Ranked Choice Voting is a ballot question in MA. Pro's or Con's?

[getagrip_already]

I didn't realize it was on the ballot this year. I know how it works, but haven't looked at it closely.

My gut check says I don't like it, but want to hear pro's and con's if anyone has thoughts they would like to share. I know they use it at least in Maine, how has it impacted races?

Thanks

[wryter2000]

1. Hate it

It makes voting complicated and prone to errors. Plus, it somehow got us a mayor no one really liked. She got a lot of second and third choice votes.

Luckily, we only have it for a few local races.

[LAS14]

30. What state? nt

[wryter2000]

45. CA

Alameda County

[Retrograde]

64. Sounds like Oakland! (n/t)

[wryter2000]

73. Yup

Jean Kwan wasn't exactly a disaster, but she was few people's first choice.

[mwooldri]

2. Some say it's more democratic (small d).

Let's say you have three candidates - Democratic, Republican, and Green. In a traditional first past the post system (that we have) the one with the most votes wins. So if in this example the Republican gets 45% of the vote, the Democrat gets 40% of the vote and the Green gets 15% - in FPTP the Republicans win. Democrats will say "The Greens stole our votes!". With ranked voting, the winner must get 50% +1 to win. In the above case the Green vote would be counted for their second choice. Let's keep it simple and say that all the Green votes voted Democratic as their #2 choice. Those #2 votes go to the Democratic candidate and now the D has 55% and wins.

[Trumpocalypse]

79. Assuming Green voters

chose the democrat as their 2nd choice. Not a given.

[Voltaire2]

3. great idea.

[boston bean]

4. I voted against it.

Means some people get more than one vote.

[dsc]

9. No it doesn't

I tend to favor it but regardless of what you think of it, no it doesn't give anyone more votes than anyone else. Those whose candidates don't get enough votes simply have their vote put on their second choice, it is still one vote.

[boston bean]

10. Sure it does.

[Silent3]

14. It doesn't give one voter any more voting power than another

And it prevents awful spoiler effects.

Maine got stuck with the horror of LePage, sort of a pre-Trump mini Trump, for two 4-year terms in a row, even when the majority hates him, because Democrats failed to rally around a single candidate. They now have ranked voting so they never have to suffer that kind of result again.

It’s sad to know MA might lose the benefit of ranked voting because of people who fail to understand it.

[boston bean]

23. Yeah it does.

It allows a persons to have their vote counted twice. In essence voting twice.

[Silent3]

40. Only by a absurb sense of the word "counted"

Every voter who uses the system can choose to, or not choose to, use the extra ranked options. So therefore every voter has equal access to the same degree of voting power.

Do you imagine that somehow a voter who makes only one choice, and declines to make any lower-ranked choices, is somehow being "cheated" by the people who avail themselves of the ranked options?

In no way does this give any voter double (or more) voting power than another voter.

[boston bean]

42. Yet some will count twice while others only once.

[Silent3]

43. When the second is counted, the first is discarded.

You aren’t addressing what I said that any voter is free to take advantage of the lesser ranked voting slots.

So instead of just repeating, “but that’s still two votes!” as if that’s a purely self-contained explanation of a self-evident problem, please tell me who exactly is advantaged, who is disadvantaged, and how.

[dsc]

16. No it doesn't and to see that look at how run offs work

In NC, in primaries we have run offs under certain circumstances (no candidate gets over 40 and has a margin of 10). Say Smith, Jones, and Johnson run in a primary. Smith gets 41, Jones 33, and Johnson 26. Smith and Jones get a run off (unless Jones says no) and that run off is held on another day. All of the voters get another chance to vote, presumedly Smith's voters will vote for Smith, Jones' for Jones, and Johnson's will either vote for Smith, Jones, or stay home. Everyone gets the same opportunity to vote. The only difference here is that everyone gets the same opportunity instead of some not having it due to not being able to vote on a second day.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

26. No it doesn't. It is an instant runoff

Read more about it.

[Ms. Toad]

18. No, it doesn't.

Everyone only gets one vote.

Every person's single vote is just tallied multiple times until there is a candidate who earns more than 50% of the vote. If your vote was for one of the top candidates, in the second tally it will still be tallied for that candidate. If your vote is for one of the lowest ranked candidates in the seond tally your vote will be tallied for your second choice candidate.

