• 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!

Do you like ranked choice voting?

Do you like ranked choice voting?

  • yes

    Votes: 12 60.0%

  • no, I prefer first past the post

    Votes: 4 20.0%

  • no but I don't like first past the post either

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • not sure

    Votes: 4 20.0%
  • Total voters
    20
M

Masterhawk

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2016
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
489
Location
Colorado
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
America's current voting system is called first past the post. In this system, the candidate with the most votes wins, it's as simple as that. This voting system is perfectly fine when there are only two candidates but when there are more than two, it can cause some problems. If two candidates share similar views then the third candidate with different views is most likely to get the most votes.

Ranked choice voting is a system in which voters rank the candidates from most favorable to least favorable. After the election is over and the votes are counted, the candidate with the least votes will be eliminated and their votes will be distributed to the voters' second favorite candidates. This process will continue until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote

Here are the current voting system and the alternate voting system as explained by CGP Grey:

FPTP


RCV
 
I think this might induce more extremist candidates winning an election. Because Partisan "centrist" people may prefer more partisan canidates over "centrist" opposites. While extremist people will always prefer the next most extremist candidate.

Regardless I sort of like it lol.
 
Masterhawk said:
America's current voting system is called first past the post. In this system, the candidate with the most votes wins, it's as simple as that. This voting system is perfectly fine when there are only two candidates but when there are more than two, it can cause some problems. If two candidates share similar views then the third candidate with different views is most likely to get the most votes.

Ranked choice voting is a system in which voters rank the candidates from most favorable to least favorable. After the election is over and the votes are counted, the candidate with the least votes will be eliminated and their votes will be distributed to the voters' second favorite candidates. This process will continue until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote

Here are the current voting system and the alternate voting system as explained by CGP Grey:

FPTP


RCV
Click to expand...


Yes. But a lot of simple-minded people might not understand it, so maybe just implement it for the primaries.
 
Masterhawk said:
America's current voting system is called first past the post. In this system, the candidate with the most votes wins, it's as simple as that. This voting system is perfectly fine when there are only two candidates but when there are more than two, it can cause some problems. If two candidates share similar views then the third candidate with different views is most likely to get the most votes.

Ranked choice voting is a system in which voters rank the candidates from most favorable to least favorable. After the election is over and the votes are counted, the candidate with the least votes will be eliminated and their votes will be distributed to the voters' second favorite candidates. This process will continue until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote

Here are the current voting system and the alternate voting system as explained by CGP Grey:
Click to expand...

These complaints are usually from people whose party is not popular enough to win elections. Instead of figuring out how to get popular, they try and figure out ways to rig the system. There is nothing better than the candidate with the most votes wins.
 
Redress said:
These complaints are usually from people whose party is not popular enough to win elections. Instead of figuring out how to get popular, they try and figure out ways to rig the system. There is nothing better than the candidate with the most votes wins.
Click to expand...

It can also work in primaries. Let's say you have three people running in a primary - two upstarts, Bernie types, and candidate who is a shill for Wall Street. It could be the people want a change, but split their votes between the two Bernie types, and the Goldman Sachs Democrat wins the primary with 35% of the vote, and 65% really want someone different. Ranked choice voting would give the voting population the choice they actually prefer. What happens IRL is one of the two upstarts is pressured to drop out and endorse the other, which is fine, but that's a disadvantage to newcomers or those without money backers and who can't get that crucial early support, but might take off over time.

And in a typical election you have the two major party candidates and sometimes a third party candidate. The way our system works, the third party can be a spoiler used by the major party candidate to split their opposition. I've read accounts in smaller races of this happening - the (say, republican) sending money to a Bernie type independent to split the left/liberal vote. Nader in 2000 is an infamous example of a 3rd party candidacy arguably at least operating that way, and so was Perot in 1992. Who would the Perot voters have preferred? I'm not sure but he siphoned off 20% and I'd rather those voters choose their second choice. I'm also sure lots of folks liked Perot but didn't vote for him because they figured it was a wasted vote and did pick their second choice (Clinton or Bush I). Same with Nader. Why not give them the vehicle to vote their conscience?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with it. One thing is for sure - anyone who doesn't like our two-party system should endorse this method of voting without hesitation.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
It can also work in primaries. Let's say you have three people running in a primary - two upstarts, Bernie types, and candidate who is a shill for Wall Street. It could be the people want a change, but split their votes between the two Bernie types, and the Goldman Sachs Democrat wins the primary with 35% of the vote, and 65% really want someone different. Ranked choice voting would give the voting population the choice they actually prefer. What happens IRL is one of the two upstarts is pressured to drop out and endorse the other, which is fine, but that's a disadvantage to newcomers or those without money backers and who can't get that crucial early support, but might take off over time.

And in a typical election you have the two major party candidates and sometimes a third party candidate. The way our system works, the third party can be a spoiler used by the major party candidate to split their opposition. I've read accounts in smaller races of this happening - the (say, republican) sending money to a Bernie type independent to split the left/liberal vote. Nader in 2000 is an infamous example of a 3rd party candidacy arguably at least operating that way, and so was Perot in 1992. Who would the Perot voters have preferred? I'm not sure but he siphoned off 20% and I'd rather those voters choose their second choice. I'm also sure lots of folks liked Perot but didn't vote for him because they figured it was a wasted vote and did pick their second choice (Clinton or Bush I). Same with Nader. Why not give them the vehicle to vote their conscience?

Anyway, I don't have a problem with it. One thing is for sure - anyone who doesn't like our two-party system should endorse this method of voting without hesitation.
Click to expand...

If 65 % want something different to use your example, then they should vote for the candidate who best represents the different they want. If the two candidates split the vote and get fewer votes than the good candidate in your example, then they lose, and should lose. Any system where the person who gets the most votes does not win is flawed.
 
Redress said:
If 65 % want something different to use your example, then they should vote for the candidate who best represents the different they want. If the two candidates split the vote and get fewer votes than the good candidate in your example, then they lose, and should lose. Any system where the person who gets the most votes does not win is flawed.
Click to expand...

Yes, they SHOULD vote for the candidate that best represents them, but you know that in reality everybody votes the lesser of two evils because our system is designed to encourage two and only two candidates. You're confusing the way you'd like it to be with the way it effectively is.

It's also the reason Bernie was called a spoiler by the establishment and shunned from the first day of his campaign. A candidate that is better liked by more people will always lose to the candidate that more people THINK can win. That's not really democracy, it's a retarded poker game we play with ourselves.
 
Masterhawk said:
America's current voting system is called first past the post. In this system, the candidate with the most votes wins, it's as simple as that. This voting system is perfectly fine when there are only two candidates but when there are more than two, it can cause some problems. If two candidates share similar views then the third candidate with different views is most likely to get the most votes.

Ranked choice voting is a system in which voters rank the candidates from most favorable to least favorable. After the election is over and the votes are counted, the candidate with the least votes will be eliminated and their votes will be distributed to the voters' second favorite candidates. This process will continue until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote

Here are the current voting system and the alternate voting system as explained by CGP Grey:

FPTP


RCV
Click to expand...


Not sure. What I know I don't like is unless you register to a party, you have no say in the primaries.
 
I would like to see an objectivity test to vote. Such a test will ask about the views of all the candidates, to make sure one is aware of the truth. This will prevent too many trained seals from voting, who are vulnerable to fake news and made narrow minded due to mob thinking.

For example, the test may ask everyone, what are candidate Trump's top ten accomplishments? An objective person, could answer this for all the candidates, if this data was made available by the candidates. He/she would be a useful voter, since he/she would show a brain larger than a walnut.

This test would undermine fake news, since fake news, although still able to create mob think, might create a mob that will funk the test, and not be able to vote. The left and right wing propaganda wings would both need to be mostly honest and balanced, but with only a slight spin in their favor. That would be fine.

Ranked choice voting allows for train seal voting. How many people think Trump colluded with the Russians, even with no hard data support? How many people hate Trump, based on his hair or on an accusation with no proof, after a 1.5 years of investigation? The ranked choice system will encourage fake news and mob think. The goal of the fake news and propaganda would be to love your candidate by ignoring their flaws, and poison the others, for no reason at all; pea brains and not even walnut brains.
 
Last edited:
Masterhawk said:
America's current voting system is called first past the post. In this system, the candidate with the most votes wins, it's as simple as that. This voting system is perfectly fine when there are only two candidates but when there are more than two, it can cause some problems. If two candidates share similar views then the third candidate with different views is most likely to get the most votes.

Ranked choice voting is a system in which voters rank the candidates from most favorable to least favorable. After the election is over and the votes are counted, the candidate with the least votes will be eliminated and their votes will be distributed to the voters' second favorite candidates. This process will continue until one candidate has 50% or more of the vote

Here are the current voting system and the alternate voting system as explained by CGP Grey:

FPTP


RCV
Click to expand...


No, I wouldn't want that. Now I am a big fan of Louisiana's jungle primary system. All candidates regardless of party is listed on the ballot for whatever office. On election you go vote for the one you want. If no candidate receives 50% plus one vote, then there is a run off between the top two finishers I believe six weeks later. Here in Georgia we used the same system for our special congressional election in CD-6. We also in Georgia will have a runoff if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote between the top two finishers. We've had quite a few runoff elections when no candidate received the required 50% plus one to include the senate race of 1993.

I think in our two party system where Republican and Democratic parties have a monopoly with no viable third party options, ranked voting is meaningless. You would basically be ranking the two major party candidates one and two instead of voting for one or the other. Same difference.
 
Redress said:
These complaints are usually from people whose party is not popular enough to win elections. Instead of figuring out how to get popular, they try and figure out ways to rig the system. There is nothing better than the candidate with the most votes wins.
Click to expand...
[emphasis added by bubba]
you do realize this occurs in ranked voting determinations

and yes, some would prefer to vote for the candidate rather than the party. had this system been in place in 2016, we would now be discussing President Sanders
 
Kreton said:
This is not how presidential elections work in the US.
Click to expand...

