Rank choice voting

[Salty]

Are are your thoughts about rank choice voting?

 

[Ben1445]

Are are your thoughts about rank choice voting?

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.

 

[Van]

Are are your thoughts about rank choice voting?

It is a communist plot with a Capital C.

 

[Jerome]

It's rank!

 

[Salty]

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

 

[Van]

SNIP

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.

 

[Salty]

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!

 

[Ben1445]

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!

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.