Ranked-choice voting initiative favors no one but voters

Homepage | Forums | Main Forums | General Discussion | Ranked-choice voting initiative favors no one but voters

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • Author
    Posts
    • #244728
      Charles
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,595

       

       

      Author: Rebecca Braun | Opinion  Published 3 days ago

      Alaska Republican Party Vice Chair Ann Brown framed ranked-choice voting as a liberal scheme that will destroy Alaska’s elections system. But there is nothing in the system that favors any party or ideology. As former Alaska Republican Party attorney Ken Jacobus said of ranked-choice voting when a similar initiative was on the ballot in 2002, “It makes sure that everyone who gets elected has a majority of voter support.”

      That year, Republicans championed the initiative and Democrats fought it.

      Under ranked-choice voting, also called preferential or instant runoff voting, voters rank candidates in order of preference. All first-choice votes are tallied, and if any candidate receives a majority — that is, 50% plus one — the candidate wins. If no candidate receives a majority, the last-place candidate is removed and those votes are redistributed to those voters’ second-choice candidates. The process continues until a candidate receives more than 50% of votes.

      Under the plurality system we currently use, a candidate need only have more votes than any other candidate. In a three-way race, a candidate could win with the support of 34 percent of voters. Some jurisdictions require runoff elections to ensure the winner has majority support. Ranked-choice voting effectively holds runoff elections on a single ballot.

      The state of Maine uses ranked-choice voting, and five states — all typically Republican-favoring — use the system for military and overseas voters in runoffs: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Robert’s Rules of Order recommends preferential voting, and many private organizations use it for their elections, including the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the American Chemical Society, and the Society of Actuaries. (Actuaries! They know how to count.)…

      Read more:

      https://www.adn.com/opinions/2019/12/27/ranked-choice-voting-initiative-favors-no-one-but-voters/

      Bernie: "Not Me. Us"

    • #244790
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,064

      Someone said that if we had ranked-choice voting in the primaries, last time, we could all choose our little favorites for first place, and feel we have waved our useless little fists or whatever, and get that out of our delusional systems, and then we could ALL could done the right thing and chose Hillary in second place.  And guess what that would have resulted in?  Which tells me how the Democrats would game that system.

      As far as the 2020 election is concerned – considering issues and records, my first choice in the primary would be Bernie, followed by Bernie, Bernie, Bernie, and Bernie.  For president?  Bernie Bernie Bernie.  If Bernie is not on the ballot?  Green Green Green.

      I think ranked choice is good if there is more than one candidate that represents pretty much the same thing, with minor differences.  Like picking one of the Vichy Dems.  But IMO there is only one progressive candidate, and I would not choose any of the rest second.

      • #244884
        whispers
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 414

        You would not have to choose a 2nd, 3rd, etc., candidate.  Just put Bernie in the 1st vote column and leave the rest blank.

        • #244897
          Cold Mountain Trail
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 8,780

          “You would not have to choose a 2nd, 3rd, etc., candidate. Just put Bernie in the 1st vote column and leave the rest blank.”

          so what?  *somebody* would have 2nd & 3rd choices on record, & if the 1st didn’t win, those ten people (or however many) with a lousy hillary-style choice 2 would carry the vote, even if a majority left the space blank.

          I’d prefer letting people vote how they pleased and if no vote carried, do a run-off.

          Not a neutral, ‘only voter wins’ deal, regardless

          • #245310
            whispers
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 414

            This is really the best choice for  democracy as the person that most voters could be happy with will be chosen.  It definitely will not be everyone’s 5th choice of 5, or everyone’s first choice. Hopefully people will actually consider who they would want, if they could want, if their 1st choice candidate did not win.  I certainly would never put anyone in 2nd, 3rd, etc. if Bernie is the only person I would actually like to be president.  I don’t think most people would do what party leaders or DNC might tell them to do.  I find that an appalling thought as our votes are our own and hopefully we are responsible enough to make our own decisions.  With ranked choice, we would hopefully be more inclusive to other parties that get on the ballot, and they could have a chance to win if we choose them.  If we could get rid of super delegates, this would be the best, and if they are hand counted.

      • #244896
        Cold Mountain Trail
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 8,780
      • #245218
        Jim Lane
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 441

        IRV would have made no difference in the 2016 Democratic primaries.  As the OP notes, IRV comes into play when there are more than two candidates.  In 2016, Chafee, O’Malley, and Webb all dropped out very early.  It was essentially a two-person race.  I’m pretty sure that, in every state and every Congressional district, either Bernie or Hillary took more than 50% of the vote.  (Applying IRV to a district that elects multiple delegates and where there’s a 15% floor gets more complicated, and I admit I’m glossing over that, but I think the basic point is valid.)

