Are are your thoughts about rank choice voting?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Rank choice voting
- Thread starter Salty
- Start date
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
It’s terrible.
It is a divide and conquer sort of result that in my view turns our elections into parliamentary factions. This is how we end up with such liberal conservatives in Alaska and Maine.
The reason so many states have banned it is because they are not interested in the way it has crippled the integrity of the vote.
The map speaks for itself if you are aware of the political leaning in each state.
It is a communist plot with a Capital C.
So some here are giving the results - but NOT the actual reason.
Now maybe, I am over-simplifying:
Here are the results
Initial vote ......2nd choice / new total ...........3rd choice new total
Adam 30 votes..................... 5 / 35 ....................................... 6 / 41
Bill 26 votes ....................15/ 41 ...................................... 18 / 59
Charlie 13votes......................11/ 24
Dave 9 votes
Earnie 8 votes
Frank 6 votes
Jim 4 votes
Kevin 4 votes
So Bill wins the election - even though he only came in second on the original vote
Since Adam did not get the majority of the votes - should he actually be elected to the office?
So why is this bad - how is it "communist"
What am I missing
Now maybe, I am over-simplifying:
Here are the results
Initial vote ......2nd choice / new total ...........3rd choice new total
Adam 30 votes..................... 5 / 35 ....................................... 6 / 41
Bill 26 votes ....................15/ 41 ...................................... 18 / 59
Charlie 13votes......................11/ 24
Dave 9 votes
Earnie 8 votes
Frank 6 votes
Jim 4 votes
Kevin 4 votes
So Bill wins the election - even though he only came in second on the original vote
Since Adam did not get the majority of the votes - should he actually be elected to the office?
So why is this bad - how is it "communist"
What am I missing
Take a look at the map in post #2. Note the red states ban, whereas the blue states are allowing the change in voting. The dark green, light green and blue.
If no one gets a majority, as in the initial first choice in your example, then a run-off might be run, so the majority vote prevails.
If Bill won the run-off, fine and dandy.
But the purpose of rank-choice is to avoid a run-off election. It serves the same purpose and ends up saving a lot of money - for the govt and the candidates!
And what does Red State/Blue State have to do with it?
And what makes Rank voting "Communist"?
The only "Vote procedure" I do not like is in California - where all parties/ candidates are one one slate and the top 2 are in the General election p EVEN IF they are in the same party!
The other election policy I like is in Maine and Neb (I think) that allows the State to split the Electoral Vote. The only change I would make would be that a Candidate EC vote would be based on the % of votes - ie - a State/Commonwealth has 12 EC - the state wide vote winner would be awarded the two "senate EC votes . The remaining votes would be based on the statewide popular vote. So if a candidate received 10 % he would be awarded 1 EC - even if a minor party candidate!
And what does Red State/Blue State have to do with it?
And what makes Rank voting "Communist"?
The only "Vote procedure" I do not like is in California - where all parties/ candidates are one one slate and the top 2 are in the General election p EVEN IF they are in the same party!
The other election policy I like is in Maine and Neb (I think) that allows the State to split the Electoral Vote. The only change I would make would be that a Candidate EC vote would be based on the % of votes - ie - a State/Commonwealth has 12 EC - the state wide vote winner would be awarded the two "senate EC votes . The remaining votes would be based on the statewide popular vote. So if a candidate received 10 % he would be awarded 1 EC - even if a minor party candidate!
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
I can’t remember which Alaska election I followed, but it was a pretty clear picture that the rank choice voting dilutes the vote. You end up with three or four “conservative” candidates instead of running a primary and having one republican, one democrat and one or maybe two independents.
Parties should figure out who they are endorsing ahead of time. Primaries are the better way. The voters of the party can select their candidates before having everyone run for office and each get one vote for voting for themselves.
An exaggeration but it should help make the point clearer.
Alaska has really messed this up after implementing an open primary where the highest four candidates from the primaries advance to the general election. If you run ten of one party and four of the other, there is a good chance that the four end up with the larger majorities and erase the other party from the ballot.
It’s a crumby way to do things.
Ben,
Apparently, I agree with you! Yes, each party should nominate their own candidate BUT in California - it is state law of only one primary using the top two (regardless of party). I agree i its a crumby way to do things. So the Party has no say in it. But then again I wonder which party pushed that law thur.
California primary system
The Proposition was a state wide ballot - which failed at least once- but later passed
Apparently, I agree with you! Yes, each party should nominate their own candidate BUT in California - it is state law of only one primary using the top two (regardless of party). I agree i its a crumby way to do things. So the Party has no say in it. But then again I wonder which party pushed that law thur.
California primary system
The Proposition was a state wide ballot - which failed at least once- but later passed
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
For my own part, anything that breaks down the integrity of a free nation may be said to be a page from their book.
It may be painting with a broad brush, kind of like when people say the devil made me do it while the devil is busy elsewhere, but it may also be quite accurate.
I don’t mean to answer for @Van, but I do think that it is not disingenuous to apply pages to the communist anthology when following the page will point you in the direction for communism.
My 2 cents. It’s a good thing we don’t cut up money any more. It would probably be worth only a penny and a half.
But HOW does rank choice voting break down the integrity of a free nation.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
It happens the same way as any other thing. An advantage is taken of the system. In this case the advantage is made. It is not that the conservatives can’t take advantage of the system, just that they are usually too busy or too honest to think out the competition to gain the advantage.
It may sound a bit like a conspiracy theory but it only takes a few “RINO’s” to draw off sufficient votes to remove conservatives altogether from the general elections.
There are some opportunities that conservatives have taken to equal the playing field. Recently, the idea of ballot harvesting where and to the extent it has been made legal has been practiced by conservatives. It works wonders for fair elections when both sides are working at the same thing. I don’t know about you, but I’ve never heard of a “DINO.”
Without getting too deep into politics, rino is another name for liar. It means your name and values don’t match.
It’s been a long time since I have seen a democrat who wasn’t willing to admit that they just want you to let them spend your money.
I am willing to listen to the other side - if anyone would tell me what it is!