Will we ever see ranked-choice voting?

PhyloeBedoe

Sophomore
Apr 30, 2007
735
432
63
NYC
It would seem to me ranked choice voting ought to increase the numbers of voters, and also, allow some more challenging view points into the debate. Both are good outcomes in my mind.

From the nytimes: “In a traditional election, people who vote for a long-shot candidate — like Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential nominee, in 2000 — can end up hurting a top-tier candidate — like Al Gore that year. With ranked choice, progressive voters could have listed Nader first and Gore second. Once Nader failed to finish in the top two, the final round of the election would have reallocated his voters to their second choice, which often would have been Gore.“
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC

F.Fletch

Sophomore
Gold Member
Aug 12, 2018
749
999
93
Shoot, I thought the narrative that election was that the Florida ballot was just too confusing, and the blue hairs in a few counties mistakenly voted for Pat Buchanan.
That's why it took a month to discern whether Grandma Tutti's pregnant chad was actually a vote for AlGore or Bush.
Who knew it could be solved so easily?
The New York Times is no longer worthy of lining a bird cage.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Crayfish57 and DANC

jsig

Senior
Apr 8, 2004
2,620
1,137
113
No it makes to much sense and threatens the current 2 parties and crony media outlets who won't allow other parties to voice their viewpoints in events such as debates. Why would they want a sane person in debates that would open up the eyes of the voters and expose the idiocy of the Republocrats like Biden, Hillary and Trump.
 

INRanger27

All-American
Jan 11, 2005
9,093
10,371
113
No it makes to much sense and threatens the current 2 parties and crony media outlets who won't allow other parties to voice their viewpoints in events such as debates. Why would they want a sane person in debates that would open up the eyes of the voters and expose the idiocy of the Republocrats like Biden, Hillary and Trump.
This is exactly right. Ranked choice is such an obvious improvement to our electoral system that it’ll never happen.
 

Marvin the Martian

Hall of Famer
Sep 4, 2001
29,945
13,605
113
This is exactly right. Ranked choice is such an obvious improvement to our electoral system that it’ll never happen.
Or at least it will never happen in any state that is close to a battleground state. Maine and now NY has it. I think it does an excellent job of allowing voters to signal. As an example, if the Libertarians were to get 15%, it would tell the parties the libertarian vote is more significant. Same for Green or any other 3rd party.
 

TMFT

Sophomore
Nov 4, 2019
862
2,490
93
Ranked choice is the only way for a party outside of the Ds & Rs to have a chance to make an impact in government because the current method basically guarantees only 2 viable parties (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law).

While we're at it, I'd also like to see proportional representation in Congress to avoid the effects of gerrymandering (from both parties).

Finally on my democracy wish list would be to amend how electoral votes are distributed. Since getting rid of the EC altogether is a non-starter, I'd like to see the top vote getter in a state get 2 and the rest of the EC votes for that state are distributed proportionally so you don't have all of the wasted votes in 40 states that aren't remotely gonna swing in any given election.
 

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,223
2,858
113
I wish but I don't see it happening.

How about just get rid of parties and let people choose their own policies to run on? Not going to happen either but would be better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: i'vegotwinners

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,486
16,871
113
I wish but I don't see it happening.

How about just get rid of parties and let people choose their own policies to run on? Not going to happen either but would be better.
How about if we just let unicorns vote?

Idiot.
 
  • Like
Reactions: F.Fletch

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,722
1,630
113
It would seem to me ranked choice voting ought to increase the numbers of voters, and also, allow some more challenging view points into the debate. Both are good outcomes in my mind.

From the nytimes: “In a traditional election, people who vote for a long-shot candidate — like Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential nominee, in 2000 — can end up hurting a top-tier candidate — like Al Gore that year. With ranked choice, progressive voters could have listed Nader first and Gore second. Once Nader failed to finish in the top two, the final round of the election would have reallocated his voters to their second choice, which often would have been Gore.“
I think that makes sense where a candidate has to get over 50% of the votes to win. Otherwise I wouldn't be in favor of it,
 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,543
3,826
113
It would seem to me ranked choice voting ought to increase the numbers of voters, and also, allow some more challenging view points into the debate. Both are good outcomes in my mind.

From the nytimes: “In a traditional election, people who vote for a long-shot candidate — like Ralph Nader, the Green Party presidential nominee, in 2000 — can end up hurting a top-tier candidate — like Al Gore that year. With ranked choice, progressive voters could have listed Nader first and Gore second. Once Nader failed to finish in the top two, the final round of the election would have reallocated his voters to their second choice, which often would have been Gore.“

Gore actually won.

stolen election.
 

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,325
1,401
113
I have a great idea! lets make a tournament out of it like basketball. best of 5 and then best of seven . Then have a final best of seven but if any games go to overtime we start all over and do it again. lets have the US be in a 24/7 election year and depending on whatever is trending for that day we vote. You people are absolutely nuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 76-1 and DANC

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,543
3,826
113
economically progressive Dem candidates literally have zero chance to win, ever.

the Wall St owned DNC and the corporate media will never let it happen, even when the economically progressive ideas are wildly popular.

you can win when one party is against you, and all their alligned media machines...

but when both parties, including the one you're running under, will fight you to the death, and ALL corporate media, including those aligned with the party who's ticket your running under, will all fight you to the death due to not being in Wall St's or said medias' best interests, you have no chance, because you'll never get out of the primary, because Wall St and all corp media on all sides will never allow it.

to win, you must at least have some big media on your side.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: MrBing

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,325
1,401
113
economically progressive Dem candidates literally have zero chance to win, ever.

the Wall St owned DNC and the corporate media will never let it happen, even when the economically progressive ideas are wildly popular.

you can win when one party is against you, and all their alligned media machines...

but when both parties, including the one you're running under, will fight you to the death, and ALL corporate media, including those aligned with the party who's ticket your running under, will all fight you to the death due to not being in Wall St's or said medias' best interests, you have no chance, because you'll never get out of the primary, because Wall St and all corp media on all sides will never allow it.

to win, you must at least have some big media on your side.
Seriously do you ever read what you post and think?
 

F.Fletch

Sophomore
Gold Member
Aug 12, 2018
749
999
93
Gore actually won.

stolen election.
Stop yourself.

No, he didn't. Every major newspaper in the state of Florida did their own canvassing and recount.

And guess what??

Bush won every single, fracking time.

He won in spite of the corporate media, which you incessantly rail on, like their somehow in bed with the Republicans, calling Florida for Gore before the polls had even closed in the panhandle, which is in the central time zone, and was overwhelmingly Bush country.

Wise up.....
 
Last edited:

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,543
3,826
113
Stop yourself.

No, he didn't. Every major newspaper in the state of Florida did their own canvassing and recount.

And guess what??

Bush won every single, fracking time.

He won in spite of the corporate media, which you incessantly rail on like their somehow in bed with the Republicans, calling Florida for Gore before the polls had even closed in the panhandle, which is in the central time zone, and was overwhelmingly Bush country.

Wise up.....


rigged.

stop the steal.

on the down side, at least we got 20 plus yrs of non stop wars started on an outright lie, the financial meltdown, and nothing positive, out of the steal.
 

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,223
2,858
113
Stop yourself.

No, he didn't. Every major newspaper in the state of Florida did their own canvassing and recount.

And guess what??

Bush won every single, fracking time.

He won in spite of the corporate media, which you incessantly rail on like their somehow in bed with the Republicans, calling Florida for Gore before the polls had even closed in the panhandle, which is in the central time zone, and was overwhelmingly Bush country.

Wise up.....

That election was a lot closer than the one trump claims was stolen
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC

TMFT

Sophomore
Nov 4, 2019
862
2,490
93
I have a great idea! lets make a tournament out of it like basketball. best of 5 and then best of seven . Then have a final best of seven but if any games go to overtime we start all over and do it again. lets have the US be in a 24/7 election year and depending on whatever is trending for that day we vote. You people are absolutely nuts.
I'll break it down for you.

A race has three candidates in a competitive district. One is one is center left, one is center right, and one is far right. Of the three CL has 45% support, CR has 35% support, and FR has 20% support. If everyone votes their preference out of the 3, CL wins every time even thought the vast majority of the FR supporters would have CR as their 2nd choice. If FR doesn't exist in the race, CR wins every time. As a result the FR candidates eventually disappear because they're causing the 2nd most preferred candidate to consistently lose and we're left with only two choices on who to support.

With ranked choice, FR supporters get to vote for FR #1 & CR #2. When no one hits 50%+1, the FR votes get allocated to their #2 and CR wins because CR has the most overall support and it doesn't get thrown to CL just because the vote on the right got split.

This isn't even hard to implement and, as others have said, it actually encourages 3rd parties where voters can show their true preferences without leading to the result of their least preferred candidate winning.

Although I'm curious what makes you think this is absolutely nuts, other than it's different than what you're used to.
 

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,223
2,858
113
I'll break it down for you.

