• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ranked choice voting

Should we switch over to alternative voting?

  • Total voters
    24
M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Ranked choice voting is when a voter ranks each candidate from favorite to least favorite. Our current first past the post system is such more simple, only being one check. FPTP simply gives the person with the most votes victory. The main problem is when people are forced to chose between the "lesser of two evils" and don't vote for their favorite candidate because they want to keep their least favorite candidate out of office. A single transferable vote (alternative voting) first removes the candidate with the least first votes then redistributes those votes based on their choices. This process continues until someone comes out with a majority. In cases where more than one person fills in the spot, candidates which went over an amount of votes have them redistributed based on their choices.

This video explains it better:

 
Hmm...No.

One citizen, one vote.

I'd never want even the slightest possibility that my vote could be used to elect someone I didn't want to see in office.

What's more, I wouldn't want to increase that "greater evil" someone's chances of getting elected as the result of being a (edited for clarity: "OTHER voter's") second or third choice.

I prefer to pick the one I find the best choice out of the possible candidates, especially if the choice must be the lesser of two evils.

If my vote doesn't go to my first choice, then that's all she wrote.
 
Last edited:
Very much in favor. I'm excited that Maine voted to implement IRV.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...No.

One citizen, one vote.

I'd never want even the slightest possibility that my vote could be used to elect someone I didn't want to see in office.

What's more, I wouldn't want to increase that "greater evil" someone getting elected as the result of being a second or third choice.

I prefer to pick the one I find the best choice out of the possible candidates, especially if the choice must be the lesser of two evils.

If my vote doesn't go to my first choice, then that's all she wrote.
Click to expand...


You don't have to rank them all under this system. You can just rank the candidates you'd be fine with winning.
 
The only thing that worries me is the complexity when counting ballots and the greater propensity for fraud if a voter doesn't rank all choices.
 
Crovax said:
The only thing that worries me is the complexity when counting ballots and the greater propensity for fraud if a voter doesn't rank all choices.
Click to expand...

From other people ranking the rest? I feel like there are ways to reduce that chance. Maybe a bubble for "no more candidates ranked" for people to fill in the next rankings spots.
 
Anagram said:
From other people ranking the rest? I feel like there are ways to reduce that chance. Maybe a bubble for "no more candidates ranked" for people to fill in the next rankings spots.
Click to expand...

I'd have to see the way they do it but yeah, also I'm not sure that it would make any difference in the outcomes as its still a FPTP winner. In fact it could hurt 3rd parties since they have no chance to tip the scales of elections they aren't afforded any concessions (not that they have many now)
 
Crovax said:
I'd have to see the way they do it but yeah, also I'm not sure that it would make any difference in the outcomes as its still a FPTP winner. In fact it could hurt 3rd parties since they have no chance to tip the scales of elections they aren't afforded any concessions (not that they have many now)
Click to expand...

That's the thing. They get almost nothing now. This way at least voters who really prefer them won't have to tactically change their vote to a main party. I don't think many outcomes would be changed, but a few would. And they would IMO more accurately express the true will of the voters than a FPTP system.
 
I can see the voting public looking confused and going... "Uh... Nah!"



Keep it simple... First Choice, Second Choice. If your FC doesn't win, your vote goes to your SC.
 
I like it. It benefits those who compromise, where our hyperpartisan system discourages it.
 
Anagram said:
That's the thing. They get almost nothing now. This way at least voters who really prefer them won't have to tactically change their vote to a main party. I don't think many outcomes would be changed, but a few would. And they would IMO more accurately express the true will of the voters than a FPTP system.
Click to expand...

Well I mean for instance the GOP could effectively ignore the libertarian wing and the far right tea party because a 3rd party bid wouldn't hurt them because they know they are still the 2nd choice, same thing for the dems and the green and progressive wings. You could argue it would make for more moderate parties and that would be good but it wouldn't more accurately reflect the will of the people
 
100% in favor of this.

So you want to see a third-party candidate in office, but you realize there's a 99.9% chance they won't get in? No problem, just name your "lesser of two evils" candidate as one of your backup votes. Thus people in the last election, for instance, could have made Johnson their top pick and Hillary or Trump as their backup.
 
Masterhawk said:
Ranked choice voting is when a voter ranks each candidate from favorite to least favorite. Our current first past the post system is such more simple, only being one check. FPTP simply gives the person with the most votes victory. The main problem is when people are forced to chose between the "lesser of two evils" and don't vote for their favorite candidate because they want to keep their least favorite candidate out of office. A single transferable vote (alternative voting) first removes the candidate with the least first votes then redistributes those votes based on their choices. This process continues until someone comes out with a majority. In cases where more than one person fills in the spot, candidates which went over an amount of votes have them redistributed based on their choices.

This video explains it better:

Click to expand...


I'm in favor. Would dramatically alter people's willingness to vote most closely with their values, and would give a much clearer picture of how the country feels based on how much more votes non-major party candidates would get.
 
Masterhawk said:
Ranked choice voting is when a voter ranks each candidate from favorite to least favorite. Our current first past the post system is such more simple, only being one check. FPTP simply gives the person with the most votes victory. The main problem is when people are forced to chose between the "lesser of two evils" and don't vote for their favorite candidate because they want to keep their least favorite candidate out of office. A single transferable vote (alternative voting) first removes the candidate with the least first votes then redistributes those votes based on their choices. This process continues until someone comes out with a majority. In cases where more than one person fills in the spot, candidates which went over an amount of votes have them redistributed based on their choices.
Click to expand...

I prefer approval voting. You simply vote for any number of candidates you want and the on that gets the most wins. No ranking or any such thing is needed. So say last election we had people say to themselves, "I like Ron Paul more than anyone but the media is telling me he doesn't have a chance of winning the election so I'll vote for Romney, who supposedly has the best chance." Now Ron Paul pulls more votes from independents and even Democrats, who do the same thing and he wins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
 
Yes, there are many alternate systems that would be considerably better than our current system.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...No.

One citizen, one vote.

I'd never want even the slightest possibility that my vote could be used to elect someone I didn't want to see in office.

What's more, I wouldn't want to increase that "greater evil" someone's chances of getting elected as the result of being a (edited for clarity: "OTHER voter's") second or third choice.

I prefer to pick the one I find the best choice out of the possible candidates, especially if the choice must be the lesser of two evils.

If my vote doesn't go to my first choice, then that's all she wrote.
Click to expand...

What he said ^^^

People...just make a decision. Base it on whatever you want...whatever is important to you. Have the courage to make a choice instead of weaseling out with, "Well, my first choice is ______, but if they don't do so good, then I'll go with ____."
 
Make it so that the voting population is happy.

Me? I'm going apolitical apathetic from now on. With the electoral college, I won't be wasting my time anymore.
 
I think it would be too confusing to the average voter and would decrease turnout. I would keep the current system but pre-election polling would be outlawed, straight party voting would be outlawed, and I would have voting places open across the country in virtual times.
 
Mycroft said:
What he said ^^^

People...just make a decision. Base it on whatever you want...whatever is important to you. Have the courage to make a choice instead of weaseling out with, "Well, my first choice is ______, but if they don't do so good, then I'll go with ____."
Click to expand...

Why is just one choice better? It forces people to vote for candidates they don't want, and who don't represent their views because they believe that the other major party is set out on destroying the country.

I fail to see how it doesn't sometimes lead to bad results.
 
Anagram said:
Why is just one choice better? It forces people to vote for candidates they don't want, and who don't represent their views because they believe that the other major party is set out on destroying the country.

I fail to see how it doesn't sometimes lead to bad results.
Click to expand...

Nobody is forced to vote for anybody. Anyone who wants to vote just evaluates the situation and make a choice...or make no choice. If you feel like you are damned if you do and damned if you don't, then just make a decision on which way you'd rather be damned.

We don't need a system that gives people an excuse for their decision being the wrong one. We don't need the attitude of, "Well, I tried, but those OTHER people who made all those second choices screwed up my vote." Just vote and own it.
 
Crovax said:
I'd have to see the way they do it but yeah, also I'm not sure that it would make any difference in the outcomes as its still a FPTP winner. In fact it could hurt 3rd parties since they have no chance to tip the scales of elections they aren't afforded any concessions (not that they have many now)
Click to expand...

Bill Clinton got less then 50% of the vote both times he ran...a third party candidate (Ross Perot) cost Bush the election in 1992 and Dole in 1996.
 
This is not a nation of all black-and-white choices. Ranked voting ends up giving much more weight to any one voter's voice - which is what democracy is all about.

Not to mention it would destroy the monopoly that two parties have over campaign donations.
 
antiquity said:
Bill Clinton got less then 50% of the vote both times he ran...a third party candidate (Ross Perot) cost Bush the election in 1992 and Dole in 1996.
Click to expand...

And in ranked choice Bush would have probably won. The point being Perot under the current system could have played king maker if he wanted to for certain concessions and in ranked choice he would have no power.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...No.

One citizen, one vote.

I'd never want even the slightest possibility that my vote could be used to elect someone I didn't want to see in office.

What's more, I wouldn't want to increase that "greater evil" someone's chances of getting elected as the result of being a (edited for clarity: "OTHER voter's") second or third choice.

I prefer to pick the one I find the best choice out of the possible candidates, especially if the choice must be the lesser of two evils.

If my vote doesn't go to my first choice, then that's all she wrote.
Click to expand...

It is an interesting concept though. Since so many Democrats/progressives/leftists/statists were not thrilled with Hillary but she was the only feasible option open to them, and so many Republicans/conservatives/Libertarians/libertarians were not thrilled with Trump but he was the only feasible option open to them, would ranked voting have put Gary Johnson in the White House? Or (shudder) Jill Stein?

In all honesty, despite everything we dislike about Trump, out of all of them he is the only one that didn't scare me to death and the ONLY one who gave me a glimmer of hope that he would make things better. I am so absolutely certain that Hillary would have maintained the status quo that would be four or eight more years of steady decline in all important categories in the U.S., and that Johnson and Stein are so not up to the job at all, Trump was the best choice however much of a risk he was/is.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Hmm...No.

One citizen, one vote.

I'd never want even the slightest possibility that my vote could be used to elect someone I didn't want to see in office.

What's more, I wouldn't want to increase that "greater evil" someone's chances of getting elected as the result of being a (edited for clarity: "OTHER voter's") second or third choice.

I prefer to pick the one I find the best choice out of the possible candidates, especially if the choice must be the lesser of two evils.

If my vote doesn't go to my first choice, then that's all she wrote.
Click to expand...

Actually we have one citizen one vote system now...however that one vote counts for the electoral college and not the candidate. Its a simple system that keeps the larger voting block in the larger populated states from keeping the voice of the rest of the country mute. There is no way to change that except thru a change in the Constitution and that ain't going to happen because even if it got thru congress there is no way 2/3 of the states would agree to allow a few states to determine the elections.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom