If you are unfamiliar, here is a primer from the BBC (they call it Alternative Vote) and another from Time.

I have been thinking about it lately since the Iowa caucuses are similar to ranked-choice voting since all candidates who do not receive 15% during the first ballot are removed and their supporters move to a new candidate.

Any thoughts on whether the USA should move from our current voting system to rank choice voting? Maine started doing this in the 2018 mid-term elections. I think it would help strengthen other parties, even if it doesn't result in many 3rd-party candidates actually getting elected. With both Clinton and Trump fairly unpopular nominees in 2016, it would have been really interesting to see the results in 2016 if their had been ranked-choice voting.

I think it would be a good move for the country. As an ancillary benefit, it would also help improve election security since rank-choice voting would likely require actual paper ballots. But I also haven't really thought through any downsides that might present themselves.

(01-15-2020 11:05 AM)mrbig Wrote:  If you are unfamiliar, here is a primer from the BBC (they call it Alternative Vote) and another from Time.

I have been thinking about it lately since the Iowa caucuses are similar to ranked-choice voting since all candidates who do not receive 15% during the first ballot are removed and their supporters move to a new candidate.

Any thoughts on whether the USA should move from our current voting system to rank choice voting? Maine started doing this in the 2018 mid-term elections. I think it would help strengthen other parties, even if it doesn't result in many 3rd-party candidates actually getting elected. With both Clinton and Trump fairly unpopular nominees in 2016, it would have been really interesting to see the results in 2016 if their had been ranked-choice voting.

I think it would be a good move for the country. As an ancillary benefit, it would also help improve election security since rank-choice voting would likely require actual paper ballots. But I also haven't really thought through any downsides that might present themselves.

I am not opposed to the idea but why would paper ballots be more secure than electronic ones? It seems all of the ACTUAL changing or missing of votes has been the result of paper ballots.

It would make 2020 easy for me.

1st choice - whoever the Libertarians run
2nd chice - Trump/Pence

I would think this would be a good choice in elections with a lot of candidates,like primaries.


I don’t think they would be so useful in elections that basically just two main candidates, as those generally get decided without the need for a run off.

I don’t see how this would be use in a Presidential election.

(01-15-2020 11:05 AM)mrbig Wrote:  If you are unfamiliar, here is a primer from the BBC (they call it Alternative Vote) and another from Time.

I have been thinking about it lately since the Iowa caucuses are similar to ranked-choice voting since all candidates who do not receive 15% during the first ballot are removed and their supporters move to a new candidate.

Any thoughts on whether the USA should move from our current voting system to rank choice voting? Maine started doing this in the 2018 mid-term elections. I think it would help strengthen other parties, even if it doesn't result in many 3rd-party candidates actually getting elected. With both Clinton and Trump fairly unpopular nominees in 2016, it would have been really interesting to see the results in 2016 if their had been ranked-choice voting.

I think it would be a good move for the country. As an ancillary benefit, it would also help improve election security since rank-choice voting would likely require actual paper ballots. But I also haven't really thought through any downsides that might present themselves.

It would occasionally make a difference to the final outcome, but for the most part would only save the time and expense of runoff elections - which would be a good thing in itself. (...and, of course, it would be irrelevant in the great many races with two or one name on the ballot.)

The USA doesn't have a voting system. It's up to states and local governments.

The Democrats will fight it tooth and nail, including their usual end-run around the democratic process to get the courts to throw out any vote to implement it. Most third-party voters would vote Republican as their second choice.

(01-15-2020 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would make 2020 easy for me.

1st choice - whoever the Libertarians run
2nd chice - Trump/Pence

Exactly why I think it would be a good idea. I bet there would be a few million people that would join you and I think it would be good for our democracy.

(01-15-2020 02:31 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 01:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  It would make 2020 easy for me.

1st choice - whoever the Libertarians run
2nd chice - Trump/Pence

Exactly why I think it would be a good idea. I bet there would be a few million people that would join you and I think it would be good for our democracy.

A few million nationwide wouldn't meaningfully influence the electoral college vote.

If it encouraged enough people to vote third-party to give the third-party candidate a chance of carrying a state, then it would make a difference.

(01-15-2020 01:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The Democrats will fight it tooth and nail, including their usual end-run around the democratic process to get the courts to throw out any vote to implement it. Most third-party voters would vote Republican as their second choice.

Ahh yes, the Democrats are opposed to ranked-choice voting. That explains why the only place it has been implemented in the USA for state elections is Maine and the only places it has been implement in the USA for local elections are San Fracisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro (CA); Takoma Park (MD); St. Paul, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis (MN); Santa Fe and Las Cruces (NM), and Portland (ME). All known to be strong Republican bastions. It has also passed in other Republican bastions like New York city and Cambridge, MA but has not yet been implemented.

That also explains why Democrats implemented ranked-choice voting for the 2020 presidential primaries in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming for all voters and in Iowa and Nevada for absentee votes. They did it because they hate it.

And here I was trying to start an apolitical thread!

(01-15-2020 02:45 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 01:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  The Democrats will fight it tooth and nail, including their usual end-run around the democratic process to get the courts to throw out any vote to implement it. Most third-party voters would vote Republican as their second choice.

Ahh yes, the Democrats are opposed to ranked-choice voting. That explains why the only place it has been implemented in the USA for state elections is Maine and the only places it has been implement in the USA for local elections are San Fracisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and San Leandro (CA); Takoma Park (MD); St. Paul, St. Louis Park, and Minneapolis (MN); Santa Fe and Las Cruces (NM), and Portland (ME). All known to be strong Republican bastions. It has also passed in other Republican bastions like New York city and Cambridge, MA but has not yet been implemented.

That also explains why Democrats implemented ranked-choice voting for the 2020 presidential primaries in Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming for all voters and in Iowa and Nevada for absentee votes. They did it because they hate it.

And here I was trying to start an apolitical thread!

Big, nothing in the Quad is apolitical.

I am 100% supportive of ranked voting in primaries, especially given the current propensity for primaries to include 800 candidates.

For the general election, I think it still makes sense, as it allows people to vote for 3rd party candidates as their #1 choice, and then provide a backup vote for a more "mainstream" candidate.

I don't think there is an immediate benefit to one party or the other.

The other reason it is in my mind is because Louisiana is a state with "jungle primaries." This means the November federal elections might have multiple democrats and multiple republicans on the same ballot (same in October statewide elections in odd-numbered years). If no one secures a majority, then there is a runoff the following month amongst the top 2 vote-getters. So ranked-choice voting would save Louisiana money by getting rid of the runoff elections, which Louisiana seems to have every dang year.

I also don't see how it benefits the Democratic Party or the Republican Party more than the other. It does benefit 3rd parties as if they are getting more initial votes, they may also get more donations and more volunteers to help organize (even if they don't end up with more representation, as pointed out by Frizzy Owl).

(01-15-2020 03:43 PM)mrbig Wrote:  The other reason it is in my mind is because Louisiana is a state with "jungle primaries." This means the November federal elections might have multiple democrats and multiple republicans on the same ballot (same in October statewide elections in odd-numbered years). If no one secures a majority, then there is a runoff the following month amongst the top 2 vote-getters. So ranked-choice voting would save Louisiana money by getting rid of the runoff elections, which Louisiana seems to have every dang year.

I also don't see how it benefits the Democratic Party or the Republican Party more than the other. It does benefit 3rd parties as if they are getting more initial votes, they may also get more donations and more volunteers to help organize (even if they don't end up with more representation, as pointed out by Frizzy Owl).

I think nationally, it would benefit Republicans more, as I think nearly all the Libertarian voters would list the GOP as a second choice.

But the way it works in Iowa is that anybody with less than 15% is eliminated. In a state election, it should be just whoever gets the most votes.

Example:

Fred gets 48%
Joe gets 45%
Ellen gets 5%
Others get 2%

Fred wins. No need to go to the second choices of the Ellen/other voters

(01-15-2020 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In a state election, it should be just whoever gets the most votes.

Example:

Fred gets 48%
Joe gets 45%
Ellen gets 5%
Others get 2%

Fred wins. No need to go to the second choices of the Ellen/other voters

Why do it this way instead of ranked-choice? You suggest ranked-choice is most likely to benefit Republicans with Libertarians giving their votes to Republicans. So if Fred is the Democrat, Joe is the Republican, and Ellen is the Libertarian, why would you rather have Fred the Democrat win in a result that does a worse job reflecting the will of the electorate? Seems better if Ellen's 5% (and the other 2%) get redistributed by ranked-choice, with maybe 1% sitting out (did not rank Fred or Joe), 1% going to Fred, and 5% going to Joe (if Joe is lucky).

