Do you have an opinion on ranked voting?

I don’t like it. And I’m usually a democrat.

As I understand the mechanism (it is used in parts of Virginia), there’s all sorts of ways to game the system

Yeah, it’s a big step forward toward actual democracy. I’ve been preaching about since about at least the time I joined Fluther, back around 2007 or so.

The US “first past the post” voting system is why our politics can be so easily dominated by two big political parties, and why we have had to suffer with “the lesser of two evils” chosen by those parties, in all the big races (national Congress, Senate, and of course President).

That is, usually be get two big-party candidates that most people aren’t really happy about, except at least they aren’t the other big party candidate. If we get any third-party candidates, even if we like them better, they have no chance, because of how our voting system works.

But with ranked choice, or other such improved voting systems, we can list the candidates in our order of preference, and put the actually preferred ones above the big-party candidates, without reducing our ability to say which big-party candidate we prefer, if it comes down to them.

I would probably vote for it if it had a sunset clause. See how it works in real time. It probably doesn’t have a sunset clause.

I like the idea of voters being able to voice their second choice so their vote is heard by the parties and will count towards the ultimate winner. I assume people can solely put a first choice if they want? I would want to know that.

I think it would help solve the problem for people who feel they should sit out a vote or vote for third party and wind up helping the most disastrous candidate (in their opinion) win.

That’s how it seems to me if I understand it.

It’s scary to change the system though; I understand any hesitancy you might have.

I’m not a big fan of it. You could end up with a result where a person that was not selected as 1st in the vote was actually the winner. Not to mention it opens up the ability to screw with the results in a number of ways. I’ve heard the claims that it could help depolarize the election process, but the polarization isn’t because people vote for only one person. They are polarized because of the radically different views for the future and how to best help the country. That doesn’t change with ranked voting.

Personally, I’d like to see PACs outlawed. That pumps a whole lot of money into elections that are not even in an area where people who contribute to the PAC work or live. PACs do far more towards polarizing elections than the ballot. And if we limited the amount any candidate could spend on an election, that would weed out a lot more money grubbers.

^^^^ Overturn the Citizens United ruling!

We’ve had ranked voting in California for a few years. It’s better than the traditional method where someone can win with less than 50%, but it has its flaws. In some cities the candidates have run active “mark me #2” campaigns and cities have ended up with “winners” that no one really likes..

Foolish.

Well thats quite a mixed bag of answers! I’ve heard negatives by Dems and Reps and positives from other Dems. Very difficult to know how to cast my vote so I’ll keep researching.
Feel free to keep posting opinions! Looks like most Rep states have banned it but I dont vote out of fear, just facts.

@JLeslie Yes, you can just vote for one candidate. It just means you prefer that candidate, and don’t have a preference between the others.

And yes, it directly solves the problems of people sitting out votes, or helping the worse of two evils by voting for a third party.

I don’t think there is any actual downside, except from the perspective of the two big parties who would like to be able to continue to be the only two viable options in big elections. Or the ultra-powerful elements whose interests rule those two parties.

Just mucking up the water.

@seawulf575 “You could end up with a result where a person that was not selected as 1st in the vote was actually the winner.”
– I don’t know what you mean by that. It selects the candidate who is actually the most preferred. There’s no way that your vote could go towards helping someone you put lower than someone you put higher.

“Not to mention it opens up the ability to screw with the results in a number of ways.”
– Such as what, specifically?

” I’ve heard the claims that it could help depolarize the election process, but the polarization isn’t because people vote for only one person. They are polarized because of the radically different views for the future and how to best help the country. That doesn’t change with ranked voting.”
– Yes, it does. Because if someone likeable runs on “The two big parties are polarized, but I’m a sane alternative”, and the people prefer that message, that candidate can win, without taking away anyone’s ability to express their preference between the two polarized parties.

@zenvelo “We’ve had ranked voting in California for a few years. It’s better than the traditional method where someone can win with less than 50%, but it has its flaws. In some cities the candidates have run active “mark me #2” campaigns and cities have ended up with “winners” that no one really likes.”
– If/when the voters cast more votes for alternative candidates, then they’ll get one, yes. That makes sense. Of course it would be better if an alternative were actually someone more people liked, but how hard is that?

If it has a weakness, it’s that people don’t understand how it works yet. And as usual, both big parties have reasons to spread disinformation about it having problems.

But really, all it does is give you the option to express your actual preferences in races with more than two candidates.

@Zaku I think the concern is oversight/transparency. For all parties. With government trust low, may be a hard sell without more educating like Nancys War on Drugs.

@Zaku You just argued against yourself.

“I don’t know what you mean by that. It selects the candidate who is actually the most preferred. ”
“Yes, it does. Because if someone likeable runs on “The two big parties are polarized, but I’m a sane alternative”, and the people prefer that message, that candidate can win, without taking away anyone’s ability to express their preference between the two polarized parties.”

We’ve had 3rd party candidates in general elections with the “two party” system. They don’t win now because, while they might be likeable, people don’t want them as leaders, or at least not enough people want them. But you said they can win with ranked voting after saying that those sorts of candidates can’t win with ranked voting.

