"Ranked choice voting"

[KG1]

The State of Maine has adopted a ballot proposal measure that passed on whether to institute a ranked choice voting system.

Maine makes it harder to elect Trump-a-likes: so will the rest of the US follow suit?

Measure scraps first-past-the-post system and 'incentivises good manners'.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/maine-make...edium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/

Thoughts?

 

[jamil]

Please. Let's. Well, depending on how it's implemented.

 

[Jludo]

I like the idea.

 

[phylodog]

It's 2016, everything is for sale so why not?

 

[jamil]

It's 2016, everything is for sale so why not?

Why would ranked choice voting make that any more or less truer than it already is.

 

[hoosierdoc]

I thought I got to vote for one person. What is this contingent vote stuff?

 

[Twangbanger]

This is commonly suggested as an option that could prevent Trumps, including in past INGO discussions on the subject. But I personally don't think it will have the effect intended by its advocates. Certain INGO A-T'ers made much of the fact that in some instances, more people voted for someone other than Trump, than voted for him (an insignificant statement upon examination, since it could have been made about any of the candidates). However, it does not follow that all those people would rank Trump last. For example, I was a Cruz person, but Trump was my second choice. The INGO A-T'ers didn't seem to give much credence to the existence of such voters.

It is of course possible that one candidate ranks first in first-choice votes, but supporters of most other candidates uniformly rank him/her near last. But I think if you consider it rationally, that's a rather unlikely outcome. The most that can be said with certainty about this system, is that it would allow such a scenario, if it existed, to be discovered. But positing such a scenario in this election seems to me like A-T'ers projecting their own feelings of abhorrence of Trump onto others. The outcome showed that the supposed un-palatability of Trump was not in fact as widely-shared a feeling as the A-T'ers supposed. If this sort of mental masturbation soothes the butt-hurt, have at it. I'm not opposed.

It certainly has more positive upside potential than the bat-****-crazy idea that gunowners would be better off without the Electoral College. Nobody with a normally-functioning brain, in my opinion, can look at Presidential Elections since 2000, with attendant effects on Supreme Court gun decisions, and reach that conclusion. If this ranked-choice option serves as a less-harmful outlet for the butt-hurt, I'm all for it.

 

[hoosierdoc]

What if I flat out refused to put anyone's name second?

 

[singlesix]

[video]https://youtu.be/_5SLQXNpzsk[/video]

 

[rob63]

"Instead of the traditional first-past-the-post system where one candidate is chosen from two or more options, voters in Maine can now rank options on personal preference. As was the case before, if one gets a majority of first-choice votes, then they are the winner. If not, that is where it becomes interesting.

In those cases, the second choices of voters whose first choice was the last-place candidate become those voters' first choices. That process is then repeated until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote."

I don't really follow the logic of giving precedence to the 2nd choice of people who voted for whoever came in last?

 

[hoosierdoc]

It's an automatic recount and eliminating the lowest vote getter

 

[KLB]

"Instead of the traditional first-past-the-post system where one candidate is chosen from two or more options, voters in Maine can now rank options on personal preference. As was the case before, if one gets a majority of first-choice votes, then they are the winner. If not, that is where it becomes interesting.

In those cases, the second choices of voters whose first choice was the last-place candidate become those voters' first choices. That process is then repeated until one candidate has more than 50% of the vote."

I don't really follow the logic of giving precedence to the 2nd choice of people who voted for whoever came in last?

The one that finished last is dropped out of the race and all votes for that candidate are removed. That moves the second place vote into first place for the people that voted the last place candidate first.

 

[eldirector]

I'll see if I can back with up with Maths, but if I recall, forced-ranked voting usually leads to having the 2nd or 3rd "choice" win.

Meaning, in this last election, Gary Johnson would be President-Elect, because Clinton and Trump would have been the last choice for enough folks it would have cancelled their top rankings, pushing Johnson to the top.

Forced-Ranking breeds mediocrity.

