has no national power, how strong can it be?

I'd rather see a federal and state holiday for the election day, and voting enabled online to stop all the antiquated voting methods. If we can do taxes online, then there is no reason we can't vote online.

 

[TickTockMan]

The two parties don't have to be scared. They both are hard at work every year controlling state legislatures to ensure gerrymandering serves them and kills any infant third party in the egg.

And they gerrymander because they are scared of losing power and money. You can say of just the other big party, but with all the bitching of Jill Stein with Hillary’s loss at least some seem to be scared of third parties.

You said you have strong third parties, but not nationally. Which is it? If it has no national power, how strong can it be?

There is a lot of power with States Rights. A few states have third party and independent people seated. My state has been a leader for years with things that then go national.

I'd rather see a federal and state holiday for the election day, and voting enabled online to stop all the antiquated voting methods. If we can do taxes online, then there is no reason we can't vote online.

I would like to see that too. Any way to make it easier to vote is fine by me.

 

[NotHardUp1]

And they gerrymander because they are scared of losing power and money. You can say of just the other big party, but with all the bitching of Jill Stein with Hillary’s loss at least some seem to be scared of third parties.

They have no reason to be scared when they hold the means of power and the access to those means. As long as they control gerrymandering, and own the courts that allow it, we will never be free of them.

There is a lot of power with States Rights. A few states have third party and independent people seated. My state has been a leader for years with things that then go national.

Our model of power sharing is federal. The power of the purse is the most influential, and it sits in the House. Any third party there is yet stymied when the budget gets to the Senate, as there is no third party with any influence there.

 

[TickTockMan]

Our model of power sharing is federal. The power of the purse is the most influential, and it sits in the House. Any third party there is yet stymied when the budget gets to the Senate, as there is no third party with any influence there.

Yes, but they get ideas from the States. Obamacare was RomneyCare from Mass. It didn't start at the federal level is all I am saying. People from third parties are going to have ideas that make it to the main floor.

 

[SeaCore]

Methinks that serves to merely deodorize the skunk. It's still a skunk.

I'm confused, what's the skunk supposed to represent?

 

[opinterph]

… re-counting and re-counting over and over again as each furthest-down candidate is eliminated in turn, and a new re-count takes place to re-distribute the next-preference votes.

Is that done by hand or by computer?

I'm not sure it's relevant for the United States since you have only two parties.

My state has the majority rule – meaning every elected candidate must receive votes from over 50 percent of all ballots cast in that contest. In close races, a third party candidate drawing a small percent of the vote can force the other candidates into a runoff. Ranked choice would prevent most of those runoffs.

In fact, you could say here that the run-off is essentially included in the same ballot. So there [is] benefit in expediting the process, and with less cost.

In my county each election (or runoff election) costs more than a million dollars to administer.

 

[opinterph]

I could see it scare the two big parties though by giving third parties a chance.

“Scare” is closely associated with fright. Are you certain the two big parties object to ranked choice voting?

 

[TickTockMan]

“Scare” is closely associated with fright. Are you certain the two big parties object to ranked choice voting?

They seem to actively fight against it when progressives bring it up. So yes.



Hillary supporters bitch she won the popular vote, but not the EC. Many progressives say they would back getting rid of the EC if we had Ranked Voting, but yet the Dem leadership has fought against it. Why? It would give them what they say they want.



edit: I am not saying over night 3rd parties would become major players at the national level, but the big two fear when they would.

 

[ChickenGuy]

Is that done by hand or by computer?

By hand. They delay starting counting until midday the following day. It can take many hours.

This may or may not be the same election, but I seem to recall pictures in the early hours of the morning of ballot-counters nodding off to sleep at their tables in between the re-counts.

As for speed, on main U.K. election night, the fastest result can be declared in 35 to 40 minutes if memory serves. Newcastle and Sunderland have a kind of ongoing unofficial competition to be the first to declare. Most results are declared in about 3 or 4 hours.

I would far rather trust this type of count, of paper ballots, by people, than any kind of electronic voting by machines.

In my county each election (or runoff election) costs more than a million dollars to administer.

Yeah that money could be saved by redistributing the third candidate's second-preference votes on the first election. Only one election ever needed.