Have YOU heard of a voting system called 'Ranked Choice Voting'?

[Still-alive]

I was at the No Kings Protest in the city of Long Beach California on Saturday. i was there with my political group buddies trying to collect signatures so we can show the city council there that the people want this!

So if you don't know Ranked Choice Voting is an election method in​ which voters rank candidates for an office in order of their preference (first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on). Ranking candidates is different from simply selecting one candidate or what is known as plurality voting. If a candidate receives more than half of the first choices, that candidate wins, just like in any other election. However, if there is no majority winner after counting the first choices, the race is decided by an instant runoff. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who ranked that candidate as their first choice will have their votes count for their next choice. This process continues until a majority winner, a candidate with more than half of the vote, wins.

This has been implemented in Alaska and Maine and is also how mayor Mamdani in New York city won his primary against that crook Andrew Cuomo! We need a change folks! no more of this first past the post nonsense where you only get to choose between the lesser of two evils every time. Ranked choice is more fair and also tends to increase the voter turnout for elections. it destroys the apathy that is all too prevalent in our political system these days! If you see Ranked Choice Voting on your ballot wherever you live make sure to vote for it!

https://www.facebook.com/reel/2225142901671843

I have heard of Ranked Choice voting and fully support it!

I have heard of Ranked Choice voting and don't support it

I have never heard of Ranked Choice Voting before but thanks for informing me!

Updates

3 mo

Here's a good video showing how Ranked Choice Voting works: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7P6aYbUo19U

[goaded]

It dilutes the power of the parties, so they hate it. (The UK had a referendum in 2011 and it was unfortunately defeated. "It's too complicated" said the people with the most to lose.)

Imagine a 2016 election with Bernie, Hillary, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Marco Rubio, John Kasich, Ted Cruz, and Trump!

You never get an extremist because people will vote for them first or last, so the majority of votes will go to someone in the middle or someone who is genuinely popular across the aisle and makes good arguments.

[slatyb]

It's complicated. It's been mathematically proven that there is no voting system that cannot lead to perverse results, where given a binary choice most voters would prefer one of the candidates other than the one elected. So if the candidates are A, B, and C, any possible voting system could lead to A being elected when a majority would prefer B to A.

[Still-alive]

It is complicated but this is by far more fair than what we do now

[slatyb]

Maybe? my.lwv.org/.../pros-and-cons-instant-runoff-ranked-choice-voting

[Still-alive]

The first two cons are about people not knowing about it lol. Thats why we launched this campaign to educate people on what it is. First past the post lesser of two evils voting is terrible most agree to this. We need to change it and ranked choice is the better of the two. There may be better options than even that but its hard enough jist getting people on board with rcv. So we are sticking with this and if implemented the cons will reveal themselves and we can debate a better option then in the future.

So im saying implement this now then find something better later.

[goaded]

"any possible voting system could lead to A being elected when a majority would prefer B to A."

As far as I can see, the only way that problem could occur is if C voters who prefer B to A don't give a second choice and the ones who prefer A to B do. The winner got votes from more people, even if they were second, third, or fourth choices.

If the people who don't like A couldn't be bothered to vote for B at all, is that the system's problem?

I can see "most people would rather not have had A", but then you want a none of the above option!

[slatyb]

@goaded Too complicated for me to explain. en.wikipedia.org/.../Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

[Still-alive]

Theory is fine but can you point to actual examples where ranked choice produced a ‘perverse result?’

Because most of the time it really is more fair then the shit we use for voting now.

[slatyb]

@goaded The key result is that ranked choice voting is also highly sensitive to spoilers, like a third party candidate in a US Presidential election. If the Democrat would win 55% of the vote against the Republican, but a third party attracts 15% of the vote, leaving Democrats with 40%, Republicans with 45%, the Republican candidate is elected even though a substantial majority would prefer the Democrat given a binary choice. Ranked choice voting does not automatically fix this.

[goaded]

OK, so how would that have worked with Ross Perot in 2000?