You're right, that's not how presidential elections work. However, pretty much every other election in the US does work like that such as senatorial and gubernational.
 
Redress said:
These complaints are usually from people whose party is not popular enough to win elections. Instead of figuring out how to get popular, they try and figure out ways to rig the system. There is nothing better than the candidate with the most votes wins.
Click to expand...

The problem is that there are only two major parties in the US. Third parties generally don't become popular because people fear indirectly supporting the worst candidate so they vote for the lesser of two evils. And there is actually some merit to this fear. In 1992, Bill Clinton won, partly because Ross Perot stole some of HW Bush's potential voters.
 
holbritter said:
Not sure. What I know I don't like is unless you register to a party, you have no say in the primaries.
Click to expand...

We don't register with parties in Tennessee, or at least we don't need to, and I haven't ever done it. So on primary day I choose in which primary to vote, and I like the system. I'm in a solid red state now, so a lot of races WILL BE won by the Republican who wins the primary, and I like having a say in who that will be even though I'm basically a "Democrat" although never registered as such.

I don't really see the downside to society in allowing that. I get why the parties, the political 'club', doesn't like outsiders having a say in who their club runs, but I couldn't give less of a damn about the parties and what they want. We've got an open seat for the U.S. House, and I can't even name the Democrat running if there is one, so why shouldn't I (and everyone else in that district of whatever party affiliation) have a say in which Republican represents me in Congress?
 
Perotista said:
No, I wouldn't want that. Now I am a big fan of Louisiana's jungle primary system. All candidates regardless of party is listed on the ballot for whatever office. On election you go vote for the one you want. If no candidate receives 50% plus one vote, then there is a run off between the top two finishers I believe six weeks later. Here in Georgia we used the same system for our special congressional election in CD-6. We also in Georgia will have a runoff if no candidate receives 50% plus one vote between the top two finishers. We've had quite a few runoff elections when no candidate received the required 50% plus one to include the senate race of 1993.

I think in our two party system where Republican and Democratic parties have a monopoly with no viable third party options, ranked voting is meaningless. You would basically be ranking the two major party candidates one and two instead of voting for one or the other. Same difference.
Click to expand...

We won't know till the system is tried but the argument in favor of ranked voting is that the current system is a big reason WHY the two major parties so successfully dominate the system. The third party is always the underdog and lots of people who might favor the underdog decide for strategic reasons to pick among the two major party candidates who they THINK will be one of the winners.

My argument (to myself...) in favor of ranked voting is it eliminates the 3rd party spoiler effect, and frees people up to vote their conscience when the two major candidates are awful. In the 2016 POTUS election, say you are a libertarian. Well, you know 100% that the libertarian candidate will lose. Unless you have no preference between Hillary and Trump, it's stupid to vote libertarian, because you're effectively taking a vote from the candidate you prefer of those two. This system allows you a clear conscience vote on the initial round, followed by your second choice if needed on the second.

Anyway, I don't see a downside except perhaps to the major parties, and they can go f themselves for all I care.
 
Redress said:
These complaints are usually from people whose party is not popular enough to win elections. Instead of figuring out how to get popular, they try and figure out ways to rig the system. There is nothing better than the candidate with the most votes wins.
Click to expand...

Yep. It's the lazy person's way of getting into the game. Instead of proving that your ideas and candidates are better than the alternative, you game the system to give the 2nd raters an unfair advantage. The problem that most 3rd parties have is that instead of proving from the bottom up that they can do it better, they try to get to the top so that they can prove it after the fact. Ross Perot's Reform Party had some great ideas, but they spent their political capital in a predestined to fail Presidential campaign. Ranked choice voting just allows a minority to choose when the majority is split.
 
holbritter said:
Not sure. What I know I don't like is unless you register to a party, you have no say in the primaries.
Click to expand...

Primaries should not be an "official" election any way. If a Party wants to have it's members vote on the candidate they want, then it should be on them, not the taxpayers, to fund that election. Political Parties should be treated as entirely private groups, instead of almost a branch of the gov't.
 
Masterhawk said:
The problem is that there are only two major parties in the US. Third parties generally don't become popular because people fear indirectly supporting the worst candidate so they vote for the lesser of two evils. And there is actually some merit to this fear. In 1992, Bill Clinton won, partly because Ross Perot stole some of HW Bush's potential voters.
Click to expand...

Clinton won ENTIRELY because of Perot. Without Perot, Clinton would have been nothing more than a one paragraph entry in Wikipedia.
 
Redress said:
These complaints are usually from people whose party is not popular enough to win elections. Instead of figuring out how to get popular, they try and figure out ways to rig the system. There is nothing better than the candidate with the most votes wins.
Click to expand...

You can't get popular in a system that requires being popular to even be included in the debates or to get valuable free media exposure in the "news". That is true regardless of the voting system used to select the winner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom