Ranked choice voting: does your state currently have it? Or considering it?

[Pam in CT]

My state does not, yet, but many analysts and policymakers have been eyeing Maine and more recently NYC with great interest. We had a bill in the state legislative assembly to put together a two-year commission with various stakeholders to benchmark and study other states' and city experiences but the bill did not ultimately pass -- not because there was real resistance to it, just too many other bills in a short cycle.

I've been delving into it and watched a bunch of webinars. Very curious to hear perspectives, particularly from folks who actually have some form of it in your states.

[Ellie]

I don't know what that is, so I'm assuming that Texas doesn't do it.

[Jean in Newcastle]

I suppose I will need to google to find out what it is. . . 

[Pam in CT]

And just to be super-transparent about where my own still-evolving thinking is:

I live in a closed-primary state (we can only vote in the primary if we are registered with one of the two major parties; and our primary ballot is that-party-specific. Furthermore, the rules preclude changing from one major party to the other within 90 days of the primary.)

My state is also (relative to many other states) pretty philosophically/ tempermentally centrist.  I know our reputation in other parts of the country is deep deep blue, and it is true that most of the folks we send to federal positions are D. But our state legislature swings regularly, as does our governorship. There have long been a lot of pro-choice / pro gay marriage Rs, and a lot of fiscally conservative Ds, and the assembly is generally able, most years, to pass a bipartisan state budget without too much blood on the floor. There's a motto, The Land of Steady Habits.

We are an itty bitty teeny tiny state with just 7 electoral votes, and we come in late on the primary schedule.  More often than not, by the time our Presidential primary rolls around, the outcome has already been mathematically determined.

 

So there's a LOT of acute consciousness here, about how the current (caucus)/primary system in a small handful of not-terribly-representative states rewards extremism: only a tiny percentage of highly-hyped people frame what is thereafter a very short list of choices.  And a great many voters are then frustrated by the limitations on the choices available.

 

[Which the winner-take-all EC structure then exacerbates, for the POTUS position... but that is a different structural question maybe meriting a different thread.  I'm interested in ranked-choice for municipal / state / senate etc seats as well.]

[MEmama]

Well you know we have it! 🙂 

I'm a fan. Like most states, we’ve had our share of “representatives” who get into office with 30-40% of the vote. Ranked choice makes it more difficult to have a “spoiler” candidate, one that splits a party vote that leads to that sort of mess. Fans of independent and third party candidates ought to embrace ranked choice voting—it's a solid way to vote your conscious without feeling like you’ve “wasted” your vote. 

[Pam in CT]

Ah.

So, in ranked choice voting, the general idea is, there are multiple names -- typically anywhere from ~3-6 on the ballot. (How those names get onto the ballot depends on the mechanics of how it's set up.)

From the voter's POV, you can vote for anywhere from just one, to as much as maybe ~4 (again, depending on mechanics of how it's set up) and denote on your ballot which is your 1st, 2nd, 3rd,4th choice.

[The tabulator machines have to have the technical capacity to record not just your selections, but the order of your priorities -- so *two* bits of information per ballot rather than just one. Newer ones can, older ones, including CT's, cannot; so, that cost is one of the implementation issues.]

After the votes are cast, the [district / municipality / state] counts all the *first choice* votes.

If a candidate wins > 51%, we're done! That candidate wins.

But since there are so many candidates, that's unlikely. So the bottom vote-getter is eliminated, and all the ballots of all the voters who voted for that now-eliminated bottom choice are (automatically) re-counted, with their second-choice names added to that candidate's tally.

If after that re-calculation with one fewer candidate, someone NOW is > 51%, now we're done! That candidate wins.

And so on, until -- as the re-calculation keeps re-shuffling the "eliminated" candidate votes over to candidates still standing -- someone breaks 51%.

[MEmama]

Trying not to get too political but I live in a red state regardless of the fact that the media tries to call it a swing state. Most of the candidates would be from one party with perhaps one from the other major party. Only occasionally would there be third partycandidates. Voters in most of these red counties would vote 1, 2, 3, etc. for all the candidates in the same party. That is how it wouldreduce choice for those of us of other parties.

Bringing this over from the other thread so it doesn’t get derailed… I hope that’s okay.

This is an interesting consideration. Perhaps there should limits on the number of candidates from each party? Idk, I’m trying to remember how it’s played out here in that regard. Maybe someone else from Maine with a better memory than mine will chime in. I  totally understand the concern.

I *think* we can only do ranked choice in federal elections— perhaps this is why? 

[Pam in CT]

Bringing over the posts from the other thread:

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I would be really against ranked votes.

however I do think that everyone over 17 should be required to vote and have the option of “none of the above”.  maybe President has to get 51% of votes in half+one states. 

What concerns do you have about ranked voting?

[I have pretty mixed feelings about compelled voting, but]

to my mind one of the *advantages* of ranked choice voting is that voters do have the opportunity to cast a clearly-protest vote (say, Ross Perot, or the Communist) without either serving as a spoiler (as is the arithmetic effect in a 2-party vote) or just staying home (which sends no message at all).

 

1 hour ago, Lady Florida. said:

...NO!!! In my state that would take choice away because I guarantee in many if not most counties the top winners would all be from the same party. We had the opportunity to pass ranked choice in 2020 and thankfully Floridians rejected it. If we hadn't it would basically be all R's running with the exception of a very few blue counties. It was actually recently banned by our governor though I don't know why. It would benefit his party the most. 

36 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Trying not to get too political but I live in a red state regardless of the fact that the media tries to call it a swing state. Most of the candidates would be from one party with perhaps one from the other major party. Only occasionally would there be third party candidates. Voters in most of these red counties would vote 1, 2, 3, etc. for all the candidates in the same party. That is how it would reduce choice for those of us of other parties.

I'm not following this. If those counties are overwhelmingly one party, is the other party winning any elections under the current binary system?  Aren't those 1,2,3 votes now going to whatever (single) candidate has the correctly-colored shirt anyway?

 

re the "complexity"

39 minutes ago, MEmama said:

...Here there were pretend arguments against it complaining that it was too hard for adults to figure out the system (same ranking every kindergartener knows how to do—favorite, less favorite, least favorite, generally), but I’ve never heard that it could somehow cause fewer choices. I’m truly curious! 

Yeah, (aside from the cost of electoral machines capable of holding the prioritization, which is a real consideration) that's the only substantive criticism I've heard in various forums here. It's not COGNITIVELY difficult -- I think all grown adults are able to manage "I really wish I could have B, but if I can't have B I guess C is better than the other guy."  But until you actually watch the process of the returns coming in, and the bottom vote getting being eliminated and those votes being re-assigned, the mechanics sound confusing.

 

 

 

[Tanaqui]

While, obviously, ANY system is better than "first past the post", where each voter picks one and only one candidate, ranked choice voting is my least favorite alternative.

Most people do not have six rankings of six candidates, much less six favorites *carefully ranked* out of 24. Their rankings, no matter how many candidates there are, top out at three or four - "yes!", "I guess", "meh", and "god no". Asking them to rank their favorites means a lot of random guessing at the polls, which makes for potentially disappointing results, and it just seems more confusing to newbies to understand than my actual preferred choice, which is to allow voters to pick as many candidates as they like without ranking them. (This is like checkboxes instead of bullets on a forum poll!)

A modified version of that, to allow for some ranking but not to an absurd degree, would be to allow voters to assign each candidate either two, one, or zero votes. In this way they could rank their favorite candidate(s) above their "okay" candidates and their "never" candidates.

[Lady Florida.]

16 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Trying not to get too political but I live in a red state regardless of the fact that the media tries to call it a swing state. Most of the candidates would be from one party with perhaps one from the other major party. Only occasionally would there be third partycandidates. Voters in most of these red counties would vote 1, 2, 3, etc. for all the candidates in the same party. That is how it wouldreduce choice for those of us of other parties.

Bringing this over from the other thread so it doesn’t get derailed… I hope that’s okay.

This is an interesting consideration. Perhaps there should limits on the number of candidates from each party? Idk, I’m trying to remember how it’s played out here in that regard. Maybe someone else from Maine with a better memory than mine will chime in. I  totally understand the concern.

I *think* we can only do ranked choice in federal elections— perhaps this is why? 

So, I'll get into it in more detail now that we have a dedicated thread -

My state government has been run by Major Party A for many years. In Washington both senators and a number of Reps are from Major Party A. Local governments are similar. 

If we had ranked choice it would go something like this -

3-5 candidates from Major Party A
1-2 candidates from Major Party B
Possibly a candidate from a minor 3rd party

Candidates from Major Party A would win the top spots because we're a Major Party A heavy state. There would be a few pockets where Major Party B is preferred and something similar would happen in those areas. 

People from Major Party B and 3rd parties would not be able to get representation. With one from A, B, and a few from 3rd there is at least a chance that the others will win at times.

As I mentioned in the other thread our governor recently signed a bill that bans ranked choice at all levels, including local. His party does seem to be the one nationally that's most against ranked choice and that does somewhat confuse me. At least at our state and local level it seems ranked choice would favor them.

[Tanaqui]

Lady Florida, the one voting mechanism that guarantees a two party system where potentially only one party ever wins is first past the poll. AFAIK, every other method - including ranked choice voting - opens up the field to more parties and more differentation.

[Lady Florida.]

1 minute ago, Pam in CT said:

 

I'm not following this. If those counties are overwhelmingly one party, is the other party winning any elections under the current binary system?  Aren't those 1,2,3 votes now going to whatever (single) candidate has the correctly-colored shirt anyway?

 

 

We were posting at the same time. Yes, there is a chance that you can upset the occasional other party. However, if you have more people from that party running those chances are lowered. I know my local Party B has been very against ranked choice for our state for this very reason. 

[Lady Florida.]

4 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Lady Florida, the one voting mechanism that guarantees a two party system where potentially only one party ever wins is first past the poll. AFAIK, every other method - including ranked choice voting - opens up the field to more parties and more differentation.

I agree our two party system needs a major overhaul, as does the electoral college. I'm just not convinced this is the way to do it. Having lived most of my life in a state where I'm the minority party, happy dances when our candidates are elected are rare and celebrated. Having more of the other party candidates running gives others less of a chance of an upset.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Lady Florida.

[Pam in CT]

re how many choices is it feasible for voters really to have

3 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

While, obviously, ANY system is better than "first past the post", where each voter picks one and only one candidate, ranked choice voting is my least favorite alternative.

Most people do not have six rankings of six candidates, much less six favorites *carefully ranked* out of 24. Their rankings, no matter how many candidates there are, top out at three or four - "yes!", "I guess", "meh", and "god no". Asking them to rank their favorites means a lot of random guessing at the polls, which makes for potentially disappointing results, and it just seems more confusing to newbies to understand than my actual preferred choice, which is to allow voters to pick as many candidates as they like without ranking them. (This is like checkboxes instead of bullets on a forum poll!)

A modified version of that, to allow for some ranking but not to an absurd degree, would be to allow voters to assign each candidate either two, one, or zero votes. In this way they could rank their favorite candidate(s) above their "okay" candidates and their "never" candidates.

Didn't the NYC mayoral limit the number of names on the ballot to something like 6, and the number of (ranked) votes to something like 3?

I agree that no one really has a careful rank of 24 candidates! But that sounds like an implementation issue (the system is used to get names on the ballot, and the way the voter ballot is structured). Not ranking itself.

[Lady Florida.]

I'm off to buy a birthday gift for my grand-nephew then to our local Thursday farmer's market. If I don't reply to posts directed at me it's not because I'm ignoring them. 🙂

[Tanaqui]

2 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

re how many choices is it feasible for voters really to have

Didn't the NYC mayoral limit the number of names on the ballot to something like 6, and the number of (ranked) votes to something like 3?

I agree that no one really has a careful rank of 24 candidates! But that sounds like an implementation issue (the system is used to get names on the ballot, and the way the voter ballot is structured). Not ranking itself.

Yes. Read my post again. I said that nobody has a ranking of their top six out of 24 candidates. They may know which six they like, but they do not really have them ordered from 1 - 6. Perhaps some total obsessives do, but not normal people. (And honestly, I think even those who are "total obsessives" are probably kidding themselves to some degree.)

I do not think the evidence shows that ranking gives better results than other methods of allowing people to choose multiple candidates.

Edited May 12, 2022 by Tanaqui

[Pam in CT]

And I'm back to the garden but will return when the sun is set, LOL.

[lewelma]

We have MMP.  So proportional representation.  We vote for 1 representative and for 1 party.  For example, if 10% of the voters vote for the Green Party, then 10% of the representatives are Green. These representatives come off of the 'list' created and published by the party which allows them to be more diverse than could typically be elected, so trans or muslim female or in a wheelchair, etc.  This allows small parties and disaffected groups to have representation. 

[shawthorne44]

I'm in a club that votes for their officers this way.   It is a good system and I'd like it for politics.   

It is a bit of a pain when you are dealing with slips of paper and multiple offices.  Because you have to do each office at a time, and then you make piles for each candidate , then you redistribute the smallest piles, one pile at a time.  Then you do it all over again for the next office.  

I am opposed to any forced voting.   I am even opposed to Get Out The Vote campaigns.   I think people should understand what they are voting for before they vote, and if they do, then they'll care and won't need a campaign to get them to vote.   Maybe a reminder of the voting day, and that is it. 
 

[Tanaqui]

What do you think the average Get Out The Vote campaign does, other than reminding people to vote and helping them to register, and occasionally arranging transportation for people who have difficulty in getting to the polls?

[frogger]

We are getting our first opportunity at ranked choice, open primary in a special election since our state's only representative died. 

We choose one of 48 candidates (yes, the ballot on my counter has 48 candidates) for one position in the primary.

The election will consist of the top 4 candidates from the primary and will be ranked choice voting. 

I'm really hoping this outs the fringe nutcases but we shall see. Humans are hard to predict. 

[ktgrok]

Copying my reply from the other thread, to clarify why @Lady Florida. was against ranked choice voting (spoiler, Florida was going to do it wrong.)

to clarify, what Florida proposed was NOT the normal ranked choice voting that people mean when they say that. Instead it was a free for all type system that would do away with primaries. 

When people in other states talk about it, they mean that you still have separate primaries, but in that primary you would vote and rank your favorites from that party. People for the other party would do the same for their party. Then in the general they would take all the candidates - ones that won their party primary plus third party candidates that made it on the ballot - and voters would rank those. 

NOT what Florida was talking about, which was throw all the primary candidates from both parties into one pool, then voters rank those, allowing them to put people from the same party as choices 1-5 or whatever. Which is crazy, but hey, we are Florida for a reason I guess. Sigh. 

[rebcoola]

I would like ranked choice vote. Honestly anything that would open up more options. My state is very blue but locally it's very red. I would love to be able to vote for who I want and backup of the least awful from the other side.

[kbutton]

1 hour ago, MEmama said:

Well you know we have it! 🙂 
I'm a fan. Like most states, we’ve had our share of “representatives” who get into office with 30-40% of the vote. Ranked choice makes it more difficult to have a “spoiler” candidate, one that splits a party vote that leads to that sort of mess. Fans of independent and third party candidates ought to embrace ranked choice voting—it's a solid way to vote your conscious without feeling like you’ve “wasted” your vote. 

This.

33 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Lady Florida, the one voting mechanism that guarantees a two party system where potentially only one party ever wins is first past the poll. AFAIK, every other method - including ranked choice voting - opens up the field to more parties and more differentation.

I hear it's also a bummer for run-off elections--it's hard to get people to come back, and it's very expensive. Ranked choice should virtually remove the need for runoffs.

29 minutes ago, Lady Florida. said:

Having more of the other party candidates running gives others less of a chance of an upset.

I don't know...I don't usually have an unlimited supply of people I am willing to vote for. Sometimes even for local elections where only one party is offered, but there are multiple slots to fill (one of those vote for two people kinds of slots), I vote for only one candidate. I am much more likely to shop across the political aisle for second and third choices than in my own party.

It's not a criticism I've heard about ranked choice, so I'd have to hear more.