        IRV might have had more of an effect on some of the Republican races.  In both 2008 and 2012, the GOP nominated a comparative (note I said comparative) centrist over a number of more conservative opponents.  It’s possible that IRV would have enabled the extreme right-wingers to overcome the division in their ranks.  Perhaps Huckabee would have beaten McCain, or Santorum would have beaten Romney.

        • #245225
          djean111
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 4,064

          I didn’t say that is how Hillary would have/could have gotten on the ballot.  I am saying there is no method of counting votes that would result in me voting for Hillary.  Or for any other Vichy Dem.  I do think telling people to make their point by putting their candidate first, but then everybody put Hillary second (if they did not put her first) is a bit slick.  I would never have done that.  I am not looking at any elections as a Democrat any more.

          I do find it interesting that candidates basically hewing to the Democratic Party platform, with some differences, is no longer in play, and a reason why, IMO, RCV is faulty, because to me RCV implies that the candidates are not miles apart.  Between Bernie and the other candidates – miles apart.   I don’t think that platform is anything more than empty platitudes and Trump!  Russia! now.  “Democrat” has become a licensed logo.

          • #245544
            Ohio Barbarian
            Moderator
            • Total Posts: 14,524

            @djean111 I must disagree. RCV can’t be gamed by either party because a voter doesn’t have to have a second or third choice. It leaves that up to each voter, thereby giving us more choice, not less. I’m all for it.

            It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

            Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

            • #245546
              djean111
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 4,064

              A party that can conjure up two million extra votes or strip its own members from the rolls in order to seat their chosen one is not going to hesitate to rig elections of any kind.  This is proposed as a fix, it is not a fix, it is a shiny band-aid.  And quite clear to me that RCV is seen as a way to get rid of spoiler votes – you know, people who did not vote for Hillary, but voted for Stein.  Those are considered spoiler votes.  Some democracy, eh?  Anyway, that’s my opinion, and if we get RCV we will not be any closer to a democracy and I will just fill out the first choice and call it a day.  Done now.  No need for heaps of endorsements or don’t you love democracy or this is a way to get a woman elected or any other rot.

    • #244855
      bazukhov
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,683

      Doing that and getting rid of the Electoral College would edge us more toward democracy.

      “Americans dreaded democracy and contrived their constitution against it.”  Lord Acton

      Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

      • #244892
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,064

        @bazukhov

        Having to choose between two corporate-selected candidates does not resemble a democracy in any way, shape or form.  On top of that, the hacking and other election fraud practiced by the two parties makes the whole thing a very bad joke.

        • #244904
          bazukhov
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 2,683

          I’ve voted in 14 presidential elections.   10 times for the Dem candidate,. 3 times for the Green candidate. 1 time for the PFP candidate.

          I have never deluded myself that my single vote was going to determine the outcome or have any influence on how the government was to be run by the winner.

          I believe that most people vote far more often against candidates rather than for them.

          In 2020 I’ll be voting against Trump.   Simply because he’s the most despicable candidate I’ve run across in my life.    As for the Democrats I’m a Democrat only because it allows me to vote in the Democratic primary for the candidate that I believe is most likely to beat Trump.   Hopefully that candidate will be Sanders or Warren.

          In the general, I will do the same and vote for the candidate most likely to beat Trump.

           

          Tell me, great captain, how do the angels sleep when the devil leaves his porch light on? Tom Waites

          • #245155
            djean111
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 4,064

            @bazukhov

            I still believe, with my whole heart, that Hillary is more corrupt than anyone else.  More responsible, happily  and proudly, for more death and destruction and misery, and profiting from that.  And perhaps still looking forward to inflicting more of the same.  The Vichy Dems are made in her image.

            As you say, one little vote – but if I cannot vote FOR someone, I will vote Green, which for me is voting against corruption.  I will be voting for Bernie in the primary.

    • #245087
      eridani
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 5,699

      Now explain how you do hand count audits.

      Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

      • #245112
        Charles
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,595

        @eridani

        Great question.

        As I’ve never participated in a RCV election I had to look it up to see how a hand count might be handled. From my rather quick research it appears hand counts are very common in most areas that have RCV:

         

        HAND COUNTING

        Many places running ranked choice voting elections count those elections by hand. While the counting process is more complicated and time consuming than the counting for a simple plurality election, it is still easily done by hand and is highlighted by cybersecurity experts as a more transparent counting process than machine counting. In general, election judges/clerks start with sorting out ballots by what candidate is ranked first on those ballots, then further sort those by second, third, and later rankings. Telluride, Colorado’s hand count procedures are a good example of best practices for hand counting ranked choice voting elections. There is a link to them below. Takoma Park has also used hand counting for RCV in the past, their procedures are available below as well. Ireland and Northern Ireland hand count their nationwide single- and multi-winner RCV elections, and Australia hand counts their single-winner RCV elections.

        ~Snip~

        Telluride RCV Counting Procedures

        Read more:

        https://www.rankedchoicevoting.org/tallying

         

        Here is a video webinar covering hand counting of RVC in Minneapolis. It was voted on in 2006. In 2009 they had their first election with a full hand count. Hand counting is discussed throughout the webinar:

         

         

         

        Applying the Minneapolis Method for RCV Election Testing, Audits, & Hand Counts

        Minneapolis Assistant City Clerk and Director of Elections and Voter Services Grace Wachlarowicz has administered three RCV elections. In this webinar, Grace focused on testing, audits, and hand count practices used by Minneapolis in conducting RCV elections. Q&A Document available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqa8CzBQTkxujh1XFmmO1-_4FxJz9t6F/view

         

        From the Q & A from the above webinar:

        4. I’m leery of variance in recounts. Do you think automated tabulation might help lower the
        incidence of variation in recounts?
        It really depends upon each jurisdiction’s application and interpretation of a recount. Recounts in the
        State of Minnesota requires a manual hand count taking into consideration the markings on the ballot or
        determining voter intent in cases where the tabulator cannot read the voter’s choice. For example, a voter
        circled the candidate’s name instead of filling in the target or oval. That’s why you may see variance. It’s
        an accepted best practice that you may a slight variance, but overall, it really does not impact the end
        result.
        I am unable to answer that question further because I’ve never experienced automated tabulation in this
        sense and may not for a long time.

        https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jqa8CzBQTkxujh1XFmmO1-_4FxJz9t6F/view

         

        Bernie: "Not Me. Us"

        • #245419
          eridani
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 5,699

          these are excellent references.

          Has ranked-choice voting lived up to its promise in the Twin Cities?

          Minneapolis held Minnesota’s first real test of RCV in 2013, with an open mayor’s race that included 35 registered candidates. It took 33 rounds of counting 78,000 ballots before Betsy Hodges, who led from round one, was declared the winner. By then, enough ballots had been exhausted that Hodges was elected with just a plurality: 48.95 percent.

          You’ve convinced me that ranked choice can work when there aren’t too many ballots to count.  I’m highly skeptical of ever implementing it in King County WA, which has 1.3 million registered voters, one third of the state total.

          In 2004,  Christine Gregoire won the governorship with a 133 vote margin of 2.9 million votes cast statewide.   3.5 million registered, 1.1 million in King County.  Actual voters 2.9 million, 960K in King County.  Ranked choice would have extended the recount well past the 6 weeks it actually took.  County Council member Larry Phillips was working on Ohio for Kerry, and was shocked to find his ballot tossed for an invalid signature.  Democrats made a massive effort to contact similar voters in areas where Dems were known to predominate, but the Repubs didn’t bother, and predictably whined about that.

          Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

          • #245486
            Charles
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 1,595

            @eridani

            Thank you for the article. According to that article they definitely had major problems with vote counts under RCV in 2013 in MSP.

            Whether they still are having troubles I can’t say but I haven’t found anything further as to how RVC elections have fared in regards to recounts.

            As MSP, Seattle, and many other cities still use RCV it would seem that whatever problems may occur are being dealt with and the system has not been seen as flawed enough to be scrapped. Rather the use of RCV appears to be growing with Maine recently joining in and NYC soon to also have RCV.

            So while I am certainly no expert on the subject I do remain hopeful that the process will be beneficial to both third parties and to the overall electoral process.

            One area that does seem to show promise is on the election of women to office. Obviously this on it’s face can be debatable as to whether that’s a good thing overall or not. Still it does seem promising for better representation of women in government.

            While this has nothing to do with the actual process of RCV and whether it is feasible and trust worthy it does show what seems to be a net positive for RCV over all.

            Still. As your article points out Minneapolis had some major problems with the recount of elections under RCV in 2013 and that can’t be ignored. NYC will certainly be a major test of RCV and it’s viability as an electoral alternative to the current 2 party system most are accustom to.

            Thanks again for the article.

             

             

            Bernie: "Not Me. Us"

            • #247074
              eridani
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 5,699

              IMO, the feasibility of RCV is directly related to how many ballots have to be counted.  If you cannot adequately audit an election, you have no reason to trust the results.

              Jesus: Hey, Dad? God: Yes, Son? Jesus: Western civilization followed me home. Can I keep it? God: Certainly not! And put it down this minute--you don't know where it's been! Tom Robbins in Another Roadside Attraction

    • #245130
      jerry611
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 890

      I’d have to think about this more but it seems to me that this system would heavily favor the establishment candidates.

      • #245161
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,064

        @jerry611

        Of course it would.  That is why it is being pushed.  When someone suggests that getting our little preferences out of our systems by making them our first choice, and then everyone putting Hillary as second choice – that is how that system would be gamed.  Oh, and letting the Democratic Party count and recount votes is always a bad idea.