 

[KLB]

I'll see if I can back with up with Maths, but if I recall, forced-ranked voting usually leads to having the 2nd or 3rd "choice" win.

Meaning, in this last election, Gary Johnson would be President-Elect, because Clinton and Trump would have been the last choice for enough folks it would have cancelled their top rankings, pushing Johnson to the top.

Forced-Ranking breeds mediocrity.

It would come into play before we are stuck with a few candidates that few can stomach.

 

[eldirector]

The entire thing would be unnecessary, if:
- people voted in the primary to select main-party candidates they actually liked
- we put forth candidates that were actually GOOD candidates
- we stopped voting straight-party

Tampering with the rules won't change anything as long as the players are the same.

 

[eldirector]

It would come into play before we are stuck with a few candidates that few can stomach.

If I am reading the methodology right, we could count first picks, which would likely be a mix of Trumps and Clintons, neither a clear winner, so they get tossed. Then we count second picks. NO ONE would have Trump listed second to Clinton, or vice-versa. The would either be top or the bottom. So, there would be a bunch of Johnsons, and (if she was even on the ballot) Steins.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

If I am reading the methodology right, we could count first picks, which would likely be a mix of Trumps and Clintons, neither a clear winner, so they get tossed. Then we count second picks. NO ONE would have Trump listed second to Clinton, or vice-versa. The would either be top or the bottom. So, there would be a bunch of Johnsons, and (if she was even on the ballot) Steins.

Eh, we've been voting for a bunch of Johnsons for a long time...

 

[KG1]

We've certainly had some rank choices for quite some time. Maybe it's time for a change.

 

[jamil]

This is commonly suggested as an option that could prevent Trumps, including in past INGO discussions on the subject. But I personally don't think it will have the effect intended by its advocates. Certain INGO A-T'ers made much of the fact that in some instances, more people voted for someone other than Trump, than voted for him (an insignificant statement upon examination, since it could have been made about any of the candidates). However, it does not follow that all those people would rank Trump last. For example, I was a Cruz person, but Trump was my second choice. The INGO A-T'ers didn't seem to give much credence to the existence of such voters.

It is of course possible that one candidate ranks first in first-choice votes, but supporters of most other candidates uniformly rank him/her near last. But I think if you consider it rationally, that's a rather unlikely outcome. The most that can be said with certainty about this system, is that it would allow such a scenario, if it existed, to be discovered. But positing such a scenario in this election seems to me like A-T'ers projecting their own feelings of abhorrence of Trump onto others. The outcome showed that the supposed un-palatability of Trump was not in fact as widely-shared a feeling as the A-T'ers supposed. If this sort of mental masturbation soothes the butt-hurt, have at it. I'm not opposed.

It certainly has more positive upside potential than the bat-****-crazy idea that gunowners would be better off without the Electoral College. Nobody with a normally-functioning brain, in my opinion, can look at Presidential Elections since 2000, with attendant effects on Supreme Court gun decisions, and reach that conclusion. If this ranked-choice option serves as a less-harmful outlet for the butt-hurt, I'm all for it.

I did two different mock ranked votes on INGO during the primaries. Not surprisingly, in both cases Cruz pretty much cleaned up, having the most first place votes and also scoring a lot of second place votes. In the first experiment Rand Paul was a close second. He also got a lot of first and second place votes. Both Paul and Cruz rarely scored votes in the bottom half.

Trump got a lot of first place votes as well. But he also got a lot of bottom half votes and scored very few second place votes. What that tells me is that at the time, INGOers either loved him or hated him. Overall, Trump ended up middle of the pack in the vote tally.

Opinion polls on Trump have consistently supported the idea that people either love him or hate him. He may have been second olace to Cruz for you, but that's probably not the way it is for most people.

 

[phylodog]

Why would ranked choice voting make that any more or less truer than it already is.

I reckon it would simply serve to support the assertion.

How long do proponents believe it would take to actually determine the winner of an election? 3 months? 6 months? 1 year? Which vote tallies would be subject to recounts?