7 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

What do you think the average Get Out The Vote campaign does, other than reminding people to vote and helping them to register, and occasionally arranging transportation for people who have difficulty in getting to the polls?

I think this might vary geographically. I am not necessarily opposed to Get Out The Vote campaigns, but I can almost guarantee that in my neck of the woods, it would bring out the whackadoodles in my own party, lol! I absolutely believe that we need to remove logistical barriers to voting, so I probably just sound like I am talking about both sides of my mouth. 🤪

We don't currently have ranked choice, but I am following at least on group on FB that is promoting it and educating people about it because I am very interested. In our state, I believe we can choose which party's ballot we want, and whatever ballot we choose is considered our party affiliation until we vote the other way. I am a little fuzzy on the details. I don't know if we can vote one party in the primary and another in the election, but I think we can. 

[MEmama]

20 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Copying my reply from the other thread, to clarify why @Lady Florida. was against ranked choice voting (spoiler, Florida was going to do it wrong.)

to clarify, what Florida proposed was NOT the normal ranked choice voting that people mean when they say that. Instead it was a free for all type system that would do away with primaries. 

When people in other states talk about it, they mean that you still have separate primaries, but in that primary you would vote and rank your favorites from that party. People for the other party would do the same for their party. Then in the general they would take all the candidates - ones that won their party primary plus third party candidates that made it on the ballot - and voters would rank those. 

NOT what Florida was talking about, which was throw all the primary candidates from both parties into one pool, then voters rank those, allowing them to put people from the same party as choices 1-5 or whatever. Which is crazy, but hey, we are Florida for a reason I guess. Sigh. 

Thanks for the insight—that helped a lot!

[ktgrok]

19 minutes ago, MEmama said:

Thanks for the insight—that helped a lot!

Can't underestimate the ability of Florida to mess up a good thing!

[Lady Florida.]

53 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

Copying my reply from the other thread, to clarify why @Lady Florida. was against ranked choice voting (spoiler, Florida was going to do it wrong.)

to clarify, what Florida proposed was NOT the normal ranked choice voting that people mean when they say that. Instead it was a free for all type system that would do away with primaries. 

When people in other states talk about it, they mean that you still have separate primaries, but in that primary you would vote and rank your favorites from that party. People for the other party would do the same for their party. Then in the general they would take all the candidates - ones that won their party primary plus third party candidates that made it on the ballot - and voters would rank those. 

NOT what Florida was talking about, which was throw all the primary candidates from both parties into one pool, then voters rank those, allowing them to put people from the same party as choices 1-5 or whatever. Which is crazy, but hey, we are Florida for a reason I guess. Sigh. 

Aha! I didn't know our version was different from other states. Then again we're Florida so...

[ktgrok]

1 minute ago, Lady Florida. said:

Aha! I didn't know our version was different from other states. Then again we're Florida so...

Exactly. What was proposed wasn't really ranked choice, it was what is sometimes called a "jungle primary" although there are issues with that name. Nothing like what most people are talking about. 

[Tanaqui]

Sorry, I just remembered my OTHER complaint about ranked choice voting, which is that... look, people don't read instructions, and they don't understand instructions, and that's bad enough when they're fully literate in the target language.

It's been decades, and you still have people ranking items they like as one star on Amazon because they think one star is the best and five the worst. Or ranking it one star so that "people will actually read my review".

DECADES LATER, people still can't figure out how to rate items on Amazon. There is absolutely some percentage of the population who will not know whether the rankings go up or down, and will do it backwards.

And that's to say nothing of the game-players. We see this every single year in NYC with high school and middle school applications. The form is pretty straightforward - pick up to 12 schools, rank them in order. (Nobody can rank 12 schools with precision, but I already said that.)

And every single year you hear the howls of protest from people whose kids didn't get into any school they actually wanted* because instead of following instructions they tried to game the system in some way. They picked only schools their kid actually had no chance of getting into (due to not having the grades, living out of the district, or both). They put schools they wanted less over schools they wanted more because they thought that would somehow give them a better shot at the schools they wanted more. They only put down one school, assuming that meant the DoE would have to send their kid there. They moved next door to a school to get in, then got upset when they found out that admission doesn't even look at zip code. And they always blame the DoE and the scaaaaaaaary "algorithm".

