And, in any system that actually uses this method (as Australia), is there any evidence that they DO NOT get, "Predominently the person most people voted for?"
Hey, isn't that the system that Australia uses? Here's tongue in cheek satire of it: (Watch language) Honest Government Ad | Preferential Voting Dur.:2:35.
Please explain to us what you think the premise of the OP is then..... My personal take is that in a ranked voting system, the person most acceptable to the MAJORITY of an electorate gets the job.
Changing the voting system to a mix of ranked choice voting and proportional representation has actually been my most important political issue for the past several years. It was surprising and outstanding news to hear about ranked choice being passed in Maine a couple years ago. Here's hoping it spreads to more states in the near future.
It is insufficient on its own. I would recommend watching the youtube series "voting in the animal kingdom", which illustrates mathematically how first past the post (what we have) will inevitably result in a 2 party system. In addition to covering ranked choice, it also covers proportional representation (what Israel has), which is more important for breaking the 2 party system. I tend to be of the opinion that ranked choice for executive positions and proportional for legislative is the best method for accurate representation.
The same could have happened with a runoff election which would have given the two top candidates a chance to campaign for those votes. I don't see how this is going to promote 3rd parties ultimately those votes will go to one of the major parties either in a ranked system or a runoff system.
I think this sounds like a way to keep minority candidates from splitting the Democrat party. Because as we all know, Democrats aren't a single party, its dozens of special interest groups with different ideas. Can't afford to allow one of them to break free from the plantation and steal votes from the masta.
A playoff ends up with a start from scratch contest between the top two, like a runoff election. The top two in the runoff have to compete for the votes of the people whose candidate lost.
We use a similar system here only we call it “preferential voting” https://www.aec.gov.au/learn/preferential-voting.htm https://www.sbs.com.au/news/explainer-what-is-preferential-voting Good news - it does allow minor parties to get a representative into the parliament bad news is that it does allow minor parties to get a representative into the parliament . it is NOT hard to do and I alway have fun with the senate because I start at the bottom with the person I hate most and work my way up the list. Unfortunately that often leaves me looking at the ballot going “oh! **** is that the best?” Don’t forget voting is mandatory here too I once read a science article that proved with some very complicated maths that I just stared at and thought “yes that is some complicated maths” that ranked or preferential voting was mathematically the same as running primaries
Reagan requested less spending every year he was in office than Congress authorized and they refused to pass all the spending recessions he sent to them. Presidents do not control the budgets.
Did he offer any balanced budget? Did he offer any with a lower deficit even? I'm sure you already know the answer. The term smoke and mirrors was coined for him
Do you mean Rank Choice Voting? We have it, it's more trouble than it's worth, from my perspective, which in this case is limited. The real fix is a strong independent voting commission like the Brit Boundaries Commission.
Irrelevant. He cut taxes and increased spending, which took us from being the worlds largest creditor to being the worlds largest debtor.
Strawman and yes every year he offered budgets with less spending than Congress authorized and they refused to pass all the spending recessions he sent to them. Had they accepted his budgets and recessions the deficits would have fallen to under $100B heading to surplus. Has a Democrat President or Congress ever offered a balanced budget? No, not even Clinton who as opposed to every other modern day President before him requested MORE spending that Congress ultimately passed and being forced to sign the Gingrich/Kasich budgets which not only produce balanced budgets but surpluses and then the Republican Congress with Bush43 after the 2001 recession brought the deficit down to a paltry $161B heading for surplus again. But then the Democrats took back the Congress January of 2007. Two years later the deficit was $1,400B.
How could it be irrelevent HE REQUESTED LESS SPENDING THAT CONGRESS AUTHORIZED. Blame Congress. And it wasn't a revenue problem revenues INCREASED after the tax rate cuts. Presidents do not have sole authority as to budgets in fact they are the weakest hand in the matter.
The federal government does not control elections in the United States the STATES do within their own boundaries which the federal government has no power to force a change.
Psst, that's because it's not actually true. Revenues increased because the economy recovered, just not enough to avoid massive deficits. Reagan's average deficit was almost as big as the Carter deficits for all 4 years.
As long as the SCOTUS has ruled it Constitutional, I have no problem with it. Especially since Collins has been elected under that process for many years. There are far worse Democrat scams. Like assigning the state's delegates based on the national popular vote instead of the state's popular vote. I am sure the Democrats will claim foul when the SCOTUS rules that to be unconstitutional.