        • #245187
          Charles
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 1,595

          @djean111

          How is the current system doing for 3rd party candidates?

          Would you prefer the California system better with Open Primaries?

          For me either system would seem to be preferable to our current system as far as getting support and recognition for 3rd party candidates. I am open to both.

          Bernie has supported “Instant Runoff Voting” which is a form of ranked choice voting as does the Green Party. Not that you need to agree with Bernie or the Greens but it would seem they feel it would be better for third parties:

           

          Endorsers

          Adopting ranked choice voting is not about changing who wins, but how they win. That’s why Americans from every part of the political spectrum have recognized ranked choice voting as a fairer way to elect our political leaders.

          Giving voters meaningful choice, ensuring majority rule and fair representation, encouraging more civil campaigns, and eliminating costly, low-turnout runoff elections simply aren’t partisan goals. Better elections are something we can all get behind, which is why prominent politicians and notable membership organizations have supported ranked choice voting – also known as “instant runoff voting” or “preferential voting” – for years. The list below highlights some of these people and groups.

          Federal Officeholders

          Statewide Officeholders

          State Legislative and Local Officeholders

          League of Women Voters State and Local Groups

          • Arizona
          • California
          • Florida
          • Maine
          • Massachusetts
          • Minneapolis
          • Minnesota
          • Montgomery County (MD)
          • North Carolina
          • Oakland
          • Oklahoma
          • Oregon
          • South Carolina
          • Tacoma-Pierce County (WA)
          • Vermont
          • Washington

          Political Parties & Clubs

          • Alameda County (CA) Democratic Party
          • Alaska Republican Party
          • California Democratic Party
          • Colorado Democratic Party
          • Green Party
          • Libertarian Party
          • Maine Democratic Party
          • Massachusetts Democratic Party
          • Minneapolis, MN DFL Party
          • Progressive Democrats of America
          • Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles
          • San Francisco (CA) Democratic Party

          https://www.fairvote.org/endorsers

           

           

          Obviously the concepts of  RCV or open primaries  don’t address all forms of election corruption directly. That’s a separate issue all together.  If the people behind registering voters and the system for counting the votes are corrupt it really doesn’t matter which system is being used.

          Represent.us is a bipartisan group focused on anti corruption efforts at all levels. Local, state, and national. And they also are big supporters of Ranked choice voting.

          https://act.represent.us/sign/ranked-choice-voting/

           

           

           

           

          Bernie: "Not Me. Us"

    • #245199
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,064

      @charles

      It is not like I have the final – or even the faintest wisp – of a say in whether RCV is used, you know.  That being said, I don’t really care WHO endorses it. IMO the DNC will corrupt RCV too.  “Everybody who did not  pick Hillary first – pick  Hillary second!  It is the right thing to do!!!  For Hillary!”  And I would not have a lot of the people on your list of endorsers in my home, much less let them influence me.  Obama?  Democratic Party groups?  Oh, that’s a mark against.  I learned not to take things like that at face value.  Ever.

      Endorsements are totally unimportant to me, when it comes to making up my own mind.  In fact, further than that – sometimes the character and actions of those who endorse something tell me something is wrong there.  I don’t think anyone here at JPR is here to let someone else make their decisions for them.

      As far as primaries and the general election are concerned, IMO, RCV is just slapping a “See?  it’s a DEMOCRACY!” sticker on a very corrupt process.  It is how the candidates get on the ballot in the first place that needs to be fixed, and the DNC corporation is not going to let go of that.  Trump vs Hillary.  What a fucking joke of a democracy.

      • #245210
        Charles
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 1,595

        @djean111

        Third Party groups like the Green Party and Libertarian Party are endorsing RCV.  That also shows they believe it helps them or it would seem rather counter productive to support RCV.

        Do you have any solutions other than RCV and Open Primaries? Do you prefer the current system? Or do just believe that no matter what is done the system will always be corrupt?

         

        On a side note here’s Jimmy Dore and Joe Rogan discussing RCV:

         

         

        Bernie: "Not Me. Us"

        • #245212
          djean111
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 4,064

          @charles

          Please – spare me any more endorsements.  Our corrupted system cannot be fixed at the ballot box with an RCV band-aid.  Right now the system is corrupt, the picking of candidates is corrupt, the essentially one party system is corrupt, and for me to think RCV would fix any of that I would need to be as stupid as the DNC thinks I am.    What is your goal here?  There is literally nothing that could induce me to vote for anyone but Bernie, that’s all this boils down to, for me.  I will not be a happy little Democrat cheering for the corporate pick, ever.  No matter how it gets there.  I am sure RCV has enough cheerleaders, if that is what our corrupted system wants.  The DNC can have a vote on it!!! Bwahahaha!

          No matter how Hillary would have gotten on the ballot, I would not have voted for her.  No matter how a Vichy Dem gets on the ballot, I will not vote for them.  That is the bottom line here.

      • #245490
        JonLP
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 2,125

        You don’t have to make Hillary Clinton the 2nd choice. This system usually elects the least hated so I’m sure Trump or Clinton would be on a lot of person’s last choice.

    • #245207
      sadoldgirl
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 812

      It is my cynical belief that just adding a box saying

      “None of the above” would show the voters’

      discontent. What if that box would get 58%?

    • #245283
      whispers
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 414

      Ranked choice voting would probably ensure Bernie a win.  I don’t think the process is well enough understood.  There may be some people silly enough to put Hillary in as a second choice, but I doubt that many would, and Bernie would only be replaced with someone’s 2nd choice if his combined total comes in lowest of that round.

      • #245390
        Cold Mountain Trail
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 8,780

        what is the problem ranked choice is supposed to ‘solve’?

        • #245460
          Jim Lane
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 441

          You ask “what is the problem ranked choice is supposed to ‘solve’?”  The answer is the “spoiler” problem.

          For 2016, for example, there were voters who thought that Stein best reflected their views, but that Clinton, although inferior to Stein, was still significantly better than Trump.  (I’m not asking anyone here to agree with that assessment of the candidates.  Grant me only that a lot of people thought that way.)

          These voters had only one vote with which to perform two functions.  They could send a pro-Green message by voting for Stein, or they could do their best to block Trump by voting for Clinton (clothespin on nose if necessary).  Some chose Stein, some chose Clinton.

          If IRV had been in effect, they could have voted for Stein in first place and Clinton second.  They could thus do both things they wanted to do, instead of only one.  This would obviously have produced more votes for Stein.  It’s not surprising that the Greens and Libertarians support IRV, because it would save them from losing the votes of people who agree with them but who don’t want to waste their votes by voting for a candidate with no chance of winning.

          IIRC, a few people on JPR thought Trump was better than Clinton.  They could have voted for Stein then Trump.  People who saw no difference between the major-party candidates could still have voted for Stein, just as they actually did, without naming a second choice.

          I think there is a real problem here and IRV does address it.

          The flip side is that IRV creates some problems of its own.  Notably, a candidate who’s eliminated early might be a compromise choice who could beat any of the other candidates in a head-to-head matchup.  For example, suppose the first-choice vote totals are: Socialist/Green (strong shift to the left) 40%, Libertarian (strong shift to the right) 40%, Dem/Rep (the remnants of the current two major parties have merged to defend the status quo) 20%.  With IRV, the office will go to a candidate who’s opposed by 60% of the electorate.  (Yes, this assumes that the 80% favoring some significant change would prefer the status quo instead of the other side’s change.  This won’t be universal, because some people in the 80% would say that it wouldn’t be that bad if the other side won, because the implementation of those policies would show the public how bad they were.  IOW, let the Libertarians win and abolish the social safety net, and that will increase public support for socialism.  Most socialists wouldn’t think that way, though.)  In this scenario, the Dem/Rep candidate would probably beat the Libertarian heads-up, but IRV eliminates that Dem/Rep candidate from consideration.

          The current rule of plurality election gives each major party at least some incentive to tack toward the center.  This can be frustrating to progressives, and also to the right-wing nutjobs on sites like Free Republic (who consider Mitt Romney to be practically a Bolshevik).  This incentive to accommodate the popular preference wouldn’t be that bad, provided that the process of selecting major-party candidates were completely fair, so that changes in the electorate’s views over time could be properly reflected.

          IOW, no system is perfect.  I’m glad that Maine implemented IRV because it will be a valuable experiment.

          • #245462
            djean111
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 4,064

            @jimlane

            It is precisely the “make your little statement by choosing your little favorite first, but then choose Clinton and that will give us Clinton” that disgusts me.  I could never choose someone who reveled in death as any choice at all.  In any event, whatever the big money and the uni-party decide to do will be done, I am sure.  RCV will not make the totally corrupt way the DNC puts the candidates on the ballot in the first place any more like “democracy”.    And the Debbie Wasserman Schultz folks will still control the access and the counts.  So heralding RCV as some sort of fix is disingenuous.  For me, RCV would be useful if the candidates were fairly close in rhetoric and ownership and history.  But there is too disparate and large of  a gulf between a progressive like Bernie and then the Vichy Dems to make any of them a second choice for me.  And I do see that the main, the ONLY theme – which sure is convenient, no promises broken, no “feet to be held to the fire” bullshit – for the 2020 election is beat Trump.  Because the Vichy Dems will not make life for anyone any better, no matter how they are inserted into office.  You post a lot of dry verbiage, but the fact remains that Hillary is a terrible person, IMO, who loves inflicting austerity and war.  She has a record of that.  So no feat of electoral engineering would make me feel any less revulsion at being expected to choose Hillary or a Hillary-like other in any place.  Yeah, 2016 was deliberately engineered to giver us a choice that was supposed to be worse than Hillary.  Turns out, that failed.  I am talking about what actually happened and what may happen, the lengthy verbiage surrounding the process does not make a candidate smell any better, that’s all.  Besides, why care so much?    If what you say is true, a Vichy Dem may sail into office.  I cannot believe that you perhaps are actually trying to make JPR into a little DNC stronghold no matter who the candidate is?  Make everyone feel better about a Vichy Dem because of RCV?    That would be delusional.  And, here in real life, no one I know will even bother to vote if Bernie is not the candidate, so there is that.  I realize that is what the DNC wants, most likely, so I will try and drag them out to vote Green.

