Quote:With 2024 election results tabulated in most states, a clear pattern has emerged. That is, voters have no interest in allowing ranked-choice voting (RCV) to corrupt their elections.

In numerous states across the country, ballot initiatives seeking to implement RCV in elections were overwhelmingly defeated by electors. Under RCV, voters rank candidates of all parties in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round of voting, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his votes are reallocated to his voters’ second-choice candidate.

This process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes.

RCV has produced lopsided election results and races with high rates of discarded ballots. It’s often been pushed by Democrats as a way of winning traditionally Republican seats, as evidenced in Alaska and Maine.

In Nevada, early results show more than half of the state’s 2024 electors voting “no” against a constitutional amendment proposal that sought to implement a top-five RCV system. Having been approved by Silver State voters in the last general election, the initiative required passage on Tuesday to be ratified as part of the Nevada Constitution.

As a result of its failure to secure support from a majority of voters, the amendment will not be added to the state’s founding document.

In Arizona, preliminary results indicate voters have defeated Proposition 140. That constitutional amendment proposal sought to institute an open primary system in which candidates of all parties run in the same primary. It also paved the way for the state to potentially adopt RCV for general elections.

A court-appointed special master discovered in the weeks before Election Day that 99 percent of challenged signatures collected in support of Prop 140 were duplicates, a finding the Arizona Free Enterprise Club argued placed the initiative “thousands of signatures under the constitutionally required signature threshold to qualify for the [November] ballot.” The Arizona Supreme Court nonetheless permitted votes on the measure to be counted.

In Oregon, voters defeated Measure 117, a statutory initiative aiming to implement RCV for federal and state executive races starting in 2028. As of this article’s publication, nearly 60 percent of Oregonians voted “no” on the proposal, with 73 percent of votes tabulated.

In Idaho, voters resoundingly rejected Proposition 1, which sought to bring a top-four ranked-choice voting system to the Gem State’s elections. Preliminary results show the measure garnering opposition from more than two-thirds of 2024 Idaho general election voters.

In Montana, early results indicate voters are on track to defeat a pair of initiated constitutional amendment proposals that would have paved the way for RCV’s implementation. CI 126 sought to institute a top-four open primary, in which candidates of all parties run in the same primary.

CI 127 aimed to require candidates running for Congress, state legislature, and statewide executive office to receive a majority of votes rather than a plurality to be declared the winner of their respective races. According to Ballotpedia, “The state legislature would have needed to pass a law providing for an electoral system with majority vote winners,” with examples including “runoff elections and ranked-choice voting.”

In South Dakota, voters overwhelmingly defeated Amendment H. That initiative sought to amend the state constitution by requiring a top-two primary system for state executive and legislative, congressional, and county races. Candidates from all parties would compete in a single primary, in which the top two vote-getters — regardless of party affiliation — would advance to the general election.

This type of primary system is currently used by states such as California.

Meanwhile, initiatives seeking to enshrine protections against RCV seemingly enjoyed success during Tuesday’s contests.

In Missouri, more than two-thirds of voters passed a constitutional amendment proposal prohibiting RCV’s use. Known as Amendment 7, the initiative also amended the Missouri Constitution to specify that “only” U.S. citizens can vote in elections.

In Alaska, a ballot measure repealing the state’s top-four RCV system is seemingly on track to pass. As of this article’s publication, preliminary results show 51 percent of electors voting “yes” on Measure 2, with 76 percent of votes tabulated.

The Last Frontier State narrowly adopted RCV via ballot initiative during the 2020 election. The use of RCV has produced a scenario in which a Democrat now represents Alaska’s at-large congressional seat. The system also helped establishment GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski win reelection against a more conservative challenger during the 2022 midterms.

RCV proponents did, however, enjoy one victory. In Washington, D.C., voters passed an initiative enabling the system’s use in elections starting in 2026. The initiative was opposed by Mayor Muriel Bowser and the district’s Democrat Party, the latter of which unsuccessfully sued to keep the measure off the 2024 ballot.

UPDATE

Colorado voters also defeated a pro-ranked choice voting initiative during the 2024 general election.

Link

I know it’s blasphemy but I approve of RCV and I hope it eventually catches on. Obviously that’s a very, very longterm project LOL.

And I still like open primaries, too.

RCV is an anathema to election integrity. For instance, it all but guarantees California will NEVER have Republican leadership again. Sure, the Republican may get a larger vote, but as long as it's not over 50.1% they can't win and never will. You know there will be 2 (or more) left-wing crazies running, their votes are combined and given to the higher vote getter of the two.

(11-07-2024 08:27 AM)TheOriginalBigApp Wrote:  RCV is an anathema to election integrity. For instance, it all but guarantees California will NEVER have Republican leadership again. Sure, the Republican may get a larger vote, but as long as it's not over 50.1% they can't win and never will. You know there will be 2 (or more) left-wing crazies running, their votes are combined and given to the higher vote getter of the two.

This. It's an abomination invented by Dems for Dems.

IT SUCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have had it up here in AK for four years. Even though 70 of votes went for conservatives in the last house election, a left wing wacko liberal won because it went down to the second choices. There were 2 dems in the race, then one dropped out (as planned) the week after the jungle primary was certified, so it was one dem vs two repubs.
We don't know who will be our rep going forward because the R only got 49.8% of the vote, (so far) VS 44% for the D. So it goes to the RCV selection in a couple of weeks....

