Should the US use Ranked Choice Voting in its Presidential Election?

In November 2016, Maine became the first state in the union to mandate ranked choice voting for all statewide, federal, and state legislative elections. As of 2017, there are currently 19 states with ranked choice voting legislation pending in state legislative houses.

Ranked choice voting is a system that has voters rank candidates from their most to least favorite. If no candidate wins a majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes transfer based on who those voters wanted their second choice to be. The process continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.

Here's a video from Fox News for those of you interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udj6sX4JLZo

Supporters or RCV believe that the system encourages majority winners, eliminates the spoiler effect, and empowers moderate voices from across the spectrum.

Opponents of RCV believe that it's unfair that candidates can win without a plurality, is needlessly complicated, and violates the principle of "one person one vote." Additionally, RCV for presidential elections would require a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college thereby introducing with it its own set of pros and cons.

Yes, absolutely. It's a much better system than first past the post.

It wouldn't require a constitutional amendment to be used in presidential elections, specficially BECAUSE of the elector system.

The state legislatures can prescribe any method they want for choosing electors. If they pick this ranked system, that's entirely within their purview.

That said, it's a stupidly-complicated system, and yes, it does, at the very least, muddle the concept of "one person, one vote."

I voted "Yes" because "YES! YES! YES!" wasn't available.

Yes, ranked choice is fine, and shortest splitline algorithm should determine Congressional districts.

Yes. I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

As long as it is voluntary and one could still pick zero or more secondary choices then I think that it would be fine.

Roycarn said:

In November 2016, Maine became the first state in the union to mandate ranked choice voting for all statewide, federal, and state legislative elections. As of 2017, there are currently 19 states with ranked choice voting legislation pending in state legislative houses.

Ranked choice voting is a system that has voters rank candidates from their most to least favorite. If no candidate wins a majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes transfer based on who those voters wanted their second choice to be. The process continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.

Here's a video from Fox News for those of you interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udj6sX4JLZo

Supporters or RCV believe that the system encourages majority winners, eliminates the spoiler effect, and empowers moderate voices from across the spectrum.

Opponents of RCV believe that it's unfair that candidates can win without a plurality, is needlessly complicated, and violates the principle of "one person one vote." Additionally, RCV for presidential elections would require a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college thereby introducing with it its own set of pros and cons.

Click to expand...

You know, the last few elections have not been particularly kind to me. I could cry about the election system being unfair and try and change how votes are counted, or I could work harder to promote candidates who I support. I think the latter choice is more constructive.

Harshaw said:

It wouldn't require a constitutional amendment to be used in presidential elections, specficially BECAUSE of the elector system.

The state legislatures can prescribe any method they want for choosing electors. If they pick this ranked system, that's entirely within their purview.

That said, it's a stupidly-complicated system, and yes, it does, at the very least, muddle the concept of "one person, one vote."

Click to expand...

I endorse everything said in this post.

The only thing is that more than two competitive options, otherwise it makes no difference.

Carjosse said:

The only thing is that more than two competitive options, otherwise it makes no difference.

Click to expand...

Shouldn't it be incumbent on other candidates to make themselves competitive?

Carjosse said:

The only thing is that more than two competitive options, otherwise it makes no difference.

Click to expand...

How exactly do you make "more than two competitive options"?

There were four Presidential candidates in 2016 who were on the ballot in all 50 states, so there were four candidates who could have won.

Nothing stopped anyone from checking those other two boxes instead of those for Trump or Hillary. Oh, sure; there were lots of excuses as to why one "had" to vote for Trump or for Hillary, and that voting for one of the others was "throwing your vote away," but systemically, the option was there. That people chose not to vote for them was a matter of exactly that -- choice.

Redress said:

You know, the last few elections have not been particularly kind to me. I could cry about the election system being unfair and try and change how votes are counted, or I could work harder to promote candidates who I support. I think the latter choice is more constructive.

Click to expand...

I would at least agree that no one should support this because of disappointing past election results and they think ranked choice will help their side in the near future. It should be because they think ranked choice voting is fundamentally a better system than FPTP.