            Calling a vote for anyone besides the corporate candidate a SPOILER pretty much sums up the official DNC attitude.  As if the DNC is entitled to those votes, and as if everyone should be on the DNC page as far as what they want.   With all due respect, fuck that.

            • #245471
              Jim Lane
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 441

              You write that “heralding RCV as some sort of fix is disingenuous.” I don’t think anyone is touting it as a panacea. It doesn’t fix all problems. I was addressing the question asked by @coldmountaintrail about whether it fixes any problem.

              The problem I outlined isn’t a problem for you, personally, given the views you reiterate in your post. As I tried to make clear, though, all I’m trying to point out is that there are many people who disagree with you and for whom it is a problem. The argument for IRV is that, with regard to those voters, it makes the system more democratic by improving the functionality of their ballots.

              You write, “I cannot believe that you perhaps are actually trying to make JPR into a little DNC stronghold no matter who the candidate is?” I appreciate your not believing it. I don’t want JPR to be a DNC stronghold, and even if I wanted it, I wouldn’t waste time on such a hopeless mission.

              JPR is, however, a discussion board. People express differing opinions. In 2016, I was in the minority of members who (agreeing with Bernie!) voted for Bernie in the primary but Clinton in the general election. Other members supported Stein, or a Bernie write-in, or even Trump. The admins have evidently decided that none of these views is so heinous as to violate the ToS. The expression of differing views doesn’t mean that anyone is trying to take over or transform the site.

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

               

            • #245474
              Charles
              Participant
              • Total Posts: 1,595

              @djean111

               

              Under RCV Trump still most likely would have won as there were around 2 1/2 times as many votes for Gary Johnson as there were for Jill Stein in 2016

               

              Gary Johnson received 4,489,233 total votes and 3.27% of the national vote, coming third in the nation and setting a record for the Libertarian Party’s best ever electoral result in the process.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson_2016_presidential_campaign#Results

               

              On Election  Day, Stein  finished in 4th with over 1,457,216 votes (more than the previous three Green tickets combined) and 1.07% of the popular vote.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jill_Stein_2016_presidential_campaign#Results

               

              And currently if we had RCV Bernie would be best positioned to win as he is the overwhelming 2nd choice of Democratic voters.

              https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/430261-sanders-biden-seen-as-most-popular-second-choices-for-dem

               

              So if one looks at the math and facts in both scenarios the claim that this somehow benefits the DNC don’t hold water.

              And rank choice voting is many years out from being used on a national level if it ever would be. The original article I posted is about electing state and local politicians. Any expansion would most likely happen at the state and local levels like it did in NYC recently. Jill Stein actively encouraged voters to vote for RCV in NYC.

              I agree RCV doesn’t address all aspects of corruption in the electoral process. That’s another matter that’s certainly important and needs to addressed. I agree that it’s more important than the issue of RCV. The two issues aren’t one and the same though and both can be dealt with especially at the state and local level.

              If you don’t like the prospect of RCV that’s fine. That’s your choice.

              RCV is not a perfect system and it still can suffer from corruption just as much as the current standard two party system. Still the third parties believe it would help them gain leverage so I am very open to it. The Greens, Libertarians, and other indies wouldn’t support it if they thought it would actually hurt their cause.

               

               

              Bernie: "Not Me. Us"

    • #245314
      whispers
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 414

      There is a lot of propaganda about how difficult this RCV is by Republicans.  Please don’t be fooled by the propaganda.  If someone wins with RCV that you don’t want, it is because a majority of voters would be happier with this choice, and that IS democracy, whether you or I are happy with that choice and I won’t be with a corporatist centrist, or anyone but Bernie.

      • #245325
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,064

        It is the process by which the candidates get to the ballot that is corrupt.  And then the parties would game the system.  We cannot even believe a vote count any more.  So RCV is, to me, just a band-aid slapped on to a festering sore with a pronouncement of   “All better!”.

