Should we implement ranked choice voting?
For those who don't know, ranked choice is a system of voting in which the voter is allowed to choose several candidates who are running for a public office. You put your choices in order of who you would most like to see win the election and for any candidate that you would rather not see win, you don't pick that person at all. When the counting is done, the first choice of every voter is tallied and then the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Then, everything is counted again with the second choices being tallied for all the people who had the eliminated candidate as their first choice. The candidate with the least votes in this second counting is then eliminated and the pocess repeats itself until there is only one candidate left and that person is declared the winner.
The advantages of this system are that people feel that they can vote for who they really want without thinking that they have throne away their vote by choosing a third party candidate. The two party system which we currently have is a result of people only having one choice and therefore they choose the lesser of two evils because they'd rather use their vote to help make sure the person that they really don't like doesn't win rather than using it to help a candidate who they really like but has little chance of winning.
Ranked choice could help to end the two party system and encourage more people to vote. This is why I support it. Do you?
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Yes! This would go long way in making elections more fair, equitable, and honest.
ghettophilosopher
Level 7
Nov 19, 2018
0
Thank you for breaking it down here. I really like that idea.
RobertMartin
Level 8
Nov 18, 2018
0
Beats voting between one socialist whore or the other
moxy
Level 4
Nov 18, 2018
0
Socialist whores are the best kind of whores.
How about a three digit IQ be required to vote?
chucklesIII
Level 7
Nov 18, 2018
0
Or maybe pass a knowledge test prior to voting.
@thislife , Trumpsters say, "that's un american!"
@thislife It's too easy to abuse a system that requires a test be passed before voting. It would result in voter suppression. Partisans will get a hold of the tests and design them in ways that make it easier for their supporters to pass more difficult for their opponents.
@RoboGraham I do agree with you.
@RoboGraham , I agree but then, we no longer require paper ballots,. We gotta start somewhere.
@thislife Ok...now, you have heard of the Jim Crowe laws and the numerous ways...an "intelligence test" being one...in which the racist white southerners would suppress the black vote, right...?
This bad idea has been tried. That's how we know it was a bad idea.
And in all honesty, I'm kinda disappointed that I was the first one here to bring this up...
@expatri I am sorry. I really wasn't serious with my "knowlwdge test" comment. I actually think that an IQ test is a very bad idea, and that a test for knowledge of the ISSUES would be better than that, but not something I gave much thought to or would ever propose. I know I didn't say what I meant. My bad.
@thislife Well that's a relief! My apologies for missing the joke...
Now, while knowledge testing for voters has proved to be a slippery slope (to put it mildly), what about some standard of knowledge for our CANDIDATES?
I'd be happy if they could pass a basic Civics test on how our government works.
Better still if they were knowledgeable about the position they were campaigning for.
And the cherry on top of this would be if they had some experience in public service.
That...for me...would be a candidate worthy of serious consideration for whichever job they're applying for...
Proportional representation would be a much better choice.
PBuck0145
Level 7
Nov 18, 2018
1
How's that work?
The first past the post system is undemocratic and allows for minority rule. It removes the UK and USA from being considered leading democracies on the world stage.
British general elections are undemocratic, but Scottish elections which use a transferable vote system is democratic.
In the USA, you'll have to grow at least one more political party to be considered truly democratic.
Sofabeast
Level 7
Nov 18, 2018
0
In Ranked Choice Voting, doesn't the recount only happen when no first choice candidate gets over 50% of the votes? [fairvote.org]
sfvpool
Level 7
Nov 18, 2018
0
Yeah i think you're right about that. I left that out.
Honestly I was only just introduced to this concept today. My wife and I are thinking of targeting our support to election reform of various kinds (automatic voter registration, open primaries, anti-gerrymandering, etc.) and we ran across ranked choice voting. On first read it sounds like a good idea; I guess my biggest initial objection is it's probably too abstract for a lot of people to get their brains around it. I wouldn't reject it simply because people tend to fear what they don't understand, or because that will be taken advantage of by various vested interests. However if people don't really understand it they may have even less confidence in the validity of the system than they already do.
I guess my thought is, lay the foundation with automatic voter registration, open primaries, and fair election districting. This will get people far more involved and invested by making voting hassle-free and fundamentally fair. Then we can play with things like ranked choice voting.
Frankly I think the ultimate solution is true multi-party system like many other democracies have, and IIRC Australia combines that with something like ranked choice voting. A multi-party system would repeal Duverger's Law and give people real choices beyond the two dysfunctional and hyper-polarized national political parties we now have. Unfortunately I don't see it as being implemented, at least at a national level, apart form a complete collapse and reboot of the whole republic.
mordant
Level 8
Nov 18, 2018
1
I don't think it's too complicated for most people to understand. It's pretty simple, select your favorite, select your second favorite, and select a third favorite. Children can do that. And if some people don't get it, the mistake they are most likely to make would be to make only one selection. Which would still give them just as much of a vote as they have now.
@RoboGraham And if they're too dumb to get it do you really want them voting?
@RoboGraham I'm just wondering if "they guy I voted for didn't win" will be a problem for some folks if the explanation is more complicated than "he didn't get enough votes". But maybe I'm too cynical.
@mordant I don't follow
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.