First you do not see the reasons of post 6, but see them in post 17?
I asked you to address your reasons for advocacy of RCV, I provided reasons for rejecting it as a ploy to achieve minority rule.
-
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
I asked you to address your reasons for advocacy of RCV, I provided reasons for rejecting it as a ploy to achieve minority rule.
Looks like we are at a standstill -
You gave your reasons - which make no sense to me
I gave you my reasons for - and you don't accept it!
As far as the Heritage - yes - it did indicated some challengers to over come -
Challenges that can easily be overcome
I will ask this - so using my example in post 5 - no one gets the majority
so there is a runoff off of the top two - well, Bill who came in second place the first time would end up winning any ways.
AFTER a SECOND election which costs the govt (= you as a taxpayer) more money. Not to mention the $$ the candidate spends and the time citizens need to return to the polls. The ONLY winners is the media - who makes money due to additional advertising!
So we end up with the same result!
You gave your reasons - which make no sense to me
I gave you my reasons for - and you don't accept it!
As far as the Heritage - yes - it did indicated some challengers to over come -
Challenges that can easily be overcome
I will ask this - so using my example in post 5 - no one gets the majority
so there is a runoff off of the top two - well, Bill who came in second place the first time would end up winning any ways.
AFTER a SECOND election which costs the govt (= you as a taxpayer) more money. Not to mention the $$ the candidate spends and the time citizens need to return to the polls. The ONLY winners is the media - who makes money due to additional advertising!
So we end up with the same result!
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
This is not the worst thing that we spend extra money on. Any politician who thinks they are saving money with rank choice voting has other plans for that money or is just attempting to sound fiscally responsible. The other option is they have been sold a bill of goods.
Given how long it has taken Maine to determine who won in close election - especially when recounts can be requested (margin of 0.5% or less) - I'm not sure how much less costly than a runoff. This has been more of an issue with Maine legislators rather than US Congress elections, though ranked-choice tipped the 2nd District representative race from R to D in (IIRC) 2018.
One issue for me is the possibility of someone with very few 1st place votes being elected - not a big chance but not impossible. Say that both candidate A and candidate B got 44-45% of the vote, and each of them had candidate C as 2nd choice. C would win despite only 10% of 1st choices.
I'm not sure if Nebraska still splits votes as Maine does. The Pine Tree State awards 2 EC votes for the statewide vote but counts votes for each of its 2 congressional districts. Trump has taken the more rural 2nd District each time while losing the statewide count.
Yes, Maine and Neb still has the option of splitting it EC - which IMHO is a great ideal!
As far as candidate C initally getting 10% he might win the runoff - well in a runoff - the one with fewer votes would not be in the runoff.
1) There is no need to avoid Majority rule, achieved by Run-off Elections, except to achieve Minority rule. Saving money provides cover for an evil agenda.
2) The reasons I provided to reject RCV are valid. Run-off elections allow Majority rule.
3) We need the Save America Act to protect our election system from the schemes of the Communists, such as citizens voting for the single person they want to represent them.
Interesting conversation . . . okay, I'm no fan of RCV just because say you have 5 candidates. In the second round of voting, you'll be left with four. If you voted for the one that finished fifth, they allocate your vote to your second choice, but whoever voted for the other four are locked in, until round 3. Then the person that voted first or second to third place gets that vote allocated to the other two but voters for one and two are still locked in. Look at the average voter, this is too complicated and convoluted and look at the average programmer who's going to allocate all these votes in all these rounds.
Yes, RCV did jam up Alaska but that state is off anyways - I never believed, pre-RCV, that Murk won that write-in vote years ago, and as for that D sneaking in, really Sarah Palin should have stayed out the race, instead of jumping in at the last minute. And RCV may have helped that awful NYC mayor.
I don't think it always helps the left:
townhall.com
and some "blue" states have voted it down, like Colorado. There's the ballot fatigue, the idea of an instant run-off that you have already voted in not knowing the outcome at all, and no time to adjust. RCV looks pretty easy to game, especially in a state the one party dominates. Nah.
Yes, RCV did jam up Alaska but that state is off anyways - I never believed, pre-RCV, that Murk won that write-in vote years ago, and as for that D sneaking in, really Sarah Palin should have stayed out the race, instead of jumping in at the last minute. And RCV may have helped that awful NYC mayor.
I don't think it always helps the left:
It’s Time For Conservatives To Embrace Ranked Choice Voting
The implications of MAGA radio host Frank Morano’s dominating win last month for a seat on New York
and some "blue" states have voted it down, like Colorado. There's the ballot fatigue, the idea of an instant run-off that you have already voted in not knowing the outcome at all, and no time to adjust. RCV looks pretty easy to game, especially in a state the one party dominates. Nah.