Thoughts on ranked choice voting?

[tulipsandroses]

I’ve seen more talk of this lately.
Get rid of primaries and replace with ranked choice?

Info from FAIR VOTE
SNIP——-
Discourages Overly Negative Campaigning
In non-RCV elections, candidates benefit from mudslinging and attacking their opponent instead of sharing their positive vision with voters. This can lead to increasingly toxic and polarizing campaigns.

With RCV, candidates also compete for second choice votes from their opponents’ supporters which lessens the incentive to run a negative campaign. In RCV contests, candidates do best when they reach out positively to as many voters as possible, including those supporting their opponents.

Voters in RCV cities report more positive campaigning and greater satisfaction with their elections. See our Research on RCV page for more on evidence of increased campaign civility and voter engagement
https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits

[multigraincracker]

1. It seems like a good method.

I just haven't heard the negative aspects yet.

[Polybius]

2. I hate it

I believe in one vote and not voting for seconds.

[Voltaire2]

11. The current system allows for less than 50% to win.

It’s a plurality system. Would you be ok with a run off election when no candidate gets more than 50%?

[Polybius]

39. No

I love the fact that someone with 28% of the vote can win their primary.

[Voltaire2]

52. Weird but then sure you wouldn't want RCV.

[canetoad]

64. What do you hate about it?

I'm late to the party, but your ignorance of the facts must not be allowed to domi nate.

[Polybius]

73. It's not ignorance because you happen to disagree with it

We have it in NYC. It was long and a mess. I don't like the fact that you get to choose a second favorite. I do like that fact that someone can win with 28% of the vote without RCV.

[AntivaxHunters]

3. I fully support it. It's democracy in action.

[MinisterPathos]

4. Not really a fan

The only comparison I can think of, if you have worked in the food industry, and dealt with "tip sharing". It just doesnt seem to work out very well. Except for one person. That one person loves it, of course.

[unblock]

7. rank order voting is nothing like tip-sharing.

[Voltaire2]

10. Yeah what a weird comparison.

[MinisterPathos]

14. Its redistribution

Redistribution of votes, redistribution of money.

Not the best example, gotta go out into the weeds a little.

[Voltaire2]

16. Would you be ok with a run off election

when no candidate got more than 50%?

[MinisterPathos]

24. What I prefer.

What I prefer, as a simple person, 1 Vote. Thats it. Simple.

If 3 people are running, who ever gets the majority wins. Simple enough.

[Voltaire2]

34. Ok so if 3 people are running there is no

guarantee that anyone gets more than 50%. That is the problem. It happens a lot, particularly in primaries. We have a system that typically doesn’t require a majority to win.

[Silent3]

49. It can be a terrible outcome when merely a *plurality* is needed to win

And that's what you get if you don't have run-off elections when no one earns over 50% of the vote, or don't have ranked-choice voting (one form of which is basically an instant run-off).

Getting the best representation of the will of the voters is more important than keeping things brain-dead simple.

[MinisterPathos]

50. Hmmm...

I dont believe that RCV is any better, and it over complicates that fact that some voters are not going to be pleased their guy didnt win.

Lets use this as an example:

Candidate #1... My Guy. Woot Woot
Candidate #2... Meh. But will do. Not really my personal choice.
Candidate #3... This one sucks. Gotta hold my nose.

Voting Happens.

My first choice is eliminated. Dang it. Candidate #3 wins.

This is exactly no better.

[muriel_volestrangler]

51. In that case, you're obviously an unusual voter

in that your personal preference is knocked out first, but the transfers of voters like you, who had #1 as first choice, and #2 as 2nd, still wasn't enough to beat #3.

It's not better from your personal point of view, but from the will of the people, it may well be. What if more people who had #1 as their 1st choice had #3 as their 2nd, and that was what had pushed #3 into the lead?

[MinisterPathos]

59. Me and those who lost

Not an unusual voter at all. Its just that my guy didnt get the votes needed. They went elsewhere.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. I mean 'unusual' as in 'your preferences are very much in the minority'.

Any vote should mean that, in your situation, your favorite and 2nd favorite candidates lose. That is democracy.

[MinisterPathos]

66. Touche'

Oh sure. There is always going to be winners and losers. That is real life. No arguments there.

And just like in real life, as in my scenario, how do you think I feel? Along with the other Voters who voted the same as I did? Those folks are ready to get out the pitchforks.

[inthewind21]

68. So

You're ok with a minority winner getting elected because "You're guy" wasn't the majority choice. Got it.

[MinisterPathos]

76. Wait, what?

Wouldnt my choice have been the actual minority vote? Considering that person lost? And the person who won, would have been the actual Majority vote?

Dang, this is confusing.

[Silent3]

54. How would Candidate #1 win in that scenario without RCV!?

This isn't a guarantee that YOU personally will always like the results. It helps make sure that more of the voters are more often happy (or at least not terribly disappointed) by the results.