The reason it was forced upon us in the first place was so that they could get Lisa Murkowski ® elected again. She had a really good conservative that the 90% of the republicans liked, Lisa was crushed in the primary. The 10% of republicans that didn't like her joined forces with all the dems who did and she won in the general election thanks to RCV...

WE VOTED IT OUT ON TUESDAY!!!!!!!

(11-06-2024 10:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I know it’s blasphemy but I approve of RCV and I hope it eventually catches on. Obviously that’s a very, very longterm project LOL.

And I still like open primaries, too.

Hell no to RCV!!!
We've adopted Open Primaries, which I can live with in Missouri, but RCV? NO WAY NO HOW!

(11-06-2024 10:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I know it’s blasphemy but I approve of RCV and I hope it eventually catches on. Obviously that’s a very, very longterm project LOL.

And I still like open primaries, too.

I'm with you on both counts. It doesn't favor either party, it favors the candidate who best appeals to a majority of the electorate. This should help us get more elected leaders who aren't from the extremes of their party, which I think most Americans want.

I like ranked voting, I hate ranked choice voting.

In ranked choice voting, people get their votes counted twice, or three times, or however many times. It is not fair, and it takes more time as people have to run ballots through multiple times. Running it through multiple times increases the error rate and the rate of spoiled ballots.

Ranked voting (like the college football polls or MVP voting) gives "points" for each place. It is is done once, not multiple times. Similar to MVP voting, your top choice may get 5 points, your second choice may get 2 points, and your third choice may get 1. It is much more straightforward, and allows people more say in voting as they may like multiple candidates.

(11-07-2024 08:59 PM)Gamenole Wrote:  

(11-06-2024 10:41 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  I know it’s blasphemy but I approve of RCV and I hope it eventually catches on. Obviously that’s a very, very longterm project LOL.

And I still like open primaries, too.

I'm with you on both counts. It doesn't favor either party, it favors the candidate who best appeals to a majority of the electorate. This should help us get more elected leaders who aren't from the extremes of their party, which I think most Americans want.

Wrong, it helps the left.
The Libertarian party takes votes away from the republican candidate. There is no significant national party to compete with the left. (even when they do not sue to take them off the ballot) We have had elections up here in AK, where conservatives have gotten a combined 60% of the vote, but they cancel themselves out allowing the democrat to win... .

(11-08-2024 06:37 AM)TomorrowHerd Wrote:  The Libertarian party takes votes away from the republican candidate.

Not always. You don’t really believe Chase Oliver took more votes away from Trump than from Harris, do you?

Quote:There is no significant national party to compete with the left.

The Greens are just as significant as the Libertarians, imho.

Quote:We have had elections up here in AK, where conservatives have gotten a combined 60% of the vote, but they cancel themselves out allowing the democrat to win...

I liked Sarah Palin when she was running for VP, and I still like her now. If I lived in AK, I would’ve voted for her when she ran for Congress in ’22. But unfortunately in my view, the people of AK weren’t feeling it. That’s why she lost.

First-past-the-post gives the prize to the candidate who best appeals to a plurality of the voters. RCV gives it to the one who best appeals to a majority of the voters.

(11-08-2024 06:47 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  

(11-08-2024 06:37 AM)TomorrowHerd Wrote:  The Libertarian party takes votes away from the republican candidate.

Not always. You don’t really believe Chase Oliver took more votes away from Trump than from Harris, do you?

Quote:There is no significant national party to compete with the left.

The Greens are just as significant as the Libertarians, imho.

Quote:We have had elections up here in AK, where conservatives have gotten a combined 60% of the vote, but they cancel themselves out allowing the democrat to win...

I liked Sarah Palin when she was running for VP, and I still like her now. If I lived in AK, I would’ve voted for her when she ran for Congress in ’22. But unfortunately in my view, the people of AK weren’t feeling it. That’s why she lost.

First-past-the-post gives the prize to the candidate who best appeals to a plurality of the voters. RCV gives it to the one who best appeals to a majority of the voters.

Not so much in presidential elections. In the congressional elections, it has made a difference. Even in some of the state house elections up here...

I'm usually on NG's side of the seesaw ... however, I can't get behind any system that allows too much whittling where the 'toothpick' can win ... that's just another version of dumbing it down ... no thank you, gents!!! ...

(11-08-2024 06:47 AM)Native Georgian Wrote:  [quote='TomorrowHerd' pid='19861745' dateline='1731065841']The Libertarian party takes votes away from the republican candidate.

Not always. You don’t really believe Chase Oliver took more votes away from Trump than from Harris, do you?

Quote:There is no significant national party to compete with the left.

The Greens are just as significant as the Libertarians, imho.

Quote:We have had elections up here in AK, where conservatives have gotten a combined 60% of the vote, but they cancel themselves out allowing the democrat to win...[/quote]I liked Sarah Palin when she was running for VP, and I still like her now. If I lived in AK, I would’ve voted for her when she ran for Congress in ’22. But unfortunately in my view, the people of AK weren’t feeling it. That’s why she lost.

First-past-the-post gives the prize to the candidate who best appeals to a plurality of the voters. RCV gives it to the one who best appeals to a majority of the voters.

She lost because she ran against another republican and only one dem, thanks to RCV.

Quote:The Alaska Division of Elections released results on Nov. 23 that showed Peltola receiving 48.6% of first-choice votes, Palin second with 25.8% and Begich in third with 23.6%.

If it would have been the usual election, the republican would have won by at least .05%.

Imvented by filth, for filth, to steal

Have a backbone and vote