NOOOOO!!!!!!! In America we must pick one candidate to vote for and live with that choice, whether it's a winner or a loser. There's way too much fraud institutionalized in the election process already without introducing another layer, or two , or three, .... into the accounting process.
With RCV you want to switch to Open Source software, as this article recommends. That's what NYC did. That alone improves the integrity of the election.
This is gibberish and exactly exemplifies the caliber of arguments used against RCV. People are being told by the establishment to be afraid and that’s it.
If we want to have a chance to vote for who we want to vote for rather than simply who the establishment wants us to vote for, RCV is currently the best option we have. The status quo is complete garbage. It forces us to always choose between the lesser of evils, and those evils are selected by an oligarchy.
“ Of course, had that election been between just those two candidates in the first place, that same voter would have heard debates, listened to the issues discussed, and made an informed choice between those two. ”
General elections in our current system commonly have more than 2 candidates. Right now you are posting on the comment section of a third party candidate’s pac. The article doesn’t seem to realize that no election system is perfect, and without theoretical problems—and rather comparing to the actual system we have today, it compares it to a utopian ideal that doesn’t exist.
And because this election doesnt have just two candidates are we not privy to debates? Are people no longer discussing the issues and promoting their platforms because there are more than two parties? Clearly not. Such a stupid assertion. And in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, which typically use the same voting system as the general, we had the Democratic Party block out formal debates completely, and the Republican Party had formal debates among almost almost a dozen candidates, but *excluding* the front runner, at the whim of that front runner. The ignorance of this article is astounding.
“ In your mind, it comes down to Heinz or HP, and you choose the Heinz. You buy that bottle and head home to the grill.”
It presents a system again, which doesn’t exist. The choice between the two major parties today is not a choice between the two best, like in their example, but between whatever is chosen by the oligarchy. People choose between Heinz and HP not because they have decided that they are the best two choices, but because not choosing one of them will be “throwing away their vote”. They choose the least of two evils. The authors give outlandish hypotheticals about the worst case scenarios of RCV, but fail to acknowledge that the best case scenario of our current system is always worse—*since we are always forced to choose between coerced options*.
“ Now imagine if, instead, you had to rank-order all the steak sauces—even the ones you dislike—and at checkout the cashier swaps out your bottle of Heinz 57 with the cheap generic you ranked dead last. Why? Well, the majority of shoppers also down-voted it, but there was no clear front-runner, so the generic snuck up from behind with enough down ballot picks to win. In fact, in this ranked choice supermarket, you might even have helped the lousy generic brand win.”
There is no essential requirement of RCV that all candidate must be ranked. And If we choose the losing brand today, you still do not get what you want—but we dont even have a realistic chance to get a brand we like because we are coerced into choosing amongst brands we hate. The notion that we wouldn’t have any knowledge of a clear front runner in RCV is completely stupid. It’s as if they think with RCV polling will cease to exist. With RCV there will be still requirements for who can end up on the ballot, and among those people there will still be data available to see approximately who is most favorable. And popular parties will still exist, which means people will generally understand to backup their favorite with their lesser evil among the popular parties.
You are being manipulated by the duopoly—-giving you arguments that it’s best to let the oligarchs choose the two possible candidates because otherwise the children of Satan are going to have the chance of winning. If what we want is the most *democratic* system that gives citizens the most *freedom* to choose candidates, RCV is far superior to what we have now. If a person actually likes the candidates either given by the Democratic Party or Republican Party the most, which is insane, then certainly using the system we have now will ensure that people are given less opportunity to vote in a candidate that isn’t certified by the oligarchy. If a person’s greatest fear is that a non establishment candidate could be elected, then yes, RCV is bad for their fears. It’s good for people who want citizens to have more freedom to choose candidates.
“ In the normal electoral process in the vast majority of states, there is a runoff election several weeks after a general election in which no candidate won a majority of the vote.”
There is no technical issue with RCV that would prevent us from implementing a separate run off after RCV completes its process in the case there is no majority winner. We could just run a head to head competition between the top two. The fact that they offer a run off as a “solution” and *alternative* to RCV demonstrates that either they don’t understand the debate or they are simply offering exactly what already exists and packaging it as a “solution” for people who are establishment sheep. I suspect the latter. The article comes across as a product of mercenary lawyers paid for by the oligarchy. You shared propaganda.
You are correct. There is no perfect voting system. I did not point that out and perhaps I should have. Of all the voting systems, plurality voting is the worst… maybe Reverse Voting, where you vote for the candidate you like the least and the candidate with the least votes wins (which is, more or less, de facto what we have now) is probably worse.
This is one issue that will cement my voting decision. NO! NO WAY! The idea may sound good and democratic and nice, but it results in the weakest condidate winning thereby helping the bad guys further their agenda. It is part of the communist agenda.