[grantcart]

32. Your logic is flawed

In this example pretend there are 100 votes

Round 1

Candidate A gets 35 votes
Candidate B gets 34 votes
Candidate C gets 31 votes

Round 2

Voters who voted for Candidate C are reallocated 21 for B and 10 for A

Candidate A gets 35 votes from round 1 plus 10 votes re allocated for a total of 45

Candidate B gets 34 votes from round 1 plus 21 votes re allocated for a total of 55.


All votes are counted for each round and are counted the same number of times.

In essence the first round is the primary and the second is the GE (or primary and run off) but combining at the same time rather than different days.

(Simplified example, it could be more than 2 rounds but all the votes are counted in each round)

[PTWB]

81. You're being generous by referring to anything in that post as "logic"

[TreasonousBastard]

5. My gut says no, too, but unlike OrangeAss, I don't always trust my gut...

Basic problem is that if we're dealing with so many ignorant voters now, how will it help? With this additional burden on voters, will it really help or cause additional confusion?

Suspected problems are what happens when someone consistently shows up as #2, but never makes it to #1? So, If two out of five candidates are the leaders for #1 and get run off in a second round, what about someone who has placed #2 on everyone's ballot? If the two #1's placed #5 on a significant number of ballots, who is really more popular?

This is very new in most places, and we shall see how it goes.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

27. Dumbasses in Maine can do it

so dumbasses anywhere could.

[PoliticAverse]

7. If you believe in Democracy you should support it. If you want to maintain a "2 party" system then

you should oppose it.

[Ms. Toad]

20. Correct.

Because it allows for the emergence of additional parties without requiring you to hold your nose and vote for what you perceive as the lesser of two evils.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

53. Yes, you can vote your conscience

instead of that terrible strategic voting where you try to anticipate the two candidates most people are going to vote for and then voting for the one of those you dislike the least. Ranked choice you simply rank your preferences and you don't have to try and guess how other people might vote.

[Trumpocalypse]

80. Who is the lesser of two evils?

Democrats?

[Ms. Toad]

85. From the perspective of those who voted for Jill Stein or Ralph Nader -

almost certaihly the Democratic candidate.

But the same dynamic can occur within a single party primary, when there are three candidates - two Democrats in name only, and one pretty far to the left in a state that has a snowball's chance in hell of electing the far left one. Wtih instant run-off/ranked choice you can vote for the candidate you prefer, without getting stuck with a stinker of a primary candidate.

[mahina]

8. Love it

We used it in our primary this year and it lets people cut through the crap and vote their real choices.

From our Common Cause Hawaii head:
CV is a simple electoral reform that ensures fair and efficient elections. In a traditional election, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they do not receive a majority of the votes. This means voters often feel disengaged and are left to choose between the “lesser of two evils,” or vote for the candidate they feel has the best chance of winning, rather than supporting their favorite candidates.
RCV promotes positive, inclusive and fair elections, which encourages a diversity of candidates.
With RCV, voters rank candidates from favorite to least favorite. On Election Night, first choice votes are counted to determine who voters like the best. If a candidate receives a majority of votes, they win. If no candidate receives a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice rankings is eliminated. If your favorite candidate is eliminated, your vote is instantly counted for your next choice. This repeats until one candidate reaches a majority and wins.
In RCV elections, you always get to vote for your favorite candidate, even if they do not have a good chance of winning. If your favorite candidate gets eliminated, then your vote immediately counts for your next choice. You can truly vote your conscience without worrying about wasting your vote. Ranking your 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choices will never hurt your favorite candidate. It simply amplifies your voice in the process.
Cities that have RCV elections have seen a steady increase in voter turnout. When voters feel their vote will matter, they turn out in greater numbers.
In RCV elections, candidates often need 2nd and 3rd choice votes to win a majority of the vote. As such, they will ask for your first choice vote, but if another candidate is your favorite, they will also ask for your second and third choices. Candidates are not likely to get your second or third choice vote if they have been engaging in negative “mudslinging” personal attacks against your favorite candidate.

RCV will require voter education to implement successfully. Common Cause Hawaii hopes that the Office of Elections and Clerks’ Offices are provided with sufficient public education tools to implement RCV and will work cooperatively with the community to disseminate information about RCV.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of HB 2121. If you have further questions of me, please contact me at [e-mail].
Very respectfully yours,
Sandy Ma
Executive Director, Common Cause Hawaii

[dixiechiken1]

11. Most comprehensive explanation on RCV I've seen...

Thanks for posting!

[mahina]

12. You bet. Please feel free to share and attribute it to the author.

Hey I’ll be your Tennessee lamb

Hope it doesn’t matter that I’ve never been to Tennessee

[crud]

13. I'm all for it.

Open up the process, get everyone involved. Less apathy, more involvement. Great for democracy.