(01-16-2020 01:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In a state election, it should be just whoever gets the most votes.

Example:

Fred gets 48%
Joe gets 45%
Ellen gets 5%
Others get 2%

Fred wins. No need to go to the second choices of the Ellen/other voters

Why do it this way instead of ranked-choice? You suggest ranked-choice is most likely to benefit Republicans with Libertarians giving their votes to Republicans. So if Fred is the Democrat, Joe is the Republican, and Ellen is the Libertarian, why would you rather have Fred the Democrat win in a result that does a worse job reflecting the will of the electorate? Seems better if Ellen's 5% (and the other 2%) get redistributed by ranked-choice, with maybe 1% sitting out (did not rank Fred or Joe), 1% going to Fred, and 5% going to Joe (if Joe is lucky).

Gosh, when did the will of the electorate become so important to Democrats? Aren't we having an impeachment to cancel the will the of the electorate?

I think the ranked voting would be of benefit in any race that would result in a runoff without it. As you say, eliminate the cost and bother of runoffs.

I think the objection comes when there are several who would be eliminated on some basis, as in Iowa, and their votes recast. In my example, there would be no runoff.

I also oppose it for Presidential elections, since we have the Electoral College in place. I do think had this system in place in 1992, most of the Perot votes would have been redistributed to the GOP, and we would have had no President Clinton and no Hillary. Maybe you got something here, Bigness.

(01-16-2020 06:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 01:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In a state election, it should be just whoever gets the most votes.

Example:

Fred gets 48%
Joe gets 45%
Ellen gets 5%
Others get 2%

Fred wins. No need to go to the second choices of the Ellen/other voters

Why do it this way instead of ranked-choice? You suggest ranked-choice is most likely to benefit Republicans with Libertarians giving their votes to Republicans. So if Fred is the Democrat, Joe is the Republican, and Ellen is the Libertarian, why would you rather have Fred the Democrat win in a result that does a worse job reflecting the will of the electorate? Seems better if Ellen's 5% (and the other 2%) get redistributed by ranked-choice, with maybe 1% sitting out (did not rank Fred or Joe), 1% going to Fred, and 5% going to Joe (if Joe is lucky).

Gosh, when did the will of the electorate become so important to Democrats? Aren't we having an impeachment to cancel the will the of the electorate?

I think the ranked voting would be of benefit in any race that would result in a runoff without it. As you say, eliminate the cost and bother of runoffs.

I think the objection comes when there are several who would be eliminated on some basis, as in Iowa, and their votes recast. In my example, there would be no runoff.

I also oppose it for Presidential elections, since we have the Electoral College in place. I do think had this system in place in 1992, most of the Perot votes would have been redistributed to the GOP, and we would have had no President Clinton and no Hillary. Maybe you got something here, Bigness.

Well, a few things.

Trump lost the popular vote, so the will of the electorate is actually that Clinton won. However, we’ve set up the electoral college system to try and balance out the influence of large states vs small states.

Trump isn’t being impeached because he won - he is being impeached because he has been accused of abusing the powers of the office. If Trump is impeached, Pence become POTUS, and Pence was his running mate AND a Republican.

Democrats have historically wanted to extend voting rights further than Republicans and increase voter turnout, while Republicans have typically stood to implement laws that would likely reduce voter turnout.

You can still keep the electoral college with ranked voting - no reason those two wouldn’t be able to live side by side, and they aren’t related at all.

(01-16-2020 06:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 06:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-16-2020 01:30 AM)mrbig Wrote:  

(01-15-2020 10:10 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In a state election, it should be just whoever gets the most votes.

Example:

Fred gets 48%
Joe gets 45%
Ellen gets 5%
Others get 2%

Fred wins. No need to go to the second choices of the Ellen/other voters

Why do it this way instead of ranked-choice? You suggest ranked-choice is most likely to benefit Republicans with Libertarians giving their votes to Republicans. So if Fred is the Democrat, Joe is the Republican, and Ellen is the Libertarian, why would you rather have Fred the Democrat win in a result that does a worse job reflecting the will of the electorate? Seems better if Ellen's 5% (and the other 2%) get redistributed by ranked-choice, with maybe 1% sitting out (did not rank Fred or Joe), 1% going to Fred, and 5% going to Joe (if Joe is lucky).