Could you explain logically HOW ranked choice voting would "results in the weakest condidate (ibid) winning"??? Because it says right in that article that weakest candidate is first eliminated when reassigning votes to voters second choices?
Andrew Scheer, Conservative leader in Canada. Doug Ford, Ontario Conservative leader. Doug Ford is an example of a leader who is not weak but has gone along with all the oppostion's (Liberal) ideas.
We don't have RCV in Canada, we have plurality voting. Because we don't (and because we have more political parties than say the US which splits votes across 3 or more parties) people like Doug Ford (Ontario Premier) get elected with often less than 30-40% of the vote. This happens in our federal elections (and because we don't have elections every 4 years we can get stuck with these people for a VERY LONG time). The article I included at the bottom states: In the 2015 CANADIAN ELECTION 205 of 338 Constituencies were won without a majority. As you can see we've had Trudeau now for going on 9 years without an election (even with the majority of Canadians wanting him gone). In fact it was Trudeau who pledged that the 2015 election was Canada’s last under plurality voting. He still hasn't done it because he knows he and his party (despite controlling the media) would lose. https://fairvote.org/rcv_and_solving_the_problem_of_non_majority_winners_in_canadian_districts/
Please lay out the exact chain of events where RCV caused some sort of bad thing to actually happen and explain what that bad thing was? Lots of non Canadians here. Are YOU a Canadian?
I wrote this answer to Theresa. Here it is again. BTW I'm Canadian :)
We don't have RCV in Canada, we have plurality voting. Because we don't (and because we have more political parties than say the US this splits votes across 3 or more parties) people like Doug Ford (Ontario Premier) get elected with often less than 30-40% of the vote. This happens in our federal elections (and because we don't have elections every 4 years we can get stuck with these people for a VERY LONG time). The article I included at the bottom states: In the 2015 CANADIAN ELECTION 205 of 338 Constituencies were won without a majority. As you can see we've had Trudeau now for going on 9 years without an election (even with the majority of Canadians wanting him gone). In fact it was Trudeau who pledged that the 2015 election was Canada’s last under plurality voting. He still hasn't done it (brought in RCV) because he knows he and his party (despite controlling the media) would lose. Hope this helps. https://fairvote.org/rcv_and_solving_the_problem_of_non_majority_winners_in_canadian_districts/
If people are too confused to rank a ballot, they can just vote for their favorite candidate, and not rank anyone else. It would be the equivalent of not showing up for a runoff election.
It’s no reason to stop the 90+ percent of the people who want to rank their ballot the opportunity to do so.
Really bizarre comments that are discouraging ranked choice voting. Between what we have now and ranked choice voting, RCV is leagues ahead when it comes to opening up competition beyond what the establishment dictates who citizens can vote for. The biggest opponents to RCV are the rulers of the status quo. I actually created a simulation at https://voterankchoice.com.
RCV will allow citizens to vote for who they want the most without any meaningful risk of “throwing away” their vote.
Rfk jr should promote it himself. It would be more impactful than anything else he is promoting.
Ranked Choice Voting winds up building teams of candidates, who, much like teams in racing, edge out competition.
Simulations are only as good as the assumptions, and let’s hope you accounted for teaming behavior.
Outliers are crushed by the winners, so you wind up with a collusion of candidates--name or no name, it resembles one party.
Honolulu Mayoral race--pick any year.
Also, combine RCV with mail-in ballots, and forget about democracy all together. You’ll never have good ballot custody, but you’ll have happy politicians.
Mr. Zhahkay, it has been shown that RCV reduces negative campaigning. Candidates co-endorsing one another is a good thing. Darwin believed in Mutual Aid, that survival of the fittest is subordinate to survival of the most cooperative.
We are currently hoodwinked by lots of mudslinging and identity politics. RCV encourages civil debate on issues and a lot less on personal attacks.
In the 2020 Honolulu mayoral election, the Democrats limited their participation to two, and let all others flood the ticket, diluting their effect. No majority in the first round caused a run-off between the high two--both democrats. Guess which party won? :)
There’s no system that the parties haven’t wargamed.
You are comparing being forced to vote for a lesser evil every election with candidates cooperating. Whacky preference you have there. Unless a person likes to vote for what the oligarchy tells us every time, RCV beats it. RCV doesn’t exist in a vacuum, we have to compare it with what we have, which is garbage.
So, I pay five competitors to campaign against me and split my competition, while my buddy and I take the top 2 positions into a run-off. A run-off of the same party. Win-win!!
When we can choose candidates we like the most, and not simply candidates who we hate the least, that is democracy at work; and that is now how things are working today. Ironically, your strategy would be more effective with the system we have now than with RCV.
Yay!!! You have absolutely STRUCK A NERVE with the "Ranked Choice Voting" suggestion!