Wait "If the Democrat would win 55% of the vote against the Republican.." The democrat would win, because they won "55% of the vote"!

Say: Rep 49%, Dem 45%, Perot 6%; but Perot voters' 2nd choice 90% Dem, Democrat wins!

[Still-alive]

I can tell you right now the critique you have has literally never happened. In fact the opposite has happened.. Spoilers have been reduced or even non existent.

[goaded]

It wasn't a critique, it was a defence! If Perot voters had had a second chance to express their opinion, it would probably have changed the result,

[Still-alive]

@goaded im talking to slaty. he's the rcv skeptic here

[goaded]

Sorry!

[slatyb]

I'm informing, not advocating. Were you familiar with the theorem?

[Still-alive]

This is misinformation then cause it literally has no bearing on how it really works

[goaded]

@slatyb I misunderstood your point earlier, but I still think you're wrong.

You suggested a hypothetical set of voters who would vote 55-45 to the Democrat in a two candidate election.

Some of those same voters, when faced with a third candidate, switch their primary vote from the Democrat to the third party for some reason (because they're further left, perhaps?), so you have 40D-15I-45R.

The independent goes out, because nobody got 50%, then all their voter's second choice votes are counted. Unless more than a third of those go to the Republican, the Democrat wins (but gets a clear message that a large proportion of voters prefer the independent to them).

Bear in mind, these are the voters that, had they not been given a choice on the left, would have voted Democratic.

[CriminallyInsane]

From what I knew about this when Alaska started it, it seems like an immediate runoff without having to waste the time, effort and money of actually doing a runoff, like every Georgia senate election. We just find out immediately what the third party voters (me!) would pick when you force us to vote for a "real" party candidate and then we can be done faster.

[purplepoppy]

I've heard of it but never given it much thought. My gut feeling is it sounds like something minority parties would push as a way of getting more power or even elected.

[Still-alive]

its more fair for democracy

[purplepoppy]

It'll never take off. We had a referendum on proportional representation here a while back and the media ran a huge campaign against it. Anything that disadvantages the main parties will never be allowed

[Still-alive]

well thats why we are starting in small local areas and then if it catches on it can spread to more. this is an ongoing thing. ill never give up!

[purplepoppy]

I could see it working in the UK where we've got a dozen parties to choose from. A lot of the time you end up voting for one of the big parties because you feel anything else is a waste of a vote

[abc3643]

Have you heard of Electoral Fusion?
Every state should have that but the parties in charge don't want it because that would kill their duopoly.

[Still-alive]

Well i think i wanna go for RCV at least. other than what we have now its the only other option most may have heard of and even then we still have to educate people on what it is. so in regards to even better voting systems i think we can worry about those after we just implement RCV and people debate over its inherit problems in the future. thats when you can come in and tell us better alternatives.

im all about just putting something new and different and effective in place and i feel we got a better shot with RCV than with others.

[Simslover92]

Thanks for this! I've never heard of this before but will be on the lookout for it in my city.

[Still-alive]

yes if you want to elect actual good politicians for your city definitely vote for this!

[Simslover92]

I definitely will! Thanks again!

[NaultD]

Still a big push from Republicans to get rid of choice voting in alaska when Sarah Palin lost back in 2022.

[Twalli]

I don't think a lot of people have enough political knowledge to do this.

[Still-alive]

Thats why we launched this campaign to educate people. we are starting locally and hope to have this spread city wide then maybe statewide.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

It sounds like a good idea. Probably worth trying. Especially for local elections

[msmissydc]

Its give smaler parties better chances as strategic voting is less powerfull.

[goaded]

It also tells politicians where their support is coming from, even if you end up with a big party representative.

[Xawyx-2]

I never heard about it, thanks for the info.

[queenofcardio]

Never heard of this. Great info !

[Still-alive]

Yup even Canada should get in on this!

[beefcakebradybatson]

Yes, and I wish we Canucks had it !!!

[Wailee]

Nope