[Ms. Toad]

15. It is an excellent tool that will allow people who throw their votes away on 3d party candidates

to ultimately vote for a major party candidate.

In the process, it can generate a more accurate assessment of whether there is a viable third party for those who aren't comfortable with either of the two major parties.

It should end up favoring Democrats.

The most viable third party candidates have generally been spoilers for Democrats:

Jill Stein, Ralph Nader are two notable ones.

They would rank Jill Stein #1, and Hillary Clinton #2. If there is no candidate who exceeds the 50% threshold, the votes for the candidate with the fewest number of votes (e.g. Jill Stein) would be given to the second choice of those voters. So (most of) Jill Steins votes would end up with Hillary Clinton.

I have a friend who voted for Ralph Nader - there was absolutely nothing I could do to dissuade him. He now regrets that vote. Had ranked choice voting been available he could have voted for Ralph Nader (supporting his ultimate goal of getting the Green Party a regular space on the ballot), but his vote would ultimately have gone to Al Gore.

[BainsBane]

37. In my city

It's three choices out of a slew of Democratic candidates.

[Ms. Toad]

44. It doesn't have to be used for every election -

its use can be limited to general election, as opposed to primaries.

But I don't know that it would be a bad thing even among a slew of Democratic candidates - since it permits you to indicate your preference in the primary for a candidate that may have radical ideas that aren't likely to make it into the general election. Tht serves the purpose of generating support for ideas that may be the future of the Democratic party without sacrificing the general election when the general population is not yet ready for those ideas.

[rgbecker]

17. I'm in Massachusetts and can't wait to vote for Ranked Choice Voting.

It will do wonders. More people will get engaged and turn out. New ideas will be brought forward and may get some support. If you are at all progressive and want to see real change in the way things are, please support Ranked Choice Voting. If you think it is a good idea to have politicians that are supported by less than 50% of the voters, maybe it's time to do a little rethinking. Support even as a second or third choice is better than letting the minority rule.

[canetoad]

19. We've had it forever in Australia

It's called Preferential Voting and I really like it.

Here's a rundown:

Advantages of the Preferential System

1. It ensures that only a candidate with the support of an absolute majority of the electorate can win, eliminating the possibility of minority winners. Put another way, the winning candidate is the most preferred or least disliked candidate.

2. It ensures that voters can support minor parties and independent candidates, knowing that their preferences may be used to decide the winner. Thus, votes for minor parties and independents are not wasted.

3. It allows parties of like-minded philosophies or policies to exchange preferences in order to assist each other to win.

4. It promotes a strong two-party system, ensuring stability in the parliamentary process.

Disadvantages of the Preferential System

1. It is more complicated to administer and count.

2. It can produce a higher level of informal voting.

3. It promotes a two-party system to the detriment of minor parties and independents.

4. Voters are forced to express a preference for candidates they may not wish to support in any way. (The use of optional preferential voting, as used in New South Wales and Queensland State elections, is a solution to this problem.)

https://australianpolitics.com/voting/preferential

[dsc]

21. I teach this or at least did (it was taken out of my curriculum)

but here is what I see as pros and cons.

Pros it prevents a candidate who is insanely popular with a small number of voters from winning a multi candidate races despite the majority of the voters despising them. It requires candidates to appeal to more than just a thin base to win a race. For primaries in states it helps make sure that a candidate unifies the party.

Cons in places with racially polarized voting this can prevent a member of the minority race from winning. In 1992 Carol Mosely Braun ran in a three way primary against Alan Dixon and Albert Holfeld. She got 38.3 Dixon got 34.6, and Holfeld 27.1. One could easily see Holfeld's voters voting for Dixon over Braun by sufficient numbers to deny her a win.

So it really comes down to, how much should consensus be valued? As I tell my students, some questions math can't answer.

[dsc]

24. I actually want to expand a bit

One big pro that I didn't mention was it allows you to vote for your true first choice without benefiting a candidate you hate. To take a race between Smith, Jones and Johnson if you really hate Jones but prefer Johnson to Smith you might feel forced to vote for Smith to avoid Jones winning if there is no run off. On the other hand, if there is a run off, it allows you to vote for Johnson, then Smith as a 2nd choice if need be.

[grantcart]

33. Agree. Over time I believe that it will help eliminate the worst candidates.

[bluecollar2]

22. Interesting topic...

My go to position on these things is to see where the republican party stands and then vote in opposition to their recommendations.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

28. Republicans hate it in Maine

because they need to get 50% of the votes to win. They tend to not be very popular.