Normally darn few comment on these articles but THIS TIME the "dubiously real personae" accounts positively came boiling out of the woodwork to launch illogical and paranoid attacks decrying the idea.
Somebody REALLY doesn't like this threat to their wholly owned "the USA only has two VIABLE parties, make your choice, we already own 'em both" system.
WHEN THE FLAK IS HEAVIEST, YOU ARE OVER THE TARGET!
Look at Hawaii, which uses Ranked Choice Voting in municipal elections, and see how much choice there is when the only two winners are from the same party, resulting in no choice at all. Oh, but it’s a “non-partisan” office, so it’s OK. ;)
Or, ask Hong Kong how it’s going.
Just give them all your money, and then your life--they’ll soon get anyway at this rate.
Than you for your response Re: RCV leading to a choice being only between two candidates from same party?
Please give me links to specific race(s) this has occurred in so I can read up on the issue and understand how such an alleged miscarriage came to be?
Because I see virtually no major races where there are two or more Ds or Rs on the ballot???
And I HAVE seen quite a few with 2 or more (non aligned, not in any way "same party") independents, plus a minor party candidate such as Greens?
Races where the several minor party + independent candidate votes getting rolled into whichever (non "duopoly") candidate was most popular 2nd choice MIGHT CREATE A NON DUOPOLY WINNER.
The duopoly is clearly terrified of this idea, that alone is a good reason to consider it in depth.
Anything Koch Foundation and the related oligarch funded pseudolibertarian network spend their money on is not likely to be pro democracy, excessively truthful or in the interests of "little people". It certainly explains where all the frothing came from and why the first batch of negative comments showed up a bit faster than the article could actually have been read... Their kind of money can buy amazing things these days, even time travel?
Around 80% of NYC voters ranked their ballots, around 90% said they liked the system and that was in its first use with a mediocre rollout education campaign.
I suspect the troubled Mayor Adams, who opposes RCV, will make an effort to overturn RCV before he attempts his re-election. I also predict his efforts will fail miserably, like it did in Maine.
100% agree with paper ballots. There needs to be a verifiable paper trail. What do you think about making every Election Day a holiday to maximize participation? Or moving it to a weekend?
I used to be for rank choice voting but have heard from conservative people recently that it is another way to allow voting fraud. After reading the comments here I see many people agree. If we want to reach conservatives as well as liberals, I don't think it's a good idea.
Ms. Zampieri, fraud is happening now, both major parties engage in it, independent of RCV.
The answer to fraud is getting a team of CPA’s together to create an open and transparent and verifiable voting method and equipment that allows people to vote anomalously while making sure there are no illegal shenanigans going on.
Alaska is a conservative state and they passed RCV. This comment thread has been trolled by RCV opponents who support the duopoly. None their claims are born out of the facts.
I’m personally middle of the road not, on either side. Seeing the gross misconduct in the 2020 election, I started doing a lot of reading on everything election related.
The conclusion is we need to return to legal citizens voting at their neighborhood precinct, voting in person, showing identification and voting on paper ballots. If someone needs an absentee ballot they must apply and have a valid reason.
No phantom voters, no ballot harvesting, no mail in ballots unless previously specified and verified.
Votes are tabulated and counted before midnight. None of this bullshit that votes are still being counted weeks later. California is a hot mess and VCA has enabled boatloads of fraudulent behavior.
In NYC adopting RCV meant adopting Open Source software for the electronic voting machines, which means that the algorithm can be inspected by the public and officials. This really is what is needed to fight election fraud that uses vote flipping.
Absolutely no. This will just entrench the elites in permanent power. First thing to return power to the people is in person voting with paper ballots along with term limits and then the ruling that the chevron defense ( makes the executive branch the legislative and judicial functions). is unconstitutional.
In our current lack-luster (nearly non-existant) civil service climate, where we citizens don't really care to take action to heal our voting system nor take the time to participate/support citizen watch dog organizations (like America used ot have in the 50's & 60's) Ranked Choice Voting may be the only way to get the public back into participating in the political system... I'm all for it (though I'm not convinced that time & party politics (the creation of new rules & laws) will eventually deminish it's value and it's ability to allow the peoples choice to rule the day).
Reading so much opposition to 'Ranked-Choice Voting'.
Many reasons for the opposition is understandable; but it seems to me the thrust of RCV is merely a reaction to the trend of the two party system that climaxed during the Bush Jr. presidential campaign (not that he's to blame), resulting in the removal (abandonment?) from both media and government for the allowance of multiple political parties to partidcipate in the presidental debates and to be heard as they were allowed in the presidentail debates/elections up to that time)! [rEMEMBER? This was done the same time your ballot vote could only be counted if you voted for anyone not on the ballot (No 'Write-Ins')
For many americans, this was an abuse of power of the two partys that removed any differeny or opposing view beyond what the Ds and Rs have to tell us. And to me, this act was un-American and an afront to our constitional rights under it's laws and freedoms.