And I don't think that working to promote the candidates you support and supporting ranked choice voting is an either/or proposition.

Harshaw said:

How exactly do you make "more than two competitive options"?

There were four Presidential candidates in 2016 who were on the ballot in all 50 states, so there were four candidates who could have won.

Nothing stopped anyone from checking those other two boxes instead of those for Trump or Hillary. Oh, sure; there were lots of excuses as to why one "had" to vote for Trump or for Hillary, and that voting for one of the others was "throwing your vote away," but systemically, the option was there. That people chose not to vote for them was a matter of exactly that -- choice.

Click to expand...

No one is going to vote for a party or candidate they have never heard of. This what I mean when I say competitive options. There is no way any third party in the Untied States will ever win anything because they have no way of raising awareness nor do any of them have any competent leadership.

If I don't vote for someone there is a reason for that. The answer is no.

Skeptic Bob said:

I voted "Yes" because "YES! YES! YES!" wasn't available.

Click to expand...

I forgot to add FairVote's petition to my original post. If you support RC, I'd highly recommend signing it for all those interested.

I Support Ranked Choice Voting in American Elections - FairVote

Roycarn said:

In November 2016, Maine became the first state in the union to mandate ranked choice voting for all statewide, federal, and state legislative elections. As of 2017, there are currently 19 states with ranked choice voting legislation pending in state legislative houses.

Ranked choice voting is a system that has voters rank candidates from their most to least favorite. If no candidate wins a majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes transfer based on who those voters wanted their second choice to be. The process continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.

Here's a video from Fox News for those of you interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udj6sX4JLZo

Supporters or RCV believe that the system encourages majority winners, eliminates the spoiler effect, and empowers moderate voices from across the spectrum.

Opponents of RCV believe that it's unfair that candidates can win without a plurality, is needlessly complicated, and violates the principle of "one person one vote." Additionally, RCV for presidential elections would require a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college thereby introducing with it its own set of pros and cons.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of believing. That is not persuasive as an argument to change one of the foundations of democratic legitimacy. Arrow took a look at it and there is no best system of voting in democracies; cp, anyway.

Carjosse said:

The only thing is that more than two competitive options, otherwise it makes no difference.

Click to expand...

It doesn't make any difference, because there will always be a reason to complain that it was unfair. Someone got a Nobel Prize for proving that.

Carjosse said:

No one is going to vote for a party or candidate they have never heard of. This what I mean when I say competitive options. There is no way any third party in the Untied States will ever win anything because they have no way of raising awareness nor do any of them have any competent leadership.

Click to expand...

Everyone's heard of them, and people are perfectly free to inform themselves if they're interested. But by and large, they're not.

joG said:

That's a lot of believing. That is not persuasive as an argument to change one of the foundations of democratic legitimacy. Arrow took a look at it and there is no best system of voting in democracies; cp, anyway.

Click to expand...

Could you explain what you mean by "that's a lot of believing?"

Democratic legitimacy is based on majority rule, not based on who just simply got the most votes. You need a majority in parliament/legislature to get things done. It makes at least some sense therefore to require that you obtain at majority least a majority in order to get elected for single winner races.

i generally agree with the "you knew the rules going in" point of view, especially where the electoral college is concerned. however, i find it pretty hard to argue that our currently gerrymandered duopoly isn't producing some awful results. maybe we need to consider fixing some things that are wrong with the system. not that i think it will happen, since those who benefit the most from the current setup are the only ones who can change it. it would be nice to brainstorm a better democratic process, though, and then put it out there for them to ignore.

Redress said:

You know, the last few elections have not been particularly kind to me. I could cry about the election system being unfair and try and change how votes are counted, or I could work harder to promote candidates who I support. I think the latter choice is more constructive.

Click to expand...

And the candidate you work hard to promote will be dismissed by a majority of Americans since they only vote for the lesser of two evils because we have an election system that promotes that. Making logical and meaningful changes to the election process is not "crying".

Redress said:

Shouldn't it be incumbent on other candidates to make themselves competitive?

Click to expand...