This is similar enough to ranked choice voting that I suspect those same people will make an exciting new raft of errors with that, and be just as irritated at the results.

* It used to be worse. The DoE used to not assign students to any school if they didn't place in first round admissions, but that only added fuel to the fire for these nitwits. I guarantee most non-assigned students had simply never turned in the paperwork at all, but these people screamed and fussed that every non-assigned student was proof that the system was set against their kids in particular.

[ktgrok]

25 minutes ago, Tanaqui said:

Sorry, I just remembered my OTHER complaint about ranked choice voting, which is that... look, people don't read instructions, and they don't understand instructions, and that's bad enough when they're fully literate in the target language.

It's been decades, and you still have people ranking items they like as one star on Amazon because they think one star is the best and five the worst. Or ranking it one star so that "people will actually read my review".

DECADES LATER, people still can't figure out how to rate items on Amazon. There is absolutely some percentage of the population who will not know whether the rankings go up or down, and will do it backwards.

And that's to say nothing of the game-players. We see this every single year in NYC with high school and middle school applications. The form is pretty straightforward - pick up to 12 schools, rank them in order. (Nobody can rank 12 schools with precision, but I already said that.)

And every single year you hear the howls of protest from people whose kids didn't get into any school they actually wanted* because instead of following instructions they tried to game the system in some way. They picked only schools their kid actually had no chance of getting into (due to not having the grades, living out of the district, or both). They put schools they wanted less over schools they wanted more because they thought that would somehow give them a better shot at the schools they wanted more. They only put down one school, assuming that meant the DoE would have to send their kid there. They moved next door to a school to get in, then got upset when they found out that admission doesn't even look at zip code. And they always blame the DoE and the scaaaaaaaary "algorithm".

This is similar enough to ranked choice voting that I suspect those same people will make an exciting new raft of errors with that, and be just as irritated at the results.

* It used to be worse. The DoE used to not assign students to any school if they didn't place in first round admissions, but that only added fuel to the fire for these nitwits. I guarantee most non-assigned students had simply never turned in the paperwork at all, but these people screamed and fussed that every non-assigned student was proof that the system was set against their kids in particular.

I want to believe people can handle it, but given that both I and my very intelligent father managed to vote incorrectly on the famous butterfly ballot in Palm Beach County, FL....maybe not, lol. 

[bookbard]

We have proportional voting in Australia, and we've been just going through a kids picture book about it (they used a class election in the story as an example). The kids also tried to use it for choosing a name for their minecraft voting (bit tricky with only 4 in the household).

The basic instructions to the voter are: put a number in the box next to each candidate, starting with the person you prefer. Certainly in my area after putting down 3 I could stomach, the rest were all pretty bad. But it would be very unlikely it would matter after 3. (I am fairly sure I know who will win). They try to make it very simple - you have to put a number in each box. It seems to have worked here for many years.

The benefit is that there is a possibility that people apart from the main 2 parties can win, which is why we have Greens and Independents as representatives. But the version in NZ seems fairer to me, apparently far more people vote for the Greens than the Nationals, and yet there are more Nationals in parliament. I'm just not sure how it would work in a bigger country where it's all based on your local representative.

[kirstenhill]

I lived in Minneapolis for about a decade, and RCV was used for municipal elections for most of the time we lived there.  I had mixed feelings about it - I really wanted to like it!  Assuming I have been remembering this correctly (it's been a few years since we moved away) there was no primary, it was jut ranked choice in the fall election.   For a city election, I feel like this makes a lot of sense - one party is very dominant, so the primary or caucus would feel like the "real" election of consequence while the general election would feature this candidate from the dominant party plus very minor candidates.  The RCV style election allows all the candidates to appear together. 

In practice it still felt like a bit of a convoluted mess with a really long mayoral ballot though and still many candidates without any chance of winning, like the guy who legally had his name changed to Captain Jack Sparrow and ran for some office in every election, filling up space along with the more serious candidates.  I would still give it a shot if it ever came up for vote on a state level or in the city I live in now - I do prefer something other than first past the post and would like there to be more movement toward trying out differing systems.