BUT... Just as you all say, any system we use will be (is) flawed.
But if our flaws are inevitble, Why are we so concerned about the RCV being inadequate? Our current two party system is so currupt in how they control the process, that I feel just about any change could only be for the better..
I would like to add that Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, Bill Clinton did not have a majority of the vote in 1996 either. Remember how the Reform Party ran Pat Buchanan in 2000 and ran a lackluster campaign to implode the party?
The Establishment of both the Democrats and Republicans to RCV speaks quite loudly to how good of a reform it will be.
They fear people voting their conscience much like the World Economic Forum is freaking out about losing control of the dominant narrative because people are getting their news from a diverse array of alternative sources.
When we have a diverse array of alternative candidates, We The People will have better control of how our government works!
Sure. RCV doesn't. It is a distraction that avoids the real problem: fraud and and stolen elections. Everything else is garbage-in, garbage-out until the fundamentals are restored.
OUTSTANDING -- timely and noble. Gazans are dying and starving en masse – they should be in East Jerusalem and West Bank from where they have been ethnically cleansed - Jan 2024
No, it’s the opposite. People opposing it are scammers only interested in maintaining the power status quo.
The link’s top complaint is that it is “confusing”. The solution: LEARN HOW IT WORKS. The people opposing it are basically arguing that Americans are too dumb to use it. If Americans are too dumb for RCV then Americans are too dumb for a Republic.
What are you talking about ? The procedure just needs to be established and the voter will know. I built a simulation of RCV. At https://voterankechoice.com
The algorithm is run exactly the same every time. There is nothing stopping that from being implemented, including using actual humans for validation, in an actual electoral process.
If you want to throw away liberty for simplicity that is silly. The US is the most powerful country in history, not a book club.
Shut up, kid? Don’t speak to your elders with such disrespect. I doubt you would recognize a logical fallacy if one shit on your face. Shouldn’t you be on Breitbart?
Statistics show that not only does voter participation generally increase after implementing RCV, but more candidates choose to run for office, including more women and minorities.
Oakland, CA elected the first Asian American women of any city in America on their first use of RCV, beating the Establishment old white guy with lots of corporate funding!
James Risen, once thought to be an important whistleblower, is such a disappointment. Here he is trying to vote shame you into just accepting the status quo, even as it sinks to absurdity. https://theintercept.com/2024/01/22/biden-trump-president-election-third-party/
The Vote Shamers are anti-free speech.
Voting is our most powerful form of speech as it determines who represents us and has a direct impact on our lives.
Those that are against RCV want to limit your speech. Fox News or MSNBC, that’s all you get! What a ridiculous position!
NOOOOO!!!!!!! In America we must pick one candidate to vote for and live with that choice, whether it's a winner or a loser. There's way too much fraud institutionalized in the election process already without introducing another layer, or two , or three, .... into the accounting process.
With RCV you want to switch to Open Source software, as this article recommends. That's what NYC did. That alone improves the integrity of the election.
Mr. Tocci, do you honestly think that the problem with our elections is too many choices?
A democracy cannot function where the majority if people either don’t vote or vote against what they don’t want instead of what they want.
How about we have an electoral system where people vote for who they like the least and the candidate with the least votes wins?
This is gibberish and exactly exemplifies the caliber of arguments used against RCV. People are being told by the establishment to be afraid and that’s it.
If we want to have a chance to vote for who we want to vote for rather than simply who the establishment wants us to vote for, RCV is currently the best option we have. The status quo is complete garbage. It forces us to always choose between the lesser of evils, and those evils are selected by an oligarchy.
@ Michael Tocci
Can you restate that in some way so it makes sense?
https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice
That article is idiotic.
“ Of course, had that election been between just those two candidates in the first place, that same voter would have heard debates, listened to the issues discussed, and made an informed choice between those two. ”
General elections in our current system commonly have more than 2 candidates. Right now you are posting on the comment section of a third party candidate’s pac. The article doesn’t seem to realize that no election system is perfect, and without theoretical problems—and rather comparing to the actual system we have today, it compares it to a utopian ideal that doesn’t exist.
And because this election doesnt have just two candidates are we not privy to debates? Are people no longer discussing the issues and promoting their platforms because there are more than two parties? Clearly not. Such a stupid assertion. And in both the Democratic and Republican primaries, which typically use the same voting system as the general, we had the Democratic Party block out formal debates completely, and the Republican Party had formal debates among almost almost a dozen candidates, but *excluding* the front runner, at the whim of that front runner. The ignorance of this article is astounding.
