Question: what if a voter doesn't have a second choice? For example, I'm voting for Trump. Period. I have no interest in voting for Biden and I don't even know who else is running (except maybe Kanye, rofl.) If Trump didn't win my [area/district/state/whatever] I wouldn't want my vote in any way counting towards Biden or Kanye. Does a voter in the ranked voting system have the option of not having a second choice vote? The irony here is that I'm an Independent (or technically "NPA", no party affiliation) and I hate the chokehold our two party system has on the country. But I'm not sure ranked voting is the answer. I'm also instinctively distrustful of just about anything the lefties support at this point, after watching their behavior over the last decade. It's become safe to say that if a liberal/Democrat/leftwinger supports something, it's probably not good for the country and it's almost definitely not going to be good for working taxpaying law-abiding self-supporting white people. Sadly.
Of course... If you only rank 1 (very rank) man, that's your freedom of voting choice. Since it's possible Trump will make the top 2 in most locations, his voters won't require a 2nd choice...
Well that's my point....you make your choice. on Election Day, but as the OP highlights if no one gets a majority you have a second and third pick etc. If someone gets knocked out, then you might have a different ranking after that...
You just rank your picks. If one of them gets dropped, your vote goes to your number two choice. Then three, and so on. At some point, you have to make a decision and live with it.
I understand....and why I don't like it....my vote might change when someone gets knocked out. Do it again.
Final scores in the playoffs. That’s all ranked voting is. Final scores (votes) in the playoffs (after eliminating lower ranking candidates and allocating the votes to second and third ranked candidates). It isn’t complicated. None of these systems, either existing or proposed, is inherently more or less valid or legitimate than any other.
Multiple elections for a single election period would be about as dumb an idea as I could imagine... Back to my OP, discussing Maine and Susan O'Collins, I'm not sure any voting system is going to save her "concerned" ass this time... https://www.azcentral.com/story/new...-gideon-pivotal-maine-senate-race/5820253002/ I believe I also saw Biden is beating Trump +9 in Maine district-2, which went Trump +10 in 2016. That state has certainly figured out what an asshat looks like... Get 'er done, Maine...
When i first started on this forum, @Meta777 and I did a big thread on ranked voting. Hopefully this gets bigger.
^A link to that for anyone who's interested: Ranked Vote: Discussion Thread Like many have mentioned in the thread, Ranked Voting is a great way... probably the best way,... to give third parties more of a say as to how the country is run. And I also think that its the best method for starting to heal the currently ever-increasing partisan divide that we see here in the U.S. What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics So its definitely good to see a state like Maine take the lead in getting Ranked systems implemented at the state level, and I'm looking forwards to seeing more states follow suite... hopefully sooner rather than latter. So many of us have long grown tired of the two-party shame and its far past time that we ought to start making such meaningful changes to our election system in order to address that. -Meta
Yea, except for the two parties make the rules for debates, etc. The media keeps 3rd parties out of the polls then the debates won't let them in because they didn't get strong enough support in the polls. It's a racket for sure. There should be some real election reform.
For answers on how it works check out https://www.fairvote.org . They've been around almost 30 years and started with John B Anderson as their very active advisor from the beginning. For those unfamiliar with him he was an independent candidate in 1980 and fought state after state to get on their ballots. It's a lot easier now for third party candidates. He was a former Republican who disliked Reagan because unlike Reagan he was a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. He believed you should pay for what you buy and keep the budget balanced. Here's a great way to get an idea of what a real fiscal conservative is. It's a debate with Reagan. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/presidential-debate-baltimore-reagan-anderson
What Americans call 'Ranked Choice' voting is standard in Australia at State & Federal levels. We call it 'Preferential' voting and its been used here for generations. Ours is the 'instant runoff' version, so all preferences (lower ranked choices) are counted when the election is held and distributed then & there. The winner is declared based on those distributions. As a result of this experience with 'Ranked Choice' voting I tend to view American discussions of it with a degree of bemusement because they tend to either understate or overstate its impact. The Good News: Yes, it does help minor parties because people can vote for them while also being directly involved in selectin the eventual winner. This means that larger parties have to take into account the ideas of smaller parties if they consider that enough people will vote for them. Australia has a number of active & arguably successful minor parties, one of which has existed for pretty much the entire history of the nation (though more or less in permenant coalition with a larger like minded party). The Bad News: This isn't going to break the two party system. Minor parties aren't suddenly going to rise up and start grabbing government. They might force larger parties into coalitions on occasion, but the whole system isn't going to get overthrown. Your two big parties are still going to dominate at national level at least, not least because you have so few elected representitives for your population. If you have big districts and only two Senators per state then the system is tilted toward larger parties. In short, some specific results may change, and minor parties will have an easier time of it, but if you really want to shake up the two party system this isn't going to do it. Happy to answer any questions.
In exit polling that day was the first time (& only one I'm aware of) that voters were not just who they VOTED for, but who they most WANTED to be President: 60% said PEROT! Bush, Clinton, Gore, & every surrogate from the 2 Parties telling them that a 3rd Party CAN'T win convinced 2/3rds not to, "waste," their vote on the guy they actually wanted to win. Believing their viable options were limited made it a self-fulfilling prophecy. (And still does).
It’ll be pretty embarrassing for you if trump loses to this guy. Keep that in mind as you run him down.
If Trump loses to Biden that would reflect poorly on the state of our country and the people who voted for Biden---- not on the Trump voters, who made the wise choice.