You can come up with weird scenarios for any voting system, by the way, just it case you do stumble on a single example that doesn't work well. But RCV comes out for more people much better more often, and helps tamp down the polarization of voters at the same time.

[MinisterPathos]

61. Just not buying it

At the end of the day, RCV obliterates the idea of 1 Person, 1 Vote.

To answer your question about my scenario:

"How would Candidate #1 win in that scenario without RCV!?"

They would win the old fashioned way. Campaigning, and making sure Voters know who is the best choice. It really is that simple. In my scenario my guy lost. That is how it goes sometimes.

[Silent3]

65. "Just not buying it"

You're basically saying "I don't have to have good reasons and good logic. I just don't like RCV!"

Obviously "Campaigning, and making sure Voters know who is the best choice" works for either traditional voting or RCV.

"In my scenario my guy lost. That is how it goes sometimes."

But your whole argument was framed as if your guy losing was pointing out some sort of flaw in RCV because your guy lost.

You're just being petulant at this point and have given up all pretense of showing good reasoning.

"At the end of the day, RCV obliterates the idea of 1 Person, 1 Vote. "

The phrase "one person, one vote" is a way of stating that each person has the same voting power as every other person. RCV doesn't change the distribution of voting power. You might as well complain that if a ballot has five issues and/or candidates on it, that's "One person, five votes!" and be angry about that too.

[MinisterPathos]

74. Not being Petulant

Voters are being forced to Vote for a candidate they would otherwise never consider. Thats not absent of logic and reason. Thats reality.

[Silent3]

78. What "force"?

You’re free to pick a second or third choice, or pick only one. Hell, no one’s going to make you show up to vote at all.

Where’s the coercion in that?

You do have less voting power, of course, if you don’t make extra ranked choices, but that’s your decision.

Does it seem “forceful” to you because you so detest the idea of picking a second choice that you’d resent the extra voting power available to those who do, and if you don’t want that power, then damn it, no one else should have it either?

You have failed to make any defense of your opposition to RCV based on the quality of electoral outcomes. Whichever system most often does a better job of reflecting the will of the majority of the electorate is the best system. Full stop. Anything else you bring up is an irrelevant distraction, not a vaunted principle worth defending.

For reference: See Maine and LePage.

[MinisterPathos]

79. Well now, hold up

"Does it seem “forceful” to you because you so detest the idea of picking a second choice that you’d resent the extra voting power available to those who do, and if you don’t want that power, then damn it, no one else should have it either?"

I thought it doesnt change the voting power? Funny. I guess it does. Doesnt it?

Meanwhile, I stand by my previous statement. Its nothing more then redistribution.

And, while im thinking about it, I believe that you are required to complete the ballot, and rank all candidates. Otherwise your ballot is tossed. If that is correct, that is a wasted vote.

The beauty of this entire conversation, I dont really care. My opinion doesnt actually matter. I dont make laws or decisions. Same as you.

Ive had fun, gotta go feed the squirrels. They get angry when the bird feeder runs out.
Have a fantastic day!

[Silent3]

81. Do you honestly think there's a contradiction there, or did you just decide to go for...

...a cheap "gotcha"?

Voters already have uneven voting power if they decided to give up all of the voting power available to them.

Giving up voting power by not filling in all of the choices in an RCV election is no different than giving up voting power by not voting for all of the issues and offices you can vote for in a given election, or not showing up to vote at all.

And I don't know where you got the crazy idea that an RCV ballot that doesn't have every choice filled in gets thrown out. If anyone ever did handle RCV that way, it was just a stupidly and/or corruptly run election, not the fault of RCV.

You're just getting absurd now to duck the point.

"Meanwhile, I stand by my previous statement. Its nothing more then redistribution."

Redistribution of what? Taxing the rich at a higher rate than the poor is also redistribution, a form of redistribution most of us Democrats don't think there's nearly enough of.

You'll have to do better (although it already sounds like you've given up on defending your own position) than throwing out the word "redistribution" as if it's an inherently scary thing.

[MinisterPathos]

82. Great news!

The Squirrels have been fed. They get really mean. Next thing you know, they are chewing on the siding on the camper. Then theres holes to fix. Its a real problem.

Meanwhile, so it was a cheap gotcha? Was it a contradiction? You tell me. I quoted exactly what you said.

As far as the crazy idea of of tossing out ballots, let me spoon feed that to you, since you asked. Ever heard of:

"Ballot Exhaustion". Now this one is a real hum-dinger. If the voter does not rank each candidate, lets say they only rank 1 candidate out of an imaginary 5 candidates, then Houston, there is a problem. Can you figure it that out? Ill go ahead and explain it. If you only mark 1, and that candidate does not win the first round with 51% of the vote, then your ballot does not go onto the next round. Thats not a corrupt election. Thats a problem with having more then 2 candidates. Thats RCV.

And believe it or not, not all Democrats like the idea of Redistribution.