[BainsBane]

38. It doesn't work that way everywhere

In Minneapolis, no one gets fifty percent, but they have some mathematical formula that chooses a winner depending on how voters rank their 3 choices. I have no idea how that formula works. I do know the result was probably the worst mayor we've ever had in the city.
Oh, and all the candidates are Democrats.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

46. That's not the same thing then

It is instant run off in Maine. That is generally what ranked choice is.

[BainsBane]

49. Mpls and St. Paul have ranked choice voting

And there is no requirement for 50 percent. It is called ranked choice voting. The term is the same, so obviously localities don't all do it like Maine.

[Ms. Toad]

55. It is the same thing.

Here's a video from the Minneapolis website.

The ultimate winner does have to get >50% (unless there is more than one seat available, or - unless after 3 rounds no one has the required number of votes to win by ranking).

The number of seats in a race determines the threshold of votes needed to win.

Number of Seats Office Votes Needed
1 seat Mayor, City Council Member,
Park Board District Commissioner 50% plus one
2 seats At-Large Board of Estimate and Taxation 33⅓% plus one
3 seats At-Large Park Board Commissioners 25% plus one
Here is the formula that decides the thresholds:

Number of ballots cast for office + 1 = Threshold
Number of seats + 1
The threshold is rounded down to a whole number.

In some cases, no candidate receives the required threshold after the counting process is complete. When this happens, the top vote-getter (or vote-getters in races with multiple seats) wins.

https://vote.minneapolismn.gov/ranked-choice-voting/details/

[BainsBane]

62. This was the count

Last edited Sun Oct 11, 2020, 03:42 PM - Edit history (1)

On the first round, the results of which were released Tuesday evening, Frey was in the lead with 26,116 first-place votes, followed by Tom Hoch with 20,125 and incumbent Betsy Hodges with 18,915.

https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2017/11/08/minneapolis-mayor-race-results/

When those results were in, the news media wasn't able to give a sense of who would actually win. Frey, who sat in his house snorting coke while our city burned, ended up winning. It took five rounds of number crunching for that to happen. There was not an instant run off between the top two.

By the fifth round, however, Hodges and Hoch had both been eliminated for not having enough votes from those selecting on their second or third choices.

The final tally was Frey with 46,716 votes to State Rep. Raymond Dehn with 34,971.

Notice they got rid of the candidates who came in second and third on election night. That is some fucked up way of counting.

50% of voters did not choose Frey. They fucked around with the numbers until they gave him votes amounting to over 50%. That is NOT the same thing.

They told us we HAD to put three choices; we would be throwing away our vote for mayor if we didn't. So they used my third choice vote (and of many others) to get rid of my second choice candidate, while my first choice--Nakima Levy Pound-- didn't get enough to earn a mention in the article. Next time I'm only ranking candidates I actually like. Looking at those numbers again, I feel manipulated. The idea they can get rid of the candidates who ranked second and third and replace them with someone who didn't even rank in the top three seems wrong. I know there is some number crunching justification for what they did, but I don't like it.

To me, it would make more sense to run off the top two by using the the second and third choice votes, but then that would be too straight forward to actually happen. The result would probably have been the same, but it would have seemed more legitimate.

[Ms. Toad]

69. BUT more than 50% of the voters preferred Frey over Levy Pound

That's the whole point of ranked choice voting. To have a series of "run-off" elections without the expense of additional actual elections. All ranked choice voting does is to automate that series of "run-off" elections.

The second round is just pretending there as a run-off between all but the last choice candidates.
The third round is more complex to automate, but it is a multi-step process that simulates a run-off between all but the two last-choice candidates (it takes a total of 3 "rounds" to fully simulate this run-off, which is why the articles refer to 5th round.) Essentially if your candidate is eliminated in the third round - and your second choice was previously eliminated - your votes then drop to your third choice candidate - someone you still want to vote for (since you ranked them), but definitely not your favorite.

So the results are what would have happened at the end of 3 elections in which one candidate is eliminated at each round and everyone votes for their favorite of the remaining candidates - and the choices in round 3 may not include your top - or even your second - choice..

You should definitely only rank candidates who are acceptable to you - any vote for a candidate that is unaccaptable to you is still a vote for that candidate once your last acceptable candidate has been eliminated. If you don't want to vote for that candidate under any circumstances - don't cast a vote for them (by giving them a preference).

This is similar to an unopposed election. I don't vote for a Republican candidate (or even a Democratic candidate I find unacceptable) even if they are unopposed. In a sense it is throwing my vote away - but I would throw my vote away before I would vote for Trump, for example, if he was one of the candidates in the list.

The point of ranked voting is to permit people to vote for the candidate that best represents them, without their vote acting as a spoiler that puts a candidate they hate into office. The way that works is they vote for their favorite candidate - and if (as expected) that candidate is the least popular, they haven't hurt the chances of their second favorite candidate - because when their candidate is elimiated, their vote shifts to their second favorite.

To use only second and third choices still forces people to guess which candidates are most likely to come in 1st - 3rd and ONLY vote for those candidates. The same problem ranked choice voting was intended to address in the first place.

I tried to pull the spreadsheet for the election - but the link I have doesn't work. I could explain it better with the actual data.

[BainsBane]

71. I see your point

and I'd feel better about it without the result of Frey, but most of my distaste for him has come about because of his performance as mayor. Anyway, it's here to stay, and I can guarantee you that Frey will not win re-election.

I'm not sore about Levy-Pounds (now Armstrong). I didn't really think she'd win, but she was the only one I really liked.

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. With the counts from each round in Wikipedia, I can explain how the rounds went

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Minneapolis_mayoral_election#Results

Round 1: 14 candidates (including one count for "undeclared write-ins", 'Captain Jack Sparrow', and Theron Preston Washington who got 0 votes), whose combined 1st preference votes (5,549) were less than the 5th placed candidate, were eliminated. About half of their voters gave no 2nd preference who was in the remaining 5, so their votes drop out; the others' votes go to their next choice who is still in the race.

Round 2: after that redistribution, the votes were:
Jacob Frey 26,750
Tom Hoch 20,912
Betsy Hodges 19,467
Raymond Dehn 18,574
Nekima Levy-Pounds 16,189
(that happens to be the same order as they were in the 1st round - there was no big difference in where the redistributed votes went)

So Levy-Pounds, being last, was eliminated after round 2. Of her 16,189, 5,454 went to Dehn, and 4,044 to Hodges, but only 1,842 to Hoch. 2,119 of her votes hadn't listed anyone left, so they drop out of the count.

So that difference in the choices moved Dehn up to 2nd, and Hoch down to 4th. So Hoch was the next eliminated. Of his votes, six thousand or so drop out since they have no-one left in the race; about ten thousand go to Frey, and about three thousand each go to Dehn and Hodges.

Hodges was in 3rd, so is next eliminated. About twelve thousand of her votes have not listed either Frey or Dehn, so drop out of the count. Frey and Dehn both get about 7,500 of the rest.

Frey was in the lead in all rounds (always at least 5% ahead of 2nd). Dehn started 4th, but a lot of Levy-Pounds' voters preferred him to the other 4, so he was in 2nd from round 3 onwards.

[BainsBane]

75. But how do they give votes to a candidate?

When people don't vote for them. That part isn't explained in this video. https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14267577
Nor does your post say how they do that. The video doesn't say the votes are dropped. It says the votes from the dropped candidate go to the remaining candidate. Why would they give my vote to Dehn when I never voted for him, but I did vote for Levy-Pounds? Or did they give my vote for Pounds and Hodges to Frey because I ranked him third (biggest mistake of my life)?

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. If you didn't rank Dehn at all, then your vote would never have gone to him

"But how do they give votes to a candidate? When people don't vote for them."

They don't. I'm not sure where you've got that from.

Yes, the video doesn't talk about dropped votes; if it were comprehensive, it should mention that some would be expected to happen ("exhausted ballots" is the official term, that Wikipedia uses). In the Minneapolis mayor example, if a Captain Jack Sparrow 1st choice voter marked no one else, or only put Theron Preston Washington as their 2nd choice and no-one else, then their vote would be dropped - because there's no one left in the 2nd round they voted for.

If you voted for Levy-Pounds, then Hodges, then Frey, then your vote was with Levy-Pounds in rounds 1 and 2. She was then eliminated, and your vote moved to Hodges in round 3. Hoch was then eliminated, and your vote stayed with Hodges for round 4. But by then, Hodges was in the last remaining place, so she was eliminated, and your vote moved to Frey for round 5. Frey won round 5.

[BainsBane]

77. Okay.

As an aside, Captain John Sparrow runs for everything. He campaigns in a pirate costume.

The reason I think some votes of people who didn't select Dehn must have been given him is because he went from fourth in the second round to second in the fifth round.
Sparrow must have been sixth or seventh.

