Forum Thread

What do you think: Rank Choice Voting?

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 7 Posts
  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    npr.org/2018/06/10/618653587/maine-vote...

    I like the idea, but admit I have yet to hear counter arguments.

    Concept. You have a 1st choice vote and second choice vote. If your 1st choice candidate comes in 3nd or worse, then your second choice candidate get your vote.

    The idea is to get rid of risk of have two similar candidates splitting a majority of voters, thus allowing a weak and unpopular candidate win the election with a very small percentage of the total votes.

  • Strongly Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Portland, OR
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    This whole thing seems like a big F-You to Maine's current Governor who has never even come close to a majority of the vote, but still won because Democrats kept splitting.

    I don't know what I think about it because I honestly haven't researched it much, but in theory I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it. It actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

    Say you're a Democrat in Maine and you definitely don't want a Republican to win, but maybe aren't 100% behind the Democratic front runner. You can vote for your preferred candidate first and then the candidate you may not love, but don't hate second.

    It virtually guarantees that someone who earns 30% of the vote still magically "wins" the election.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    This whole thing seems like a big F-You to Maine's current Governor who has never even come close to a majority of the vote, but still won because Democrats kept splitting.

    I don't know what I think about it because I honestly haven't researched it much, but in theory I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it. It actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

    Say you're a Democrat in Maine and you definitely don't want a Republican to win, but maybe aren't 100% behind the Democratic front runner. You can vote for your preferred candidate first and then the candidate you may not love, but don't hate second.

    It virtually guarantees that someone who earns 30% of the vote still magically "wins" the election.

    I'll take your post out of context, in essence, that's what some democrats did in 2016, some voted for Bernie, and when he couldn't win the primary, many of us (me) voted for Hillary. My 2 cents? I don't like the idea simply because we have primary elections to decide front runners. Some or all polling places have a space for write in candidates, why do we need a system like the one suggested in the OP?

    I am in favor of ditching the electoral college, and wished we'd go back to counting votes by popular votes. Hillary won the popular vote.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    This whole thing seems like a big F-You to Maine's current Governor who has never even come close to a majority of the vote, but still won because Democrats kept splitting.

    I don't know what I think about it because I honestly haven't researched it much, but in theory I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it. It actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

    Say you're a Democrat in Maine and you definitely don't want a Republican to win, but maybe aren't 100% behind the Democratic front runner. You can vote for your preferred candidate first and then the candidate you may not love, but don't hate second.

    It virtually guarantees that someone who earns 30% of the vote still magically "wins" the election.

    With a ranked system, it also suggests more candidates would run for office knowing that they are unlikely to win on their first attempt, but get exposure\experience that they have a better chance of winning on their second attempt. People are more likely to vote for their favorite candidate knowing he\she is unlikely to win if are confident they are not going to split the vote between equal qualified candidates, thus allowing a racist jerk to win.

    It also allow a moderate candidate not feel compelled to commit to radical ideas in order get an additional 10%-20% that otherwise are at risk of going to fringe candidate.

  • Independent
    Washington
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Dockadams Wrote:
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    This whole thing seems like a big F-You to Maine's current Governor who has never even come close to a majority of the vote, but still won because Democrats kept splitting.

    I don't know what I think about it because I honestly haven't researched it much, but in theory I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to it. It actually makes a lot of sense if you think about it.

    Say you're a Democrat in Maine and you definitely don't want a Republican to win, but maybe aren't 100% behind the Democratic front runner. You can vote for your preferred candidate first and then the candidate you may not love, but don't hate second.

    It virtually guarantees that someone who earns 30% of the vote still magically "wins" the election.

    I'll take your post out of context, in essence, that's what some democrats did in 2016, some voted for Bernie, and when he couldn't win the primary, many of us (me) voted for Hillary. My 2 cents? I don't like the idea simply because we have primary elections to decide front runners. Some or all polling places have a space for write in candidates, why do we need a system like the one suggested in the OP?

    I am in favor of ditching the electoral college, and wished we'd go back to counting votes by popular votes. Hillary won the popular vote.

    Y0ure comments are not addressing the issue or reflecting an understanding of the problem, which is that often there are 3 candidates on the ballet, two have similar values and policy, they split a block of voters (ie democrats), which allows the least popular candidate to win (ie a Trump Republican). A prime example is when extremist one-issue candidate siphon away %10-%20 of the votes from the moderate candidate. Enough votes that that allows the 3rd place candidate to win; the least popular of the three candidates.

    The rank voting system allows people to feel free to vote who they like best, without risking that their vote is throwing the election to someone they would never ever vote for.

  • Liberal Democrat
    Democrat
    Kenosha, WI
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    Siphoning votes? Like Sanders or bust voters or would be democrat voters? You've seen my counter argument or opinion, and you dislike it.

    When you mention siphoning, voting for e.g. Trump, the candidates themselves must either align themselves with Trump, or they're kicked to the side with Trump tweets. Some voters are of the ignorant and uneducated species.

    When I vote, in a primary, I always vote for a democrat. Little did I understand that Sanders was NOT a TRUE Democrat, I know better now. When I vote in the primary for a gubernatorial candidate, I'll probably have at least 10 choices of democrats, and right now, my mind is already made up of whom I'm going to vote for. I do not wish to try to vote for the person I like second, because there aren't any. Most of the time, the others do not meet my criteria for being a true democrat or a union worker supporter. Albeit in 2016, I voted for Sanders in the primary, but when he lost, my full support and money donations went to Hillary.

    "Media reports have identified nine Democratic candidates as major contenders to win the party's primary on August 14, 2018. These individuals are State Superintendent Tony Evers, former state Democratic Party chair Matt Flynn, entrepreneur Andy Gronik, activist Mike McCabe, state firefighters' union president Mahlon Mitchell, former State Representative Kelda Helen Roys, Madison Mayor Paul Soglin, State Senator Kathleen Vinehout, and State Representative Dana Wachs.[18]

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_guberna...

    We (Wisconsinites) will usually support the person with the highest favorability. badgerherald.com/news/2018/06/07/2018-e...

    When it comes to the presidential election, we pick who has a highest favorability in the primary, and vote for the candidate who has made it through that process. I still don't see how picking candidate #1 and candidate #2 is any help, we still have a process we follow, a primary is used to weed out who voters dislike. Besides that, we use the electoral college to pick our president.

    I'll write again that the electoral college needs to be scrapped because it doesn't represent the will of the people. I want to bring back the popular vote. BTW, I'm sick and tired of businessmen trying their hand in politics, running a business is way different than trying to make a government work for it's people. It's two very different things.

    I do understand picking the better of what some call the two evils. In a presidential election, who people vote for anymore does not matter. The electoral college takes care of that for us, which is why we ended up with what we have running our government now.

  • Independent
    Ft.myers, FL
    Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    All nice stories but total B.S. As long as this country does not take the "money" and "corruption" out of voting as well abolishes the "electoral college" then voting is an useless activity. The "super Pac's" always get their way so why vote anyway. In France the turnout was 85 %, while here you get a measly max. 40% who show up. Guess what, because people here are stupid but still understand the corruption. Here it is not the most competent person who wins, but the one's who appeal through their corrupt message to the gullible crowd catches on for the un-educated. What a country!