“ In your mind, it comes down to Heinz or HP, and you choose the Heinz. You buy that bottle and head home to the grill.”
It presents a system again, which doesn’t exist. The choice between the two major parties today is not a choice between the two best, like in their example, but between whatever is chosen by the oligarchy. People choose between Heinz and HP not because they have decided that they are the best two choices, but because not choosing one of them will be “throwing away their vote”. They choose the least of two evils. The authors give outlandish hypotheticals about the worst case scenarios of RCV, but fail to acknowledge that the best case scenario of our current system is always worse—*since we are always forced to choose between coerced options*.
“ Now imagine if, instead, you had to rank-order all the steak sauces—even the ones you dislike—and at checkout the cashier swaps out your bottle of Heinz 57 with the cheap generic you ranked dead last. Why? Well, the majority of shoppers also down-voted it, but there was no clear front-runner, so the generic snuck up from behind with enough down ballot picks to win. In fact, in this ranked choice supermarket, you might even have helped the lousy generic brand win.”
There is no essential requirement of RCV that all candidate must be ranked. And If we choose the losing brand today, you still do not get what you want—but we dont even have a realistic chance to get a brand we like because we are coerced into choosing amongst brands we hate. The notion that we wouldn’t have any knowledge of a clear front runner in RCV is completely stupid. It’s as if they think with RCV polling will cease to exist. With RCV there will be still requirements for who can end up on the ballot, and among those people there will still be data available to see approximately who is most favorable. And popular parties will still exist, which means people will generally understand to backup their favorite with their lesser evil among the popular parties.
You are being manipulated by the duopoly—-giving you arguments that it’s best to let the oligarchs choose the two possible candidates because otherwise the children of Satan are going to have the chance of winning. If what we want is the most *democratic* system that gives citizens the most *freedom* to choose candidates, RCV is far superior to what we have now. If a person actually likes the candidates either given by the Democratic Party or Republican Party the most, which is insane, then certainly using the system we have now will ensure that people are given less opportunity to vote in a candidate that isn’t certified by the oligarchy. If a person’s greatest fear is that a non establishment candidate could be elected, then yes, RCV is bad for their fears. It’s good for people who want citizens to have more freedom to choose candidates.
“ In the normal electoral process in the vast majority of states, there is a runoff election several weeks after a general election in which no candidate won a majority of the vote.”
There is no technical issue with RCV that would prevent us from implementing a separate run off after RCV completes its process in the case there is no majority winner. We could just run a head to head competition between the top two. The fact that they offer a run off as a “solution” and *alternative* to RCV demonstrates that either they don’t understand the debate or they are simply offering exactly what already exists and packaging it as a “solution” for people who are establishment sheep. I suspect the latter. The article comes across as a product of mercenary lawyers paid for by the oligarchy. You shared propaganda.
You are correct. There is no perfect voting system. I did not point that out and perhaps I should have. Of all the voting systems, plurality voting is the worst… maybe Reverse Voting, where you vote for the candidate you like the least and the candidate with the least votes wins (which is, more or less, de facto what we have now) is probably worse.
This is one issue that will cement my voting decision. NO! NO WAY! The idea may sound good and democratic and nice, but it results in the weakest condidate winning thereby helping the bad guys further their agenda. It is part of the communist agenda.
@Theresa
Could you explain logically HOW ranked choice voting would "results in the weakest condidate (ibid) winning"??? Because it says right in that article that weakest candidate is first eliminated when reassigning votes to voters second choices?
This is so bad. Who is this author? Their thought bubble of ignorance is profound. Done with them also.
Can you give an example of how it would elect the "weakest" candidate?
Andrew Scheer, Conservative leader in Canada. Doug Ford, Ontario Conservative leader. Doug Ford is an example of a leader who is not weak but has gone along with all the oppostion's (Liberal) ideas.
We don't have RCV in Canada, we have plurality voting. Because we don't (and because we have more political parties than say the US which splits votes across 3 or more parties) people like Doug Ford (Ontario Premier) get elected with often less than 30-40% of the vote. This happens in our federal elections (and because we don't have elections every 4 years we can get stuck with these people for a VERY LONG time). The article I included at the bottom states: In the 2015 CANADIAN ELECTION 205 of 338 Constituencies were won without a majority. As you can see we've had Trudeau now for going on 9 years without an election (even with the majority of Canadians wanting him gone). In fact it was Trudeau who pledged that the 2015 election was Canada’s last under plurality voting. He still hasn't done it because he knows he and his party (despite controlling the media) would lose. https://fairvote.org/rcv_and_solving_the_problem_of_non_majority_winners_in_canadian_districts/
@Theresa McGregor
Please lay out the exact chain of events where RCV caused some sort of bad thing to actually happen and explain what that bad thing was? Lots of non Canadians here. Are YOU a Canadian?