And no, I havent given up defending my own position. In my second response, to clarify my first response I said it was redistribution. And that is what it is. Taking a Voters vote, and giving it to another candidate, if the first choice didnt work out. What do you want to call it? Reallocation?

The idea that a Voter needs to decide on a backup plan is absurd. Not to mention, now Candidates have to appeal to Voters as a possible 2 or 3 choice, along with being a 1st choice. Its absolutely ridiculous.

Are we done yet with this tom foolery? Clearly you are all in favor, im not. Thats not going to change.

[Silent3]

83. Yes, it was a cheap gotcha

If you have to twist, deliberately misunderstand, or jettison reasonable nuance from what someone says to make an alleged contradiction appear, that's a dishonest rhetorical stunt.

Clearly my argument does not hinge on anything related to self-inflicted surrender of voting power. To use self-inflicted surrender of voting power as your way to create a supposed contradiction is to either deliberately miss the point, or fail to understand the point.

""Ballot Exhaustion..."

So what of it? Lazy voters who get tired of making choices are somehow treated unfairly!? If they don't want to bother making a second-place choice, the system honors that choice, just as it should. If they want more electoral power, they need to make that enormous effort of thinking a bit harder and ticking off another box. Oh, the unfair burdensome cruelty of it all!

Further, the type of difference in loss of voting power caused simply by failure to take advantage of all available choices on a ballot can occur with or without RCV. So again, you're harping on an irrelevant difference just to have something to complain about.

"Taking a Voters vote, and giving it to another candidate"

Taking a voter's vote? It's your personal choice whether or not your vote is allowed to shift to a different candidate. No one takes anything from a voter that the voter doesn't willingly provide. You vote is or is not reallocated at your discretion.

You still haven't risen to the challenge of defending your anti-RCV position in terms of electoral outcome, and which system has the greatest chance of best approximating the collective will of the electorate. It's as if the outcome is far less important to you than mere simplicity and absurd ideas about what makes a process "fair" or not.

[MinisterPathos]

84. You sure are obsessed

With word smithing and long windy posts.

For the second time, you have confirmed that its all about giving citizens more then 1 vote. Which is exactly what kind of scheme RCV is. I did not twist your words. You said it. I quoted it. Own it.

Im not changing my opinion. I dont have anything to prove to you. Based on other commenters in this thread, im not the only person who has problems with RCV.

Im not sure if im supposed to check off all the boxes to be a "good democrat". But that aint happening. I dont agree with everything. And im not going to. I have a gut feeling that a lot folks here on DU feel exactly the same, but are too afraid to rock the boat. Well guess what buttercup, I dont give a damn about what you think.

And I ask again, are we done?

[Silent3]

85. It *equally* gives everyone the power *if they choose to take it* of more than one vote

There's not anything inherently wrong with that.

And that's not the fake contradiction you dishonestly tried to create.

This also has nothing to do if you're going to change your mind. If you have a position you hold, you should have a better defense of it that the fake non-issues you keep harping on.

[muriel_volestrangler]

86. It's not more than one vote; it's a transferable vote. Another name is "single transferable vote"

You get one vote, which you give to a candidate. But, if that candidate is eliminated, your vote can then be transferred (if you want - "ballot exhaustion" is not a problem, and I can't see why you thought it was) to a candidate that remains in the contest.

This is no more a violation of "one person, one vote" than a primary and a general election are, or an election with a run-off. You get to vote twice in those.

I hope you'll think about this, and not just rely on your 'gut'.

[inthewind21]

67. THIS

This is why the minority get control. SMH

[unblock]

17. except that tip sharing is sharing equally, without regard to the preference of the tipper

(ok, not always equally; some restaurants that share tips with the back of the house may give a higher share of the tips to those in the front of the house. in any case it ignores the preference of the tipper.)

rank order voting is nothing like that. if you want a restaurant analogy, it's more like, i'll have the salmon, but if you're out of that, i'll have the fish and chips. you get the best dish available, but you also let the restaurant know what your real preference was.

[MinisterPathos]

25. Ahh... but..

The diner who left the tip to start with usually intends for it to go their server. Not be divided up. At least I feel like most people assume that, who dont have even the slightest clue about the abuses of tip sharing.

But then again this was an admittingly poor example.

[unblock]

28. mrs unblock worked in that industry for year, and i've read many stories online as well

tons of wage theft regarding tips, whether there's tip sharing or not.

but yes, most restaurants don't make it clear if they share tips, unless there's a tip jar.

most blatant -- and now we're completely off-topic -- we once went to a restaurant and they overcharged us, i don't remember exactly what happened but we all agreed they owed us $10. so the manager, instead of walking 20 ft to get the $10 from the register, told the server to take $10 out of his pocket to pay us.

my wife and i literally recoiled and said no, no, no, we're not going to be a party to wage theft, the server doesn't owe us the $10, you do. the manager was like oh, er, uh, yeah, well, uh, there's no wage theft here, we'll settled up at the end of the day. we were like yeah, right, go the the register and get us our $10.

while he fumed and went to the register, the server quietly said, "thank you".