@KNOWITALL Well the trust (which goes along with the low understanding) may be the most significant of the (few and minor, in my opinion), issues that exist. That is, that if people (both intentionally, for political reasons, and unintentionally) don’t fully understand it, then people can more easily get confused (or confuse others, or just lie, as they already do with the existing dirt-simple system). I believe even that (very embarrassing, I would say) issue the US has, can be, and should be, fairly easily overcome, however, at least to the point that it wouldn’t really be meaningfully worse than the confusion, distrust, and lying, that we already have with the simpler system.

What we’ve had for too long, that most Americans do understand, is that when/if we have one candidate most people actually like, and two candidates that most people don’t really like, that the only way the liked candidate can win, or even get many votes, is by belonging to one of the two huge political parties (which most people also agree are corrupt to one degree or another).

And ranked voting fixes that problem, and should also result in better behavior and candidates from the big parties.

Ranked choice is relatively new in Alaska. I was ambivalent about it initially but although my top choice didn’t win in each race, it overall seems fair. It’s actually on the ballot itself again this year in an effort to eliminate it. Why? Primarily due to Native Alaskan Mary Peltola winning the late Don Young’s congressional seat (with the support of his family, I might add). I’d honestly never heard of her prior to this but have gradually come to respect her. even when I disagree. She’s probably been more independent than anything, working well with our frequently in the news GOP Senator Murkowski. She beat Sarah Palin to win the seat, however, and that didn’t make many happy.

@seawulf575 I didn’t “argue against myself”. As I mentioned, I didn’t know what you meant exactly in your previous post. What you wrote below makes your thinking clearer to me:

“We’ve had 3rd party candidates in general elections with the “two party” system. They don’t win now because, while they might be likeable, people don’t want them as leaders, or at least not enough people want them. But you said they can win with ranked voting after saying that those sorts of candidates can’t win with ranked voting.”

I didn’t say that likeable 3rd party candidates can’t win with ranked voting. I believe I’ve been consistently saying that they can.

The difference is that you assert that the reason such people don’t win now is that “people don’t want them as leaders”, but that is not true. The system we have keeps most people from voting for the people they would prefer, because they think their vote will be wasted if they vote for them, because the two-party system dominates when you can only simply vote “for” one person.

Ranked choice lets the people who actually have the most support to be elected, win.

If people, as you assume actually don’t want a likeable independent to win, they can/should/would simply not vote for them, or rank them lower.

“The system we have keeps most people from voting for the people they would prefer, because they think their vote will be wasted if they vote for them, because the two-party system dominates when you can only simply vote “for” one person.” People deciding not to vote for someone because they are afraid their vote will be wasted is a horrible excuse. I’ve voted for 3rd party candidates in the past because I felt they were the best person for the job. What you are saying is not a flaw with the current system, it is a flaw with the people. You are suggesting that people will vote for someone they don’t want instead of those they do want because they feel the person they do want can’t win. It isn’t about voting to be on the winning team.

And your argument is inherently flawed. If you have a very good 3rd party candidate, they get a lot of votes. Look at Ross Perot when he ran as an example. The problem is that most third party candidates aren’t that good. They resonate with a much smaller portion of the population as being great candidates. And with the ranked voting, they really could be elected even though a much smaller portion of the population likes them.

“People deciding not to vote for someone because they are afraid their vote will be wasted is a horrible excuse.”
– In what way is it even an “excuse”?

“What you are saying is not a flaw with the current system, it is a flaw with the people. You are suggesting that people will vote for someone they don’t want instead of those they do want because they feel the person they do want can’t win. It isn’t about voting to be on the winning team.”
– I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say here.
– It’s perhaps the most common thing people bemoan about US voting:
* Voting for the lesser of two evils.
* Not wanting to “waste their vote” on anyone but the Democrat or Republican nominee, because they are certain that just means they don’t get a say in whether the Democrat or the Republican will win, because of how US voting works.
* Saying others shouldn’t run, because it will only “spoil” the result of the contest between the two big-party candidates.
* People getting mad at the few who DO vote for an independent, because of all of the above.

“And your argument is inherently flawed. If you have a very good 3rd party candidate, they get a lot of votes. Look at Ross Perot when he ran as an example. The problem is that most third party candidates aren’t that good. They resonate with a much smaller portion of the population as being great candidates. And with the ranked voting, they really could be elected even though a much smaller portion of the population likes them.”
– No, my argument is NOT flawed.
– No, Ross Perot is an example of my points, not yours.
– No, the problem is NOT that 3rd party candidates are worse the big party candidates.
– No, ranked choice voting does NOT mean that a candidate who’s favored by less of the population, can be elected over a big party candidate who is more favored. That’s the whole point of ranked choice voting. The most approved candidate will win, not just the most approved big-party candidate.

So, with rank voting what type of strategy do the voters use? Do they vote for their favorite as number one and the strategic candidate number 2 or vice versa?

@JLeslie Yes. Voters list their actual order of preference. There’s no reason to do otherwise. It does nothing to reduce their “strategic” choice’s chances, except against their actual preferred candidate, so reversing those would just undermine their actual preference. The system will apply their preference to every contest until the winner is determined.