I wrote this answer to Theresa. Here it is again. BTW I'm Canadian :)
We don't have RCV in Canada, we have plurality voting. Because we don't (and because we have more political parties than say the US this splits votes across 3 or more parties) people like Doug Ford (Ontario Premier) get elected with often less than 30-40% of the vote. This happens in our federal elections (and because we don't have elections every 4 years we can get stuck with these people for a VERY LONG time). The article I included at the bottom states: In the 2015 CANADIAN ELECTION 205 of 338 Constituencies were won without a majority. As you can see we've had Trudeau now for going on 9 years without an election (even with the majority of Canadians wanting him gone). In fact it was Trudeau who pledged that the 2015 election was Canada’s last under plurality voting. He still hasn't done it (brought in RCV) because he knows he and his party (despite controlling the media) would lose. Hope this helps. https://fairvote.org/rcv_and_solving_the_problem_of_non_majority_winners_in_canadian_districts/
Thanks!
The upshot being?
Main issue with RCV: Too complex for the average American to figure out how to use it effectively.
If voters can't figure out how to rank the candidates, we're doomed as a democracy. No?
If people are too confused to rank a ballot, they can just vote for their favorite candidate, and not rank anyone else. It would be the equivalent of not showing up for a runoff election.
It’s no reason to stop the 90+ percent of the people who want to rank their ballot the opportunity to do so.
Really bizarre comments that are discouraging ranked choice voting. Between what we have now and ranked choice voting, RCV is leagues ahead when it comes to opening up competition beyond what the establishment dictates who citizens can vote for. The biggest opponents to RCV are the rulers of the status quo. I actually created a simulation at https://voterankchoice.com.
RCV will allow citizens to vote for who they want the most without any meaningful risk of “throwing away” their vote.
Rfk jr should promote it himself. It would be more impactful than anything else he is promoting.
Ranked Choice Voting winds up building teams of candidates, who, much like teams in racing, edge out competition.
Simulations are only as good as the assumptions, and let’s hope you accounted for teaming behavior.
Outliers are crushed by the winners, so you wind up with a collusion of candidates--name or no name, it resembles one party.
Honolulu Mayoral race--pick any year.
Also, combine RCV with mail-in ballots, and forget about democracy all together. You’ll never have good ballot custody, but you’ll have happy politicians.
Mr. Zhahkay, it has been shown that RCV reduces negative campaigning. Candidates co-endorsing one another is a good thing. Darwin believed in Mutual Aid, that survival of the fittest is subordinate to survival of the most cooperative.
We are currently hoodwinked by lots of mudslinging and identity politics. RCV encourages civil debate on issues and a lot less on personal attacks.
I’ve seen the opposite in action.
In the 2020 Honolulu mayoral election, the Democrats limited their participation to two, and let all others flood the ticket, diluting their effect. No majority in the first round caused a run-off between the high two--both democrats. Guess which party won? :)
There’s no system that the parties haven’t wargamed.
"Top two" is not "RCV."
You are comparing being forced to vote for a lesser evil every election with candidates cooperating. Whacky preference you have there. Unless a person likes to vote for what the oligarchy tells us every time, RCV beats it. RCV doesn’t exist in a vacuum, we have to compare it with what we have, which is garbage.
So, I pay five competitors to campaign against me and split my competition, while my buddy and I take the top 2 positions into a run-off. A run-off of the same party. Win-win!!
Democracy at work.
There is not a single run off. There are multiple rounds and votes are re allocated after each round. You don't seem to understand how RCV works.
Use my app. Observe how the people are voting. Observe how they are reallocated after each round.
Here is a video that explains the difference between what we have now and RCV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE&t=1s. It uses animals and other nice metaphors.
When we can choose candidates we like the most, and not simply candidates who we hate the least, that is democracy at work; and that is now how things are working today. Ironically, your strategy would be more effective with the system we have now than with RCV.
Yay!!! You have absolutely STRUCK A NERVE with the "Ranked Choice Voting" suggestion!
Normally darn few comment on these articles but THIS TIME the "dubiously real personae" accounts positively came boiling out of the woodwork to launch illogical and paranoid attacks decrying the idea.
Somebody REALLY doesn't like this threat to their wholly owned "the USA only has two VIABLE parties, make your choice, we already own 'em both" system.
WHEN THE FLAK IS HEAVIEST, YOU ARE OVER THE TARGET!
Look at Hawaii, which uses Ranked Choice Voting in municipal elections, and see how much choice there is when the only two winners are from the same party, resulting in no choice at all. Oh, but it’s a “non-partisan” office, so it’s OK. ;)
Or, ask Hong Kong how it’s going.
Just give them all your money, and then your life--they’ll soon get anyway at this rate.