[MinisterPathos]

33. Its a discussion form, let us discuss

The tip industry in my humble opinion, and I hate to use strong language, is poop.

Forcing employees to practically beg for scraps. Its hideous. With tip sharing, whos to say everybody is honest? For instance, you leave a $10 bill on the table. The server gets it, pockets it, doesnt report it. But then still gets the share of everybody elses. Now though, with so much use of plastic, its less chance to happen, but it still can. And does.

If im not mistaken, I recently read of a restaurant that fired a mgr. for similar behavior to what you describe. Its just terrible.

[unblock]

43. It's terrible and it's rampant.

[inthewind21]

70. Open a thread

and discuss it. This one is about RCV, not tip sharing.

[joshcryer]

58. I don't like it because it's too difficult. Approval voting...

...accomplishes the same goal and is super, duper, duper easy to implement.

https://electionscience.org/library/approval-voting/

All it says is "vote for everyone you approve of."

So if you had Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders on a ballot you could vote for both of them.

[inthewind21]

72. It's not difficult at all

All you have to be able to do is count to three and pick your choices 1-3. Really no different than looking at a menu and saying gee, Spaghetti looks good, but so does Lasagna and Fettuccine. Which do I like good, better and best.

[SWBTATTReg]

5. We went to this in MO (STLMO) and I love it. No more of this back and forth between candidates

and a simple means of determining what candidate won, and in a case of a mix up or screw up, you kind of have a hierarchy of winners and losers already lined up, ID'ed. I was surprised when I first encountered this process a couple of years ago in STLMO. Being that I'm in MO, I was surprised, nay, shocked that the republican legislature in MO allowed this method of voting.

[unblock]

6. it's not perfect, but it's far superior to what we have no

what we have now is basically thought of as a fine example of democracy only because it's what we're used to.

it have many flaws, about which we constantly complain, yet we keep going back to the same well.


one of the bigger flaws of our current voting structure is that it allows the opposition to split the majority vote.

say 60% of the population wants a liberal and 40% wants a fascist.

if the fascists run their own candidate but also fund a competing, third party or independent liberal, then it's possible for the result to be 40% fascist, 30% democratic liberal, 30% third-party liberal. unless there's a provision for a head-to-head runoff, the fascist would win.

variants of this happen all the time even with minor third-party effects. consider how many people blamed nader for costing us florida in 2000, giving us shrub instead of gore as president.

never mind that, having only one vote, you may have be torn between voting for your favorite candidate and the person you hate the least from among the candidates that appear to have the best chance of winning. the makes it extremely difficult for third party candidates to ever break the two-party duopoly.


rank choice voting is not perfect (no voting system with reasonable goals is perfect; google arrow's impossibility theorem, it's really cool) but it's vastly superior to what we have now.


it allows you to vote honestly for the candidates in the order you prefer. a third party vote is never a "wasted" vote. in 2000, you could have voted for nader first and gore second, and your vote for gore would have been the one that mattered.

then, we'd have a more accurate view on the "mandate" the winning candidate should have. it's pretty compelling if they have a ton of number one votes, but not so compelling if they weren't too many people's top choice. also *which* third party candidates attracted the early votes could help gauge the issues that matter for the country.

[Voltaire2]

8. It would be an improvement over plurality systems.

[WhiskeyGrinder]

9. It's a shitshow, especially for larger elections.

[Voltaire2]

12. Why?

[Lucid Dreamer]

18. I'll try to find a dissertation on this that I read in the mid '80s.

The problem is that a lot of "Good" candidates running can be outnumbered by one lousy one.

For instance, in some hypothetical high school election there are 7 good candidates running against 1 lousy one.
The good ones all support great policies for the students, but they are dividing the vote because
one is supported by football fans, and another by rock and roll fans, another by classical music fans,
another by artists... yadda, yadda, yadda.

So they each poll around the 10 percent level.

But the dummy that comes out in the campaign and says, FREE ICE CREAM in the cafeteria
gets 20+%.

Now there are a bunch of ways of "weighting" the votes to make the election "fairer" but the weighting system itself
can become a nightmare.

The conclusion was there are a bunch of methods for weighting multiple votes, but they all have different levels of suckage.

Every one of the systems had flaws. You just have to find the least flawed. Let's vote on it!

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. OK, so first round the good guy favored by classical music lovers only gets 9% but the jerk gets 25%

Another qualified candidate who rock fans like gets 11%, the qualified candidate that football fans like gets 12% etc. So the candidate classical music lovers are drawn to is eliminated for coming in last that round. His/her votes get reallocated under ranked voting, with whoever was the second choice of each classical music loving candidate who lost supporter getting that vote instead. If the free ice cream jerk was the second choice of some of those voters, he/she gets those votes, but if the second choice of other classical music loving voters is the candidate who appeals to football fans, he/she gets those votes etc.