        • #245361
          whispers
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 414

          We who support RCV do not consider it as the end all, djean, we support it as one part of making our system better and we know much more needs to be done.  It is a STEP in the process of improving our democracy.  There is much more that needs to be done, and I think we all know that.  The problems with voting in this country will not be covered by some band aid solution, and we who have worked for this process in Maine know that much more needs to be done.  We work for clean elections where candidates do not accept corporate or out of state financing and get their money from the people for whom they should be working, we the voters.  Please don’t be dismissive of steps in the process.  They may only be steps, but they are in the right direction.

        • #245371
          whispers
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 414

          And, I am not a centrist voter who would listen to anything the DNC has to say about my choice.  I want the establishment democrats gone, centrists, corporatists neoliberals.  I don’t trust any of them to do right for the people.  I think this will be a harder system for them to game and it will give we the people more choice.

        • #245465
          algernon
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 539

          So you don’t believe in US democracy.  Yet there’s an underlying suggestion that you support Sanders’ candidacy.  A candidacy in what, if not an election?

          • #245496
            Cold Mountain Trail
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 8,780

            I think the poster believes in democracy, but believes it has been corrupted.

          • #245499
            djean111
            Participant
            • Total Posts: 4,064

            Wow.  Hyperbole much?  False equivalency much?  Straw man much?

            I believe in Democracy.  I do NOT believe we have democracy in the US; whatever we have is corrupted.  I believe in Bernie, not a party.  And I believe that the DNC will try to undermine Bernie just like it did in 2016.  That is not “democracy” – a corporation picking the candidates.  RCV is just a band-aid and IMO will be gamed by both parties.  Oh, and Bernie/elections?  The DNC admitted – boasted – that it certainly was legal for them to rig the primaries in 2016.  Only a fool would believe they won’t do it again. You don’t even have a point in there.

    • #245383
      Cold Mountain Trail
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 8,780

      There is no second choice for me.  There is no one on that long list of names I think would improve my situation, the situation of people I know, or for that matter, the situation of the US as a whole.  Its a list of bozos, conmen, liars & untrustworthy careerists (yes, thats you liz).

      Obama was the last time I will hope against my gut instincts.  My instincts were right, he was a Trojan horse.

      still bernie or bust, because its too late for status quo and caretaker leadership.

    • #245420
      algernon
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 539

      I think ranked choice favors the left, because it totally favors the intervention of a left-wing third party in the ballot.  At this time, in the USA where there is no viable third party and politics is totally owned by the rich, thank you very much. Bernie Sanders who IMO is definitive of “the left” in the USA (I’m Canadian), is a Dem primary candidate trying to win over the Dems “from the inside”.  Even while his supporters express their hate for near all Dems.  Kinda awkward, that.  And if he fails, he won’t count in the 2020 election.

      There’re a lot of reasons to think that even if he wins in this Dem/Rep charade, and beats Trump in the election, he will be hit with a sledgehammer by the entire political and economic and possibly even military/police.  He’ll be hit by the inventors of “economic sanctions”.  He’ll be blamed for the results of the classic capitalist-strike, aimed to bring an intransigent province or state or country to its knees.  Think Venezuela.  He’ll be hit by a sledgehammer that was never used against Trump, because altho’ Trump was a bad son he was still one of them, not what they’d call the devil.  In that essential way, Sanders is different than Trump.

      eta: by this argument I mean that if there were a well founded ranked choice system and Sanders had been running all along his later career as a leader of third and distinct party, over time that party would have gained ground in all ways political and advantageous to the left-wing ideas he brings to the table.  In a ranked choice vote a Sanders voter could vote Sanders, and leave the rest blank if they wish, if they don’t want to rank second-bests, but they could vote for Sanders, and that’s what matters.

      • #245464
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,064

        @algernon

        Here in the US, there really no sane reason to believe election counts and results in the first place.  Which makes all of this moot, in a way.  As far as Bernie’s supporters and the Dem establishment – pretty hard to win over people who have no intention of allowing Bernie to enact any of his ideas if they can possible help it.  Their idea of getting along is for us to vote for them, not Bernie.  There is no other scenario.

         

    • #245491
      djean111
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 4,064

      The DNC considers third party votes as SPOILERS.  The RCV is a way to get around third party votes as SPOILERS.  Because, you know, the DNC deserves those votes.  The DNC is not interested in democracy at all – thus the boast that it can select the candidate in a back room if it so chooses.  So give me a break, okay?  Stop waving “democracy” around.  And getting a woman elected for the sake of getting a woman elected is identity politics at its very worst.  So is letting anyone connected with the DNC anywhere near a vote count or a recount.  FFS.