Gosh, when did the will of the electorate become so important to Democrats? Aren't we having an impeachment to cancel the will the of the electorate?

I think the ranked voting would be of benefit in any race that would result in a runoff without it. As you say, eliminate the cost and bother of runoffs.

I think the objection comes when there are several who would be eliminated on some basis, as in Iowa, and their votes recast. In my example, there would be no runoff.

I also oppose it for Presidential elections, since we have the Electoral College in place. I do think had this system in place in 1992, most of the Perot votes would have been redistributed to the GOP, and we would have had no President Clinton and no Hillary. Maybe you got something here, Bigness.

Well, a few things.

Trump lost the popular vote, so the will of the electorate is actually that Clinton won. However, we’ve set up the electoral college system to try and balance out the influence of large states vs small states.

Trump isn’t being impeached because he won - he is being impeached because he has been accused of abusing the powers of the office. If Trump is impeached, Pence become POTUS, and Pence was his running mate AND a Republican.

Democrats have historically wanted to extend voting rights further than Republicans and increase voter turnout, while Republicans have typically stood to implement laws that would likely reduce voter turnout.

You can still keep the electoral college with ranked voting - no reason those two wouldn’t be able to live side by side, and they aren’t related at all.

We can argue about the will of the electorate, but the fact is Americans went to the polls and elected Trump according to the dictates of the Constitution.

Impeachment talk started as soon as the returns were in, before he was even sworn in. Clearly that is just an effort to reverse the results. That you guys are casting about for a reason just underlines that the important thing to y’all is to reverse the election. The reason changes, but the goal remains unchanged.

If by extending voting rights, you mean lowering the age and letting illegals vote, I would think you would not be proud of that. I supported lowering the voting to eighteen, but all it has gained us is a lot of voters who don’t understand the issues. I now think the voting age should be raised to 25.voting is something that should be done by people who understand things. Now you guys want to lower the age to 16 - an age at which you also think they should not be allowed, to drive, drink, or enter into contracts. If a person at 16 cannot give consent to sex, how can they be entrusted with other decisions?

If by extending voting rights,you mean keeping dead people and felons on the rolls instead of purging them,I have to wonder why you support that.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/elections...li=BBnb7Kz

“...the person with the most votes at the beginning won’t necessarily be the one with the biggest delegate haul at the end.”

“My concern is if the first vote says one thing and the delegate count says another, then what’s reported to the public?" Schwartz said. "What actually comes out of Iowa could become moot.”

It'd be cool if OOwl could cool the partisan barbs from time to time. Really chills the discourse.

(01-16-2020 10:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  It'd be cool if OOwl could cool the partisan barbs from time to time. Really chills the discourse.

It would be cool if Fountains could stop playing senior corporal in the politeness police and butt out. Apparently he has no opinion on the topic under discussion

(01-15-2020 10:32 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ... not just from the conspiracy theorists here.

(01-16-2020 08:13 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If by extending voting rights, you mean lowering the age and letting illegals vote, I would think you would not be proud of that.

If by extending voting rights, you mean keeping dead people and felons on the rolls instead of purging them,I have to wonder why you support that.

What democrats support ridiculous ideas like letting illegal immigrants vote or keeping dead people on voter rolls to abet election fraud? A very specific question. Which democratic politicians support these ideas. Please direct me to a speech or website with evidence. If you can't, it is your own fever dream.

To reiterate something I wrote yesterday:

(01-15-2020 10:09 AM)mrbig Wrote:  The thing I find most remarkable since I have started participating more in The Quad is how wrong the conservative takes are about democrats and liberals. You all do pretty good jobs of describing and explaining your beliefs, your positions, and even why you like or dislike conservative, libertarian, or republican politicians. But I think you do a pretty horrific job understanding the average democrat, liberal, or progressive.

(01-16-2020 06:25 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I also oppose it for Presidential elections, since we have the Electoral College in place. I do think had this system in place in 1992, most of the Perot votes would have been redistributed to the GOP, and we would have had no President Clinton and no Hillary. Maybe you got something here, Bigness.

If that had been the result that the country wanted, that should have been the result. Again, it was supposed to be a non-partisan suggestion. I didn't bring it up because I think it would specifically help Democrats or hurt Republicans. I think it would be good for the United States and democracy writ large.