I don't see a problem. If one candidate overall sucks but starts out with a lead because he/she wears "Kiss me I'm Irish" Tee shirts which appeals to one segment of voters but only one segment of voters, that person will stall out as the instant run off process consolidates votes behind one or more of the candidates with broader appeal.

[Mariana]

30. That's not a description of ranked choice voting.

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV)

[Voltaire2]

35. It's almost as if the people arguing against RCV

have no idea what it is or what problem it is addressing.

[muriel_volestrangler]

36. You describe, very well, the problem with *plurality* voting. That RCV solves.

I hope this means, on reflection, that you'll consider RCV as an improvement.

[sir pball]

77. Somebody is still cranky Eric Gardner won on RCV. nt

[tulipsandroses]

13. It's being used in Alaska- Sarah Palin is competing for that seat

Which includes 2 republicans, 1 Democrat, 1 independent.

[crud]

15. I think there are many benefits

It will allow voters to vote their conscience AND vote strategically. Your lesser evil choice now can be your second or third choice.

Allow for more participation by 3rd party and independent candidates.

It could increase turnout because voters have more choices.

Eventually it might result in Congress passing campaign finance reform, voting rights laws.

I'm all for it

[Takket]

19. personally, i would like it..........

but

I think it would suppress turnout because people just couldn't be bothered to learn it or try to use it, and they would just complain about how complicated it is, or that is is rigging/cheating, or some other such nonsense. not that those reasons are accurate or true, but when has being wrong ever stopped people in this country from letting their opinions influence their actions?

Here's my idea: Put it to a vote! of course we have no means of a national referendum, but states can do it individually.

[Ms. Toad]

20. I love it.

It is a way to move past the games currently played which result in elected officials who are compromises based on ability to win elections, rather than compromises on principles.

In the primaries, I vote for the candidate whose policies and beliefs are most aligned with mine. In the general election, I vote for one of the two candidates capable of winning.

Ranked choice voting allows me to vote my conscience without risking throwing the election to the Republicans. It would have made a difference, for example, in the 2000 election. In that election I had friends vote for Ralph Nader, rather than Al Gore. In Ohio - where it mattered - I could not talk them out of it. My parents (in a solid red state) traded votes with a couple in a purple state. They voted for Nader (since Gore was not going to win in rural Nebraska - even with their votes). Their friends in a purple state voted for Al Gore (even though they preferred Ralph Nader) - because they recognized that voting for Nader might hurt Gore's chances of being elected and they were unwilling to do that, even though the candidate whose beliefs and policies matched theirs was Nader.

Had ranked voting been around - both my friends, my parents, and my parents' friends would have voted for Ralph Nader as their first choice, with Al Gore second. Even with their votes, Nader would have lost in a 3-way race. But their votes would have helped (1) demonstrate that the mainstream Democrat was not close enough to be their preferred candidate (and might influence the platform or future candidates) and (2) make a third (or 4th or 5th) party a more viable option - since those parties generally need to earn a certain percent of the vote in presidential elections to automatically earn a place on the ballot.

When Nader lost in the first round, all of these votes would have gone to Gore - so he would have gained quite a few votes which were either completely thrown away in Ohio (my friends who voted for Nader) or the result of vote swapping between people of conscience to allow support for Nader to be shown without completely throwing the votes away (purple state for the democrat traded for a red state vote to show support for a third party candidate).

[Demsrule86]

22. And you post demonstrates why I despise ranked voting...fuck Nader and anyone who voted for him.

We need to vote for the Democratic party, not a system that will undoubtedly be abused by the GOP in ways we can't possibly anticipate. A system that allows us to 'vote our conscience' which is code for voting for third parties very likely. I have no desire to enable any third-party period. My conscience tells me that Democratic is always best; I despise third parties and always will... Ranked choice is nonsense. It is merely yet another way for candidates to ignore voters' opinions and run on some pet ideology, he or she favors. One should pick a candidate in the Party to vote for-one who endorses our platform and never vote for Republicans or third-party spoilers...and more than one candidate in most races would indubitably doom our candidates.

Ranked voting is very foolish and undoubtedly would only help Republicans. How unfortunate that both your parents and friends felt the need to vote for Nader...which undoubtedly led to the demise of Roe...two judges would have been enough to stop this assault on women. Despite your obvious dislike of Gore, I am quite certain he would not have confirmed judges who would have voted to end a woman's right to choose. Ranked voting would merely allow such things to happen more often IMHO.

[Ms. Toad]

29. I vote for people, not parties -- but I will ultimately vote for one of the two candidates

in the general election with a chance to win. Well over 99% of the time that candidate is a Democrat - not because they are a Democrat, but because progressive/liberal candidates generally hold values similar to my own - and Democrats are more likely to be progressive than Republicans.