      • #245556
        Ohio Barbarian
        Moderator
        • Total Posts: 14,524

        @djean111 RCV could only “get around third party votes as spoilers” if the voters choose to actually use ranked choice voting and to vote for a Vichy Dem somewhere down the list. It’s totally optional. In a general election, you can vote Green and not have a second choice if you want. If I had had RCV in 2016, I would have probably had Stein #1 and Johnson or some other third party candidate #2 and that’s all, folks. I would not have been forced to vote for Hillary or Trump. Someone else might have picked Stein #1 and Hillary #2, but that’s their choice.

        If the voters want to be able to rank their choices, who are you to tell them that they can’t, which is exactly what the DNC and RNC have been doing for years? I just don’t understand your hostility to the system. Besides, RCV only kicks in if no one gets 50% +1 of the vote in the first round of counting.

        It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.--Eugene Debs

        Show me a man that gets rich by being a politician, and I'll show you a crook.--Harry Truman

        • #245575
          djean111
          Participant
          • Total Posts: 4,064

          @ohiobarbarian

          Indeed – who am I to tell anybody anything?  I know I am nobody, I am just expressing my opinion.  I have expressed the reasons I have, I am not in charge of deciding what happens, I will not even have a say in what happens.  You not understanding my “hostility” is not my problem.    I don’t understand the hostility towards my not agreeing with y’all.   But hey, I won’t post in this thread any more!  Or even read it!  Promise!

    • #245547
      game meat
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 1,239

      @djean111

      The RCV is a way to get around third party votes as SPOILERS. Because, you know, the DNC deserves those votes.

      Yea, it all boils down to a scheme to try to trick people into voting for them indirectly, under the guise of “muh democracy.”

      Like all of their convoluted attempts to socially engineer the elections, this one would be guaranteed to backfire a la pied piper.

      The funny thing is the Democrats actually benefit from the third parties (at least in 2016), but deny it for reasons I’ve never entirely understood. They’re all so hyper focused on gnashing their teeth at the Green party/Jill Stein, and festering in bitterness over Nader, that the fact that the right leaning Libertarian candidate usually gets more votes goes unacknowledged.

      Without third parties they would have done worse in 2016. At least according to their own logic that third party votes would automatically transfer to the major party candidate closest ideologically. I don’t think that’s true, but they seem convinced of it.

       

      • #245554
        djean111
        Participant
        • Total Posts: 4,064

        @gamemeat

        Yes.  Thank you.  Telling folks that hey, they could get their little spoiler vote out of their systems, but to go ahead and choose, say, Hillary! for second choice is a big huge tell.  I cannot think of any candidate this time around that I would choose as second to Bernie.  Or vote for if Bernie is not the candidate.  Not out of pique, out of disgust/disagreement with their agenda.

    • #245622
      whispers
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 414

      @algernon

      ” Even while his supporters express their hate for near all Dems.”

      I would look at those who support corporatist neoliberal Clintonesque types to expound on Hatred.  They are who you should be talking about.  When I or others state that we will not vote for those neoliberal candidates, it does not mean that we hate them.  We aren’t using the word HATE: you are. Neoliberalism has destroyed not just our country, but many others as well.  Why would we want to vote for candidates who support Neoliberalism?

       

       

       

       

       

       

       

    • #245632
      David the Gnome
      Participant
      • Total Posts: 2,604

      I appreciate the reasoned arguments here.  A lot of you have given this considerable thought – and that is good.  It just seems to me, that ranked choice voting could be a good idea if… the system was not already hopelessly corrupt.

      Say our preference is number one in a majority of votes.  Say that gains them 35% of the total – in the overall primary vote (not this time around, no National RCV yet – but maybe in the future).  So, what happens next?  The delegates and “super” delegates vote in round 2, since 1 did not claim a 50%+ majority, right?

      So, the super delegates can still vote for who ever they please, right?  Essentially an elite, typically wealthy and influential group of individuals.  How should we expect them to vote? Probably in their own best interests.

      In addition, check out the recent OP about how 200,000 primary voters were illegally purged – and no one did Jack shit about it.  Then we can, of course, add in the influence of the super PACs, who controls and/or audits the electronic vote, the paper ballots – and so on.

      Much of this can be solved – but only by removing the enormously wealthy lobbyists, special interest groups – and ultimately the influence that private money has over our elections.

      Bernie can kick everyone’s ass in fund raising, vote totals and so on… but unless a very ideal set of circumstances is met, he can still very easily not end up with the nomination.

      In a more just system, I think ranked choice voting would be a potentially great idea.  In our heavily corrupted one… I do not know what difference it can really make.

      Clean elections, public/tax payer funding only, a system of counting and at least two audits afterwards.  Also – very harsh penalties for any individual or group that does the kind of shit the RNC and DNC currently do all the damn time.

      First vote I paid any attention to was in the year 2000.  I was 16.  Shit hasn’t exactly gone uphill from there.

      Without meaningful legislation and reform, I fear RCV will accomplish nothing but the illusion of a fairer system.

Viewing 14 reply threads
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.