A race has three candidates in a competitive district. One is one is center left, one is center right, and one is far right. Of the three CL has 45% support, CR has 35% support, and FR has 20% support. If everyone votes their preference out of the 3, CL wins every time even thought the vast majority of the FR supporters would have CR as their 2nd choice. If FR doesn't exist in the race, CR wins every time. As a result the FR candidates eventually disappear because they're causing the 2nd most preferred candidate to consistently lose and we're left with only two choices on who to support.

With ranked choice, FR supporters get to vote for FR #1 & CR #2. When no one hits 50%+1, the FR votes get allocated to their #2 and CR wins because CR has the most overall support and it doesn't get thrown to CL just because the vote on the right got split.

This isn't even hard to implement and, as others have said, it actually encourages 3rd parties where voters can show their true preferences without leading to the result of their least preferred candidate winning.

Although I'm curious what makes you think this is absolutely nuts, other than it's different than what you're used to.
conservative means no change whatsoever...unless it is their idea
 
  • Haha
Reactions: DANC

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,543
3,826
113
Yes it was probably the closest presidential election in our history. Bush won. And it is irrefutable. Sorry.

if you say it's irrefutable, obviously that changes everything and i take it all back.

on that note, i deem Biden's victory over Trump super extra irrefutable.

glad we now can put the whole stop the steal things to rest.

please call the Az auditors and let them know they can all go home now.


Emily+LItella.jpg
 

Crayfish57

Junior
Sep 18, 2013
1,325
1,401
113
I'll break it down for you.

A race has three candidates in a competitive district. One is one is center left, one is center right, and one is far right. Of the three CL has 45% support, CR has 35% support, and FR has 20% support. If everyone votes their preference out of the 3, CL wins every time even thought the vast majority of the FR supporters would have CR as their 2nd choice. If FR doesn't exist in the race, CR wins every time. As a result the FR candidates eventually disappear because they're causing the 2nd most preferred candidate to consistently lose and we're left with only two choices on who to support.

With ranked choice, FR supporters get to vote for FR #1 & CR #2. When no one hits 50%+1, the FR votes get allocated to their #2 and CR wins because CR has the most overall support and it doesn't get thrown to CL just because the vote on the right got split.

This isn't even hard to implement and, as others have said, it actually encourages 3rd parties where voters can show their true preferences without leading to the result of their least preferred candidate winning.

Although I'm curious what makes you think this is absolutely nuts, other than it's different than what you're used to.
So once again and i didnt take time to read all of your post, its a message board not save the world here. So we need to have elections to determine elections to determine elections. Dont we have primaries?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

DANC

Hall of Famer
Gold Member
Dec 21, 2001
12,486
16,871
113
Yes it was probably the closest presidential election in our history. Bush won. And it is irrefutable. Sorry.
You know you're giving him a woody by engaging in an actual exchange with him, right?

No matter which side of the political aisle you're on, all agree i'vegotwinners is a kook, although I do admit he makes some good points very occassionally. But, his posts are overwhelmingly out in left field.
 

jsig

Senior
Apr 8, 2004
2,620
1,137
113
The Primaries are a travesty. They provide with candidates that are corrupt, evil and have this country into the ground for 50+ years with their wars and poor management of govt.. Primaries is where the ranked voting needs to be and more diverse parties/candidates should get their voice heard. The top 2 after the primaries be it 2 from same party or whatever should be in final election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UncleMark

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,223
2,858
113
You know you're giving him a woody by engaging in an actual exchange with him, right?

No matter which side of the political aisle you're on, all agree i'vegotwinners is a kook, although I do admit he makes some good points very occassionally. But, his posts are overwhelmingly out in left field.

He may be in left field but you can't even see the field from your padded room.
 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,543
3,826
113
You know you're giving him a woody by engaging in an actual exchange with him, right?

No matter which side of the political aisle you're on, all agree i'vegotwinners is a kook, although I do admit he makes some good points very occassionally. But, his posts are overwhelmingly out in left field.

i always make good points.

that's why half here hate me half the time, and the other half hate me the other half of the time.

that i've totally alienated the sheep on both sides, is the surest sign i must be doing something right.
 

NPT

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 28, 2001
12,722
1,630
113
conservative means no change whatsoever...unless it is their idea
Don't start that crap... everyone wants change UNTIL they get it like they want it and then they don't want to change anything. Both liberals and conservatives are alike when it comes to change, If you don't believe that then imagine the outcry from liberals if the Republicans tried make abortion illegal, do away with gay marriage, etc.... now who doesn't want to change?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

F.Fletch

Sophomore
Gold Member
Aug 12, 2018
749
999
93
if you say it's irrefutable, obviously that changes everything and i take it all back.

on that note, i deem Biden's victory over Trump super extra irrefutable.

glad we now can put the whole stop the steal things to rest.

please call the Az auditors and let them know they can all go home now.


Emily+LItella.jpg
I never once mentioned Trump. You and the ignorant lefties like Hickory have to insert Trump into any conversation regarding the executive branch. You made the ridiculous statement that 2000 was stolen by Bush.

So for the third time, where's the evidence big boy?

I won't hold my breath.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: DANC

TMFT

Sophomore
Nov 4, 2019
862
2,490
93
So once again and i didnt take time to read all of your post, its a message board not save the world here. So we need to have elections to determine elections to determine elections. Dont we have primaries?
All you're doing is showing that you don't understand ranked choice voting. It's not elections on top of elections on top of elections. You rank choices so it can be done instantly. It's called an instant run off. It works. As opposed to the states, like Georgia for example, with the jungle system that results in run offs and entirely new elections on a regular basis.
 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,543
3,826
113
I never once mentioned Trump. You and the ignorant lefties like Hickory have to insert Trump into any conversation regarding the executive branch. You made the ridiculous statement that 2000 was stolen by Bush.

So for the third time, where's the evidence big boy?

I won't hold my breath.....


i never said you mentioned Trump.

try and compose yourself.
 

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,223
2,858
113
Don't start that crap... everyone wants change UNTIL they get it like they want it and then they don't want to change anything. Both liberals and conservatives are alike when it comes to change, If you don't believe that then imagine the outcry from liberals if the Republicans tried make abortion illegal, do away with gay marriage, etc.... now who doesn't want to change?

They are trying to make abortion illegal and do away with gay marriage.

Yes, parties don't want change when a law is how they like it but the GOP has been stonewalling most everything that comes up to the table from the dems, including supreme court nominations.
 

IU_Hickory

All-Big Ten
Aug 29, 2017
3,223
2,858
113
I never once mentioned Trump. You and the ignorant lefties like Hickory have to insert Trump into any conversation regarding the executive branch. You made the ridiculous statement that 2000 was stolen by Bush.

So for the third time, where's the evidence big boy?

I won't hold my breath.....

still waiting on evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. I won't hold my breath either
 

Bulk VanderHuge

All-American
Dec 20, 2017
8,228
9,544
113
The Southern Sun
All you're doing is showing that you don't understand ranked choice voting. It's not elections on top of elections on top of elections. You rank choices so it can be done instantly. It's called an instant run off. It works. As opposed to the states, like Georgia for example, with the jungle system that results in run offs and entirely new elections on a regular basis.
You do know you are trying to explain this to someone who has trouble with scratchers down at the local Eat Here/Get Gas establishment, right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IU_Hickory

TheOriginalHappyGoat

Moderator
Moderator
Oct 4, 2010
57,880
31,071
113
Margaritaville
You know you're giving him a woody by engaging in an actual exchange with him, right?

No matter which side of the political aisle you're on, all agree i'vegotwinners is a kook, although I do admit he makes some good points very occassionally. But, his posts are overwhelmingly out in left field.
Everyone on both sides also agrees you're an idiot. You really want to rely on the wisdom of the masses?
 

i'vegotwinners

Hall of Famer
Dec 1, 2006
11,543
3,826
113
They are trying to make abortion illegal and do away with gay marriage.

Yes, parties don't want change when a law is how they like it but the GOP has been stonewalling most everything that comes up to the table from the dems, including supreme court nominations.

here's the problem.

the parties now operate as competing corporations in a finite market that can't be grown anymore, and it's all about jobs and the ability to leverage money, rather than being about policy.

if party A came up with a way to add ten million great paying jobs, cure cancer, and give great low cost healthcare to everyone, without it costing a penny, party B would fight it to the death, since enabling it's passage would help party A candidates in the next election.

it's not about policy anymore, it's only about jobs and power.

their jobs, not yours.
 

HooDatGuy

Senior
Sep 10, 2020
2,011
2,224
113
if party A came up with a way to add ten million great paying jobs, cure cancer, and give great low cost healthcare to everyone, without it costing a penny, party B would fight it to the death, since enabling it's passage would help party A candidates in the next election.
That’s unadulterated horse shit. Party B’s candidates would get swamped anyway when voters realized they didn’t vote for the bill.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: DANC