Voting my conscience is not code for voting for third party candidates - although it does not exclude it. It is a direct, honest statement about being unwilling (for example) to vote for a candidate who refuses to treat my 40-year marriage as a marriage. I am older, and more practical, than my younger friends who voted for Nader for reasons of conscience. I will not throw my vote away in a general election because even when (as is nearly always the case) the Democratic candidate strongly opposes/supports something I find essential/an abomination, under straight voting any vote for a third party candidate is half a vote for a Republican candidate - who is nearly always far worse.

But I am sick and tired of holding my nose and voting for candidates who hold values inconsistent with my own, or who I do not believe will be an effective president/senator/etc.

Ranked voting gives me a chance to vote for the candidate whose values most match my own - and to start pushing those values into the political conversation whereas our current system silences those values. A prime example of that is the 2004 election when Democratic candidates could not, without risking their political future, vocally support same gender marriage. The same will be true this year as to trans athletes and access to bathroom facilities which match their gender. Mainstream Democratic candidates are not going to able to voice support for trans issues because doing so will alienate a substantial portion of the people whose votes they need. Third party or independent candidates are not so hamstrung - and I want to be able to cast a vote for those voices, even though I am realistic enough to know that such voices will not win - yet. But the simple reflection of votes supporting those voices as a first choice sends a message.

Ranked voting is not going to help Republicans - at least at this stage. No third party candidate will draw enough votes away from the two major parites to knock out either the Republican or Democratic candidate. But voting for a third party candidate with more progressive values sends a strong message that the Democtatic candidates are not where they need to be on issues such as immigration, LGBT issues, human rights, clean energy, etc. - and those votes will influence the party platform in a way that no third party spoiler (in straight voting) will do.

And - if we get to the stage where a third party can gain enough votes to knock out either major party - then it is probably time to retire that party. Currently that would be far more likely with a third party which represented traditional conservatives (Liz Cheney, John McCain, as examples). Frankly, I think something like ranked voting which allows Republicans to cast a vote to get back to at least semi-sane candidates is the only way to break Trump's hold on the party. It would allow those Republicans to demonstrate how much support there is for a return to reality, and that third party might ultimately replace the current Republican party.

My parents' vote absolutely did not contribute to the demise of Roe. You obviously missed the part about voting in rural Nebraska. The vote there is overwhelmingly Republican. They voted their friends' votes, by proxy, for Nader - in Nebraska - where they could have voted for Mickey Mouse and it wouldn't have made a whit of difference. This allowed their friends to vote, by proxy, my parents' votes for Gore in a purple state where it did matter. I suspect this particular set of friends was old enough to be practical - and had they not made the arrangement with my parents - they would still have voted for Gore. But knowing that "their" votes were going for Nader to express support for the ideas he brought to the table made it far easier.

My friends' votes DID impact the election. As to the one I interacted with most - nothing any of us said could influence him to vote for Gore. His vote was going to Nader because of his significant policy differences with Gore. He was young and stupid. (He wised up by the next time Nader ran.) Had ranked voting been available, his - and most other Nader votes - would have gone to Gore in the second round. With straight voting, they were tossed in the trash can - not a good outcome for any of us.

[Voltaire2]

37. TY.

Very well put. I was going to respond but you’ve done it for me.

[muriel_volestrangler]

38. Your attitude is "better a Republican win, than Nader coming 3rd".

Which is, I would say, "very foolish". You demand a world divided into 2, and no more, and then you get to say "only people who agree exactly with me are worthwhile".

It would be better to have a voting system that produces a more popular outcome, rather than one designed to make you personally feel righteous.

[Demsrule86]

21. I hate it...and hate it some more. It is a very bad idea.

[mainer]

26. Working well in Maine

You don’t end up with crazies in office, as long as the majority of voters are reasonable.

[Shermann]

27. It would need to somehow implement the straight party vote option

There are many who are conscientious enough to get out to vote in general elections but wouldn't be well-versed in a ballot with many choices from the same party. They would just want the straight party vote option.

Maybe that's been solved already? A hybrid weighing system would be needed.

[iemanja]

32. We have it in Minneapolis where everyone is a Democrat

Green, socialist, or one of the two marijuana parties. Then there is Captain Jack Sparrow, who despite running repeated was absent from the mayoral ballot last time. Republicans pretend to be Democrats to stand a chance, but they are easy to spot.

[Ms. Toad]

41. This doesn't generally replace primaries -

During the primary in ranked voting jurisdictions, it is the same as primary voting now - except that instead of voting for no more than XX candidates, you rank your Democratic candidate choices (and electronics does the rest).

In the general election, the rules for getting on the ballot are generally the same as before ranked choice was implemented. There will be one Democratic candidate, one Republican candidate - and one candidate for each of the other parties who automatically get slots on the ballot, and any other candidates who qualify by other means.

So you wouldn't be ranking multiple choices from the same party in the general election - only in the primary (where you are already choosing among many candidates from the same party).

The only place where you are likely to see multiple candidates from the same party in a general election might be judicial races - which could truly be non-partisan, with everyone running in the general election (rather than having a partisan primary for a race that is generally non-partisan)

[iemanja]

31. I've voted in two ranked choice elections

and I still don't understand it.