Voting shouldn't be a math problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

84. It's not voting that is a math problem - it's counting them

The voter just has to rank the candidates - "A is best, then H, then L", or "A is my only choice - I don't think any of the others are worth having".

Does it really seem unlikely that someone who had Levy-Pounds as their 1st choice could have Dehn as their 2nd?

[BainsBane]

86. No

I suppose that could be. My problem with Dehn is that he vowed not to implement any policy that was not first approved by Our Revolution. Giving a non-elected group control over city government was disqualifying for me. It also showed him to be weak.

For voters to know the impact of their votes, they have to know how complicated the counting gets. That's why I say it's a math problem.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. People may be doing math problems in 'traditional' elections without realising it

Imagine those 5 candidates had taken part in a simple, 1 vote, whoever-gets-the-most-wins election. There would probably have been people whose favorite was Levy-Pounds, but who'd heard there might not be too many people voting for her. They then would have to weigh whether to vote for her anyway, or to vote for Dehn because he had a better chance of winning, and they hated Frey. Or substitute other names.

In some ways, ranked choice voting makes it simpler for the voter. They don't have to think tactically. But they're used to doing that for traditional elections, so they don't worry about it.

[BainsBane]

93. I disagree

It is definitely not easier.

[BainsBane]

63. Even in this example in the video

The first choice candidate is eliminated and they make the Mayor the second choice. That doesn't seem democratic to me.

I have to revise my initial response to the OP from saying ranked choice is okay to saying it is not okay and that I would recommend the OP vote against the ballot measure.

[Ms. Toad]

67. That is the entire point.

When NO candidate has a clear majority, the secondary preferences come into play to prevent the election of someone like Trump who only commands 30-40% of the vote (while the rest of the vote is split among several opposition candidates)

Imagine the first choice candidate was Donald Trump - with the remainder of the votes split between Clinton and the spoiler Stein.

This would allow people who truly wanted Jill Stein to help us, rather than hurt us.

Without ranked choice voting, those voters must either not vote at all or vote for Stein (giving Trump effectively half a vote) OR they must vote for Clinton outright. We know many did the former in key battleground states.

Ranked choice voting allows them to clearly state their preference for Stein - but choose Clinton as their second choice.

So in the first round, Trump is ahead - but has fewer votes than Clinton + Stein.

So we go to round 2 - and Stein's votes largely go to Clinton, who then becomes the top vote-getter. She wins, and the Stein voters help us, rather than hurt us.

[BainsBane]

68. In practice

It's not so clear, as the numbers I provide in my other post shows. There are multiple candidates. And of course it's never at the federal level. If it were, it could just as easily put Trump over Biden in a subsequent round if the libertarian candidate were a factor, which she seems to be this year. People would have a lot more to complain about than the electoral college then, though I imagine ranked choice couldn't coexist with the electoral college in a Presidential race, at least not in the way you describe.

[Ms. Toad]

70. It's perfectly consistent with the electoral college.

It's just that the state electoral winner would be chosen by ranked voting, and we wouldn't have to worry about Stein, Nader, Sanders, or other 3rd party spoilers giving the state's votes to Trump.

Our message would become - feel free to vote your conscience for for the first round - BUT please make your second round choice for Biden. As long as the spoiler + Biden have more than 50% of the vote, the second round choice for the spoler would go to Biden. We could stop being pissed at the spoilers for the election of someone like Trump, since they would no longer play a rule - unless we can't convince them to state a second choice preference for Biden.

[dsc]

34. This isn't really partisan and can help or hurt depending upon who is running

if partisan gain is what you are looking for. ME has been used as an example of this helping the left since the left is split in ME and the right is unified. Thus IRV prevents the right from winning a 3 way race and forces them to win a two way race. But many states have libertarians as the third party which tends to split the right's vote not the left. In those states IRV would help the right and hurt the left.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

59. It doesn't help or hurt anyone really

If the conservative is more favorable with the majority, then they should win. It is about fairness and having an actual representive democracy.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

60. Maine also has Libertarians running frequently. n/t

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

25. Love it in Maine

Ranked choice voting is why we have Democrat Jared Golden in ME-2 for rep instead on Repub Bruce Poliquin. It allows people to support independents without helping to elect someone they don't like. I think it allows more choice because it makes room for more than two parties. It also ensures that a candidate that was favorable to at least 50% gets voted in. If we had ranked choice nationally, we would have a more representive government and people like Trump wouldn't get in. It is also easy to rank candidates. I think it is among the best changes we've made here in Maine. Maine is awesome for things like this.

