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.