[Ms. Toad]

40. Here's an example

Let's look at an election between Abe, Barbara, and Charlie election.

Barbara and Charlie have similar views - except that Barbara thinks same gender marriage is an abomination whereas Charlie (an independent candidate) supports it. The LGBT voters and allies cannot bring themselves to vote for Barbara, because of her stance on their marriages. They know that either Abe (the Republican) or Barbara (the Democrat) will be elected, but they cannot stomach voting for her - so they vote for Charlie. There are also a few voters who more closely align with Abe who also vote for Charlie.

In the General Election (in a straight voting jurisdiction) here are the votes:

Abe: 5000 (48.3%)
Barbara: 4500 (43.5%)
Charlie: 850 (8.2%)

Even though no candidate wins a majority, Abe has a plurality and wins. Both Barbara's voters (and most of Charlies' voters) are unhappy. Barbara's voters are pissed at Charlie's voters based on their perception that they should have held their noses and voted for Barbara.

In a ranked voting/instant runoff the result is different.

Let's say 90% of those Charlie voters ranked Barbara 2nd - and Abe 3rd (or left Abe off entirely). The remaining 10% ranked Abe 2nd and Barbara 3rd (or left Barbara off entirely) at the same time they cast their initial vote.

So in the second (entirely electronic) round, Abe and Barbara both keep all the votes they already have. In addition, Charlie's votes are distributed according to their second choice (ranked) candidate.

That means Barbara gets 4500 votes + .9 (850) and Abe gets 5000 votes + .1 (850)

The final tally at the end of round 3:

Barbara: 5265 (50.9%)
Abe: 5085 (49.1%)

Now, instead of Abe (the candidate acceptable to the fewest people) winning with a plurality, Barbara has a majority in ranked voting - and wins. Charlie's voters aren't thrilled - since their candidate lost. But their second choice won, they were not required to vote FOR a candidate who thought their marriages were an abomination in order to prevent Abe from winning. Barbara's supporters aren't pissed at Charlie's voters, since voting for Charlie was not an automatic spoiler - the majority of their second choice votes went to Barbara.

In reality it's more complex since there could be more than 3 candidates - and, generally, one candidate at a time is eliminated. So instead of two (electronic rounds) determining the winner, if there are 10 candidates there could potentially be 9 rounds.


In terms of how to rank: There is no obligation to rank every candidate. Ranking a candidate is equivalent to voting for someone. If you would never in a million years vote for a candidate, don't rank them. For example - here - I would only have ranked Barbara and Charlie. Abe is completely unacceptable, so rather than create a situation in which I might accidentally vote for him in one of the later rounds, I just leave him out entirely.

[iemanja]

48. We have like 10 candidates

and none are Republican. We only rank 3. It's how they count the votes that confuses me.

[Ms. Toad]

55. Is there a rule that the the winner is chosen after the 3rd round

Even if no one has a majority?

Here's a simplified visual explanation: https://fairvotemn.org/rcv/ (the video on the left).

In a "rank three" election, there will be (up to) 3 rounds of electronic voting.

Your vote "sticks" with your first choice, unless your favorite candidate is eliminated. If your favorite candidate is eliminated, your vote then shifts to your second choice. If your second choice candidate is eliminate, your vote then shifts to your 3rd choice candidate. So if you picked one of the ultimate winners, your vote is always counted for your top choice. On the other hand, if you picked successive losers, your vote would shift to your second choice in round 2, your third choice in round 3, etc. If you picked a winner in round 1, but a loser in round 2, your vote would stick with your favorite candidate for round 2, but when your candidate is eliminated in round 2, your vote would go to your second choice candidate as long as they are still in the running. (If not, your vote goes to yoru 3rd choice candidate.)

(In most jurisdictions, you would rank up to the full slate of candidates - so in a 10-person field, you would rank all 10 of them - which mostly guarantees that someone will win more than 50% of the votes. A "rank three" system leaves you with the possibility that no one will win a majority of the votes.)

Here's an sample slate:

Abe
Bailey
Carlo
Denae
Eric
Firas
Gina
Hector
Inez
Jesus

You rank your candidates as follows: 1st choice: Firas, 2nd choice: Denae, 3rd choice Bailey
Your best bud likes Bailey better than Denae if Firas loses - their ranking is: 1st choice: Firas, 2nd choice: Bailey, 3rd choice Denae
Your next door neighbor likes Denae best - their ranking is: 1st choice: Denae, 2nd choice: Firas, 3rd choice Bailey
Your cousin likes the same 3 candidates - but in yet another order: 1st choice: Bailey, 2nd choice: Firas, 3rd choice: Denae
Here's the ranking after round 1 (everyone's first choice is the one that is counted):

Abe
Denae
Carlo
Eric
Gina
Hector
Inez
Bailey
Jesus
Firas

Dang, your first choice candidate (Firas) lost. That means in your second round, your vote goes to your next choice - Denae
Same for your best bud - Your best bud's vote goes to Bailey in the second round.
Your cousin's favorite candidate survives - so their vote sticks with Bailey in the second round
Your next door neighbor's favorite candidate also survives - so their vote sticks with Denae in the second round.