[LAS14]

29. Yeah, I was totally surprised when I first heard about it two days ago. When Maine...

... (where we spend much of the summer) was considering it, it was practically all you heard about.

I am definitely for it. It cuts down on polarization. I'm guessing that other people in this thread will have given better replies, because the arguments for it are quite good.

[Politicalgolfer]

31. Mainer here...just voted in rank choice races

Told my husband to make sure we did NOT rank choice any of the races because then we risk if it goes to second rank votes, we could end up with the one we wanted voted out! If everyone stupidly did that the loser could end up winning!

[dsc]

35. ah no, that isn't how it works

the race ends when one candidate has a majority of the votes that have been cast. So all you do with your strategy is deny yourself the ability to participate in any round in which your candidate isn't in the top two. Say you have three candidates in the race and you favor A. Let's take three scenarios.

One A gets 51 votes B gets 35, C gets 14. A wins no further rounds needed. Your vote counts for a regardless of if you gave B or C a 2nd place vote or no one.

Two A gets 32 votes B gets 40 votes, C gets 28 votes. A and B go to the 2nd and final round, your vote counts for A and A wins if he gets 9 more of C's votes than B gets, ties if he gets 8 more, loses if he gets fewer than 8 more of C's votes than B gets.

Three A gets 30 votes B gets 41 votes, C gets 39 votes. A is eliminated along with your vote. He loses either way.

[muriel_volestrangler]

72. You can never hurt your favorite candidate by putting other choices behind them

It's possible that other people's 2nd (or lower) choices could end up eliminating your candidate, if their 1st choice drops out, and their vote is then moved to a 3rd candidate who ends up with the most - but that's part of "the people choosing". But if you vote for your most favoured candidate first, and they make it through the first round, then your vote stays with them.

In more complicated votes involving parties putting up multiple candidates in a vote that elects multiple representatives, it can get a little strange sometimes. But in a vote that is just electing one person, you won't hurt a candidate you like by putting someone else as a lower choice.

[PTWB]

82. Wow! This couldn't be more wrong.

You gave your husband terrible advice that is not based on reality.

[BainsBane]

36. It's okay

It takes more work on the voters part because you have to choose multiple candidates. My third choice, that useless coke head Jacob Frey (mayor of Minneapolis), ended up winning. I regret the day I included him at all. He's definitely out the next election. I digress. I don't know if ranked choice is any more democratic, but we have it now, so I deal with it.

[rownesheck]

39. My brain just melted

trying to decipher the explanations of ranked choice voting.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

48. Some resources about RCV

Fair Vote video on RCV
https://www.fairvote.org/what_is_ranked_choice_voting_video_2019

Hasan Minhaj Patriot Act Episode about voting.. He talks about RCV towards the end, but good show to watch overall.
https://m.

FAQ from RCV Maine
http://www.rcvmaine.com/faq

[Demsrule86]

41. Hate it. I don't like 3rd paries and in a state like Mass could help GOP.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

47. Doubt it would help the gop

in MA, but if the majority actually support gop, then they should be the winner. It is about what the majority wants. It is not a system that is more beneficial to any one party. It is about fairness and determing the winner the most people support. In MA, I highly doubt that gop has majority support. I think it could transform Republican party eventually because they would have to change to become appealing to majority rather than winning with minority support. That is how they used to win in Maine. If you get one or more independents running, Republicans get in with their 40% die hard supporters. They never seem to be able to get any more than 40%, because they are largely unpopular. Anyhow, if you don't have ranked choice, then you risk unpopular candidates getting elected when more than two candidates are running. Even if you only have dems and repubs running right now, that doesn't mean you won't have independents running in the future.

[Demsrule86]

99. The GOP will play games with this and you get enough candidates...could have two GOP running.

[Ms. Toad]

61. Until a third party attracts more than the Democrats, it will likely help the Democrats.

What frequently happens now is that third party candidates (especially Green party candidates) hurt Democrats - since they draw from the far left wing of our party.

Ranked choice voting allows people to vote first for the party that best represents their views. For me that would likely be the Green Party, since the Democratic party has moved consistently toward the middle.

I won't vote for the Green Party candidate now (because that would help the GOP) - but I might in a ranked choice voting scenario.

My vote would ultimately go to the Democratic candidate, but I would be expressing a strong preference for a change in trajectory (which the Democratic party would see). If the party doesn't respond by addressing concerns that are drawing otherwise democratic voters to the green party, there may ultimately be enough votes so that the Green party is the 2nd of three candidates - in which the first choice votes for the Democratic candidate would be shifted (most likely) to the Green Party candidate - who would likely win in places like Mass.