Candidates being competitive has nothing to do with the way the system is designed. Our election process is built around having two and only two candidates, and those candidates are provided to us by two private organizations. Most people won't even dare vote 3rd party because it could hand the election to the guy they really hate so they don't end up voting for the person that best represents them.

Harshaw said:

How exactly do you make "more than two competitive options"?
There were four Presidential candidates in 2016 who were on the ballot in all 50 states, so there were four candidates who could have won.
Nothing stopped anyone from checking those other two boxes instead of those for Trump or Hillary. Oh, sure; there were lots of excuses as to why one "had" to vote for Trump or for Hillary, and that voting for one of the others was "throwing your vote away," but systemically, the option was there. That people chose not to vote for them was a matter of exactly that -- choice.

Click to expand...

Harshaw said:

Everyone's heard of them, and people are perfectly free to inform themselves if they're interested. But by and large, they're not.

Click to expand...

I think deep down you know third parties systematically don't stand a chance. They could match a majority of Americans the best and it will still be a republican or a democrat, every single time. There's something horribly wrong with our system when people have to play these stupid little lesser-of-two-evil don't-let-the-baddest-guy-win strategies and can't just vote for who best represents them. Yeah, physically and legally there is nothing stopping them from voting 3rd party, but human nature and the nudges of the system prevent it from even being considered.

Roycarn said:

Could you explain what you mean by "that's a lot of believing?"

Democratic legitimacy is based on majority rule, not based on who just simply got the most votes. You need a majority in parliament/legislature to get things done. It makes at least some sense therefore to require that you obtain at majority least a majority in order to get elected for single winner races.

Click to expand...

That may but certainly doesn’t have to be so except in great simplification. But how the majority ist determined, jiw the delegates are determined etc etc etc are open questiins and open to discussion. The really important thing is probably that against all odds the results of the election are accepted and so legitimate.

Roycarn said:

In November 2016, Maine became the first state in the union to mandate ranked choice voting for all statewide, federal, and state legislative elections. As of 2017, there are currently 19 states with ranked choice voting legislation pending in state legislative houses.

Ranked choice voting is a system that has voters rank candidates from their most to least favorite. If no candidate wins a majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and their votes transfer based on who those voters wanted their second choice to be. The process continues until one candidate receives a majority of the vote.

Here's a video from Fox News for those of you interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udj6sX4JLZo

Supporters or RCV believe that the system encourages majority winners, eliminates the spoiler effect, and empowers moderate voices from across the spectrum.

Opponents of RCV believe that it's unfair that candidates can win without a plurality, is needlessly complicated, and violates the principle of "one person one vote." Additionally, RCV for presidential elections would require a constitutional amendment abolishing the electoral college thereby introducing with it its own set of pros and cons.

Click to expand...

I picked no. Win or lose the person I vote for is who I want my voting going to.

Redress said:

Shouldn't it be incumbent on other candidates to make themselves competitive?

Click to expand...

I don't really understand this objection. The method objectively throws out the least competitive choice each round, and at the end, the most popular/competitive candidate wins. I guess it would depend on the specific proposal, but the versions in practice AFAIK do not require anyone to rank more than one candidate.

The advantage as I see it is a lot of voters like me consider third party voting for roughly 99.9% of elections to be futile and counterproductive, and therefore stupid, unless we truly do not care which of the major party candidates win and it would be an amazing thing to be perfectly indifferent between, say, Trump OR Hillary - on a 1-100 scale to give them the identical rank. And if we do care, then the ONLY rational option in our system is to disregard third party choices and vote for the lesser of evils among the major party candidates. RCV allows everyone to vote their 'conscience' on the front end but also express (if they want) a clear preference among the remaining candidates.

I also don't understand the claim that it's 'stupidly-complicated.' What's hard about "this is my first choice, and this is my second..." If the Green Party had run Bernie instead of fruitloop Jill Stein, Bernie would have been a clear 1st choice, with Hillary a clear 2nd choice, Johnson 3rd, and Trump would not make it on my ballot.

It's a big boost to third parties, which I think is a good thing. No particular reason we should have a two party system, and institutional changes like RCV that reduce the institutional advantages of the duopoly are as I see it a good thing, unless one has a vested interest in one of the major parties.