After all of Firas's votes are distributed to the next-choice candidates, here is the ranking at the end of round 2 for the remaining 9 candidates:

Abe
Denae
Carlo
Eric
Gina
Hector
Inez
Jesus
Bailey

Yay! Your candidate fared better in round 2: Your second choice was top-ranked Denae. That means your vote sticks with Denae for round 3.
Your best bud - their second choice candidate (Bailey) lost in round 2. That means in round 3 their vote goes to their 3rd choice candidate: Denae
Same with your cousin - almost. Their first choice candidate (Bailey) lost in round 2 so their vote shifts to their next choice (their 2nd choice) - Firas - BUT - Firas has already been eliminated, so move on to the next (3rd) choice: Denae
Your next door neighbor's favorite candidate still survives - so their vote sticks with Denae in the third round.

After shifting all of the votes, all of those votes shifted to Denae give her enough votes to beat Abe (here's the remaining 8 candidates):

Denae
Abe
Carlo
Eric
Gina
Hector
Inez
Jesus

This is what ranked voting is supposed to do - allow voters to vote for their favorite candidates, without the worry of splitting the vote for similar candidates (here, Denae, Firas, and Bailey) - and giving the win to Abe - who was at least your 4th choice. It allows candidates to run, without the fear that running will throw the election to the wildest candidate out there.

Had there been ranked choice voting - we might not have ended up with Trump being the Republican candidate. With straight voting, the more Republicans who entered the race split the anti-trump vote among 11 (?) candidates. With ranked choice voting, as the voters of the candidates who entered the primaries just to dump Trump would likely have been enough (after a few rounds) to coalesce in a single candidate other than Trump.

Hope that helps.

[iemanja]

56. Thanks. That does help.

I appreciate your very careful explanation.

[Ms. Toad]

57. Intuitively, I know how it works -

and I have extenstive experience with elections.

But I usually explain it from the point of the total votes - it was more challenging to make sure I had enough voters (and alternate choices) to trace a single vote through all of the possibilities.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

42. I love the idea of RCV

Wish we had it in Virginia.

As for people who don’t like it, no one says you have to choose more than one candidate; just pick one and vote like you do now.

[LiberalFighter]

44. For primaries only?

[boston bean]

45. Not in favor of it.

[meadowlander]

46. Most Americans aren't putting in the effort to distinguish between two parties.

It doesn't seem likely to make them more apt to vote if they have to research and place five candidates in order of preference.

My pitch would be mixed member proportional.

You vote for a candidate and a party. The make up of the results equals each candidate that won plus the total numbers match up to the proportion of the parties voted for by selecting people off that party's ranked list. So any party that gets at least 5% of the vote can still have representation. And career politicians with a lot of experience can still be returned if their district votes them out if they have sufficient seniority in their party. Which encourages older established politicians in safe seats to step aside and cultivate younger politicians for those seats because they can still be returned themselves on the lists.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

47. They don't have to research anything

Those who don’t want to bother learning about all of the candidates don’t have to. They can vote for one candidate and move on.

[MichMan]

53. Won't that make lines for voting longer and a lot slower moving?

While people try and make up their minds who to pick as #3, and who to pick as the #4 choice.

Most people are already certain in who their first choice is, but I can see many taking forever vacillating back and forth how to rank the others.

[brooklynite]

71. Better still, we could only have two candidates on the ballot...

...think of how much time people would save choosing.......

[mathematic]

60. In favor of it so we can finally put to bed the notion that socialists are popular

We'd probably get a more moderate conservative opposition, too. Jeb! might have even won the 2016 R primary!

[canetoad]

63. Adoption of ranked choice, or preferiantial voting

Would be a step forward in your antiquated system.

[brooklynite]

69. Primaries or not and RCV or not have nothing to do with each other.

You can have RCV among candidates nominated in Primaries with or without RCV.

[Politicub]

75. I don't see how it discourages negative campaigning.

That sounds more like a wish than the reality of the media environment in which we live. There are negative and attack campaign ads in NYC and San Francisco, and they use RCV. NY just used it for their mayoral election.

In my state, I think the instant-runoff-esque aspect of RCV is more appealing than what we have now. If a candidate doesn’t get more than 50 percent, there’s another election to choose from among the two people who get the most votes.

I guess I would like to see advocates for it be more honest about it not being a panacea for everything that ails our elections. The rainbow-and-lollipops tone of FairVote is off putting.

[Model35mech]

80. It's only value is when there are 3 or more choices.

That might be true in non-presidential primaries and in early presidential primaries. There is no point to ranked choices late in presidential primaries when the competition boils down to two, or fewer.

The party poobas want their power to be king makers, IMO they'll never accept ranked choice voting, even in primaries.