Neither of the two major parties is currently aligned well with my values. Democrats are significantly closer, which is why I vote the Democratic ballot in the primaries and have been an election observer for the last 3 presidential candidates on behalf of the Democratic presidential nominee. I am enough of a realist to know that a vote for a candidate who truly represents my views is equivalent to a half-vote for a candidate who represents the antithesis of my views. But I would love to see the emergence of a truly progessive party - and ranked choice voiting allows for the natural emergence of such a party as soon as the population is willing to support it over Republicans. (Note: It doesn't have to be a third party - it could just as easily nudge the Democratic party in that directions by demonstrating that there is enough support to move in that direction.)

[Demsrule86]

91. All one has to do is look at the UK and see what multiple parties really mean...hate them.

[Ms. Toad]

97. Or Canada. n/t

[Demsrule86]

98. True. It took a while to get the conservatives out...it was minority rule for quite a few years.

[mainer]

95. No it won't help GOP if the majority is against the GOP

If there are three candidates (D, R, and Green) and you like the Green candidate, you can go ahead and vote for the Green, and put the D as your second choice. Then if your Green candidate fails to get a majority, the system drops the Green and uses your second-choice candidate (D) for the runoff.

This ensures that you don't throw away your vote and let the wrong side win.

[getagrip_already]

50. Thanks all!!

I ended up voting yes on both ballot questions (the other was about expanding the right to repair laws).

I still feel conflicted since MA doesn't tend to split the dem vote. But, I did end up voting for one green party candidate because the D on the ticket is an asshole DINO. She openly used racist tactics in campaign materials against her primary opponent, which caused that poor person extreme emotional distress after people started harrassing her using maga style tactics since she is a poc and a muslim, but you probably wouldn't know that unless you asked her directly.

I just couldn't vote for that magat. I guess ranked voting would at least keep that seat if enough people do that, but I frankly don't care if she loses to a republican - Meg is just that evil (imho).

[Polybius]

51. I hate it

I'm a traditionalist when it comes to voting. I take off from work on Election day in even years.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

52. But there is something broken in our election process

when we get people in office that most people depise. Keeping it the same is only going to purpetuate that problem.

[Demsrule86]

54. Ranked choice will only worsen the situation.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

57. I disagree

It reqires at least 50% support to win, so you don't get unpopular leaders like Paul LePage.

[Demsrule86]

92. We can agree to disagree...I see major issue ahead.

[Polybius]

56. I can only speak for myself

I'm a black man who registered in the 90's with no help, and only vote in-person. It's what I enjoy.

[Silent3]

58. Why do you keep mentioning voting in person?

That has nothing to do with ranked choice voting. That can be done in person too.

As for tradition, tradition be damned when a tradition has some serious flaws that something new can fix.

[BainsBane]

65. How it actually works in practice

Can be very different from how people imagine it will work. Take the case of Minneapolis: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=14267763

[Retrograde]

66. I'd like to see it for primaries

especially this year, when I wanted to vote for Warren, but Klobuchar had a lot of merit, not to mention Booker and all the others. I think that if the GOP had used ranked choice in 2016 we wouldn't have gotten stuck with Trump.

[Trumpocalypse]

78. It encourages third party voting

which will hurt the Democratic Party in the long run.

[JonLP24]

89. In the long run you would see a more healthy relationship between Greens & Dems

Ranked-choice voting has another remarkable virtue: Everywhere it has been adopted, it has replaced the politics of personal destruction with positive coalition politics. If two like-minded candidates are running against each other in a large field, they are more likely to work for the second and third choices of their opponent’s supporters by appealing to what they have in common rather than focusing on divisive issues.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/18/opinion/ranked-choice-voting-is-better-way-vote/%3foutputType=amp

[Trumpocalypse]

90. Maybe/maybe not

[PTWB]

83. Anyone who is against RCV doesn't understand RCV or is a Republican.

[mainer]

96. True!

The GOP hates RCV.

[JonLP24]

88. Negative partisanship goes away and is replaced with coalition building

That is what happens everywhere when ranked choice voting is implemented.

You wouldn't see Democrats hating Green Party voters if we had ranked choice voting. Instead you would see coalition building.

[mainer]

94. Love it.

It means the candidate who wins actually gets a majority vote, and third-party candidates won't be spoilers. If you really love your third-party candidate, you can feel OK about voting for that candidate as your #1 choice (while putting your next choice as #2) without worrying about handing the election to the candidate you really hate.