@Carl Zhahkay
Than you for your response Re: RCV leading to a choice being only between two candidates from same party?
Please give me links to specific race(s) this has occurred in so I can read up on the issue and understand how such an alleged miscarriage came to be?
Because I see virtually no major races where there are two or more Ds or Rs on the ballot???
And I HAVE seen quite a few with 2 or more (non aligned, not in any way "same party") independents, plus a minor party candidate such as Greens?
Races where the several minor party + independent candidate votes getting rolled into whichever (non "duopoly") candidate was most popular 2nd choice MIGHT CREATE A NON DUOPOLY WINNER.
The duopoly is clearly terrified of this idea, that alone is a good reason to consider it in depth.
There are multiple videos showing how it works but, I posted one below.
@Steph
Thanks for your quick response!
But I do not yet see a link. Please re post your link in this thread so I may receive a notification and easily find said link? Thanks!
One Million Auditors RCV Video
https://youtu.be/dX1e66nFXXE
https://rumble.com/v2p6l1q-ranked-choice-voting-is-it-really-good-for-you.html
The Heritage Foundation
Ranked Choice Voting EXPLAINED: Confusing, Chaotic Election “Reform” Pushed by Leftist Donors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2aNdceVMyrM
South Lake County, Utah, Republican Party
Four Reasons to Oppose Ranked-Choice Voting
https://slcogop.com/norcv/
The Heritage Foundation
America's Biggest Issues: Election Integrity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F50yI3FYek
Heritage Action
https://www.heritageaction.com
https://www.saveourelections.org
Sentinel Program
https://www.honestelections.org
https://www.StopRCV.com
@Steph
Thank you for taking some time and posting links. Most of which were related to "The Heritage Foundation"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_Foundation#:~:text=In%202014%2C%20the%20Heritage%20Foundation,Morris%2C%20and%20other%20corporate%20sources.
Anything Koch Foundation and the related oligarch funded pseudolibertarian network spend their money on is not likely to be pro democracy, excessively truthful or in the interests of "little people". It certainly explains where all the frothing came from and why the first batch of negative comments showed up a bit faster than the article could actually have been read... Their kind of money can buy amazing things these days, even time travel?
Do your own research, OSINTer, but I already pointed you to two areas.
@Carl Zhahkay
Nope. You made a claim, back it up with actual facts or be ignored.
You are using OSINT as a perjorative? That's interesting. "Open Source INTelligence" USED to be called "I'm interested and reading up on this".
RCV is too complicated for most people to understand and the complexity makes it easier to cheat
Around 80% of NYC voters ranked their ballots, around 90% said they liked the system and that was in its first use with a mediocre rollout education campaign.
I suspect the troubled Mayor Adams, who opposes RCV, will make an effort to overturn RCV before he attempts his re-election. I also predict his efforts will fail miserably, like it did in Maine.
Paper ballots, one day Election Day, in person voting.
100% agree with paper ballots. There needs to be a verifiable paper trail. What do you think about making every Election Day a holiday to maximize participation? Or moving it to a weekend?
Public holiday like when I was young—enabled volunteers to work instead of paid professionals!
I used to be for rank choice voting but have heard from conservative people recently that it is another way to allow voting fraud. After reading the comments here I see many people agree. If we want to reach conservatives as well as liberals, I don't think it's a good idea.
Ms. Zampieri, fraud is happening now, both major parties engage in it, independent of RCV.
The answer to fraud is getting a team of CPA’s together to create an open and transparent and verifiable voting method and equipment that allows people to vote anomalously while making sure there are no illegal shenanigans going on.
Alaska is a conservative state and they passed RCV. This comment thread has been trolled by RCV opponents who support the duopoly. None their claims are born out of the facts.
I encourage you to do your own research.
I think we want to reach independent rational people, not people attached to incoherent political identities.
That’s your opinion.
I’m personally middle of the road not, on either side. Seeing the gross misconduct in the 2020 election, I started doing a lot of reading on everything election related.
The conclusion is we need to return to legal citizens voting at their neighborhood precinct, voting in person, showing identification and voting on paper ballots. If someone needs an absentee ballot they must apply and have a valid reason.
No phantom voters, no ballot harvesting, no mail in ballots unless previously specified and verified.
Votes are tabulated and counted before midnight. None of this bullshit that votes are still being counted weeks later. California is a hot mess and VCA has enabled boatloads of fraudulent behavior.
In NYC adopting RCV meant adopting Open Source software for the electronic voting machines, which means that the algorithm can be inspected by the public and officials. This really is what is needed to fight election fraud that uses vote flipping.
None of that has to do with RCV.
Absolutely no. This will just entrench the elites in permanent power. First thing to return power to the people is in person voting with paper ballots along with term limits and then the ruling that the chevron defense ( makes the executive branch the legislative and judicial functions). is unconstitutional.
I agree!
In our current lack-luster (nearly non-existant) civil service climate, where we citizens don't really care to take action to heal our voting system nor take the time to participate/support citizen watch dog organizations (like America used ot have in the 50's & 60's) Ranked Choice Voting may be the only way to get the public back into participating in the political system... I'm all for it (though I'm not convinced that time & party politics (the creation of new rules & laws) will eventually deminish it's value and it's ability to allow the peoples choice to rule the day).
Reading so much opposition to 'Ranked-Choice Voting'.
Many reasons for the opposition is understandable; but it seems to me the thrust of RCV is merely a reaction to the trend of the two party system that climaxed during the Bush Jr. presidential campaign (not that he's to blame), resulting in the removal (abandonment?) from both media and government for the allowance of multiple political parties to partidcipate in the presidental debates and to be heard as they were allowed in the presidentail debates/elections up to that time)! [rEMEMBER? This was done the same time your ballot vote could only be counted if you voted for anyone not on the ballot (No 'Write-Ins')
For many americans, this was an abuse of power of the two partys that removed any differeny or opposing view beyond what the Ds and Rs have to tell us. And to me, this act was un-American and an afront to our constitional rights under it's laws and freedoms.
BUT... Just as you all say, any system we use will be (is) flawed.
But if our flaws are inevitble, Why are we so concerned about the RCV being inadequate? Our current two party system is so currupt in how they control the process, that I feel just about any change could only be for the better..
I would like to add that Ross Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, Bill Clinton did not have a majority of the vote in 1996 either. Remember how the Reform Party ran Pat Buchanan in 2000 and ran a lackluster campaign to implode the party?
Oligarchs don’t like choice.
The Establishment of both the Democrats and Republicans to RCV speaks quite loudly to how good of a reform it will be.
They fear people voting their conscience much like the World Economic Forum is freaking out about losing control of the dominant narrative because people are getting their news from a diverse array of alternative sources.
When we have a diverse array of alternative candidates, We The People will have better control of how our government works!
You lost at "save our democracy".
Can you please elaborate?
Sure. RCV doesn't. It is a distraction that avoids the real problem: fraud and and stolen elections. Everything else is garbage-in, garbage-out until the fundamentals are restored.
We are a Constitutional Republic not a Democracy.
Local elections are determined by popular vote. At the local level we have a representative democracy.
OUTSTANDING -- timely and noble. Gazans are dying and starving en masse – they should be in East Jerusalem and West Bank from where they have been ethnically cleansed - Jan 2024
https://rumble.com/v47psrk-terrible-slaughter-underway-in-gaza-south-african-foreign-minister.html
‘Terrible slaughter underway in Gaza’ – South African foreign minister
Rank choice voting is horrible and is another scam for those in power to retain power.
Votes get thrown out and it disenfranchises many voters. There is no oversight of how those votes get allocated and fringe candidates can be elected.
https://www.heritage.org/press/solution-search-problem-election-integrity-experts-release-video-ranked-choice-voting
No, it’s the opposite. People opposing it are scammers only interested in maintaining the power status quo.
The link’s top complaint is that it is “confusing”. The solution: LEARN HOW IT WORKS. The people opposing it are basically arguing that Americans are too dumb to use it. If Americans are too dumb for RCV then Americans are too dumb for a Republic.
There are multiple ways to count and the voter never knows how it gets counted in the end.
I posted a bunch of other links in the comments below. Check them all out.
What are you talking about ? The procedure just needs to be established and the voter will know. I built a simulation of RCV. At https://voterankechoice.com
The algorithm is run exactly the same every time. There is nothing stopping that from being implemented, including using actual humans for validation, in an actual electoral process.
If you want to throw away liberty for simplicity that is silly. The US is the most powerful country in history, not a book club.
Shut up, kid. The more you explain, the more logical fallacies you use, the less persuasive you get.
Mr. Rust, what “fallacies” has Mr. Peoples used? Can you please back up your assertion with examples?
If your going to convince people, you need to explain what you’re talking about, not make baseless claims.
You can't afford me.
Shut up, kid? Don’t speak to your elders with such disrespect. I doubt you would recognize a logical fallacy if one shit on your face. Shouldn’t you be on Breitbart?
Statistics show that not only does voter participation generally increase after implementing RCV, but more candidates choose to run for office, including more women and minorities.
Oakland, CA elected the first Asian American women of any city in America on their first use of RCV, beating the Establishment old white guy with lots of corporate funding!
So what? The cure still is worse than the disease.
It was done in the Boulder, CO mayoral election and two candidates worked against the favored 3rd candidate. It turned out to be awful.
Ranked choice voting is a clear way to cement a uniparty and eliminate opposing views completely by ranking “unapproved” candidates out of the race.
What??