[Grace Hopper]

I would love this! Open primaries followed by rank choice voting. My state doesn’t seem to be currently considering it but I hope the effort from other states snowballs. 

[ktgrok]

11 minutes ago, kirstenhill said:

I lived in Minneapolis for about a decade, and RCV was used for municipal elections for most of the time we lived there.  I had mixed feelings about it - I really wanted to like it!  Assuming I have been remembering this correctly (it's been a few years since we moved away) there was no primary, it was jut ranked choice in the fall election.   For a city election, I feel like this makes a lot of sense - one party is very dominant, so the primary or caucus would feel like the "real" election of consequence while the general election would feature this candidate from the dominant party plus very minor candidates.  The RCV style election allows all the candidates to appear together. 

In practice it still felt like a bit of a convoluted mess with a really long mayoral ballot though and still many candidates without any chance of winning, like the guy who legally had his name changed to Captain Jack Sparrow and ran for some office in every election, filling up space along with the more serious candidates.  I would still give it a shot if it ever came up for vote on a state level or in the city I live in now - I do prefer something other than first past the post and would like there to be more movement toward trying out differing systems.

This is like what Florida tried, and not what most people think of when they are talking about ranked choice voting. Mainly because it does away with primaries. Real ranked choice voting would be to have a primary, with ranked choice voting in each party. Then a general election, with the winners of the primaries plus anyone else who was able to be on the ballot, and voted on those with ranked choice as well. 

[Rosie_0801]

1 hour ago, bookbard said:

We have proportional voting in Australia, and we've been just going through a kids picture book about it (they used a class election in the story as an example).

Did you see Annabel Crabb's politics for kids on iView?

[Murphy101]

4 hours ago, lewelma said:

We have MMP.  So proportional representation.  We vote for 1 representative and for 1 party.  For example, if 10% of the voters vote for the Green Party, then 10% of the representatives are Green. These representatives come off of the 'list' created and published by the party which allows them to be more diverse than could typically be elected, so trans or muslim female or in a wheelchair, etc.  This allows small parties and disaffected groups to have representation. 

What does MMP stand for? Sorry for my ignorance.  So we would have to do away with our house or representative as it currently is?  Hmm. I am not necessarily against that but not sure it’s a winning battle anytime this decade. 

4 hours ago, shawthorne44 said:

I am opposed to any forced voting.   I am even opposed to Get Out The Vote campaigns.   I think people should understand what they are voting for before they vote, and if they do, then they'll care and won't need a campaign to get them to vote.   Maybe a reminder of the voting day, and that is it. 
 

A major plus of required voting is it has or should have a domino effect.  For example it may change many aspects of why gerrymandering is a desired.  I too would like people to understand their votes but the truth is there is actually very little of that now. A huge reason is frankly information is hard to come by and not easily understood by huge swathes of the population. 

I’d never be for required voting that did not include a “none of the above” option on every ballot.  No one should ever have to vote for someone or something they don’t want to.

But required voting would completely change the entire “game” of elections.

3 hours ago, kbutton said:

I hear it's also a bummer for run-off elections--it's hard to get people to come back, and it's very expensive. Ranked choice should virtually remove the need for runoffs.

How so?  If two people nearly or actually tie for lead then how does ranked choices change the need for run off?

3 hours ago, kbutton said:

would bring out the whackadoodles in my own party, lol! I absolutely believe that we need to remove logistical barriers to voting, so I probably just sound like I am talking about both sides of my mouth. 🤪

 

Yes. Well. The hazard of democracy is the realization that there’s a lotta whacks doodles in every society. And there need to be checks and balances to keep them from running an entire country into hell. 

I do think any ranking beyond 3-5  will not be wise or successful. 

[kbutton]

28 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

How so?  If two people nearly or actually tie for lead then how does ranked choices change the need for run off?

IDK for sure, but I think it's the idea that there are less likely to be two viable candidates, and if there is a 3rd or 4th, then the votes of the last place finishers will be redistributed to those voters' second choice. 

[lewelma]

2 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

What does MMP stand for? Sorry for my ignorance.  So we would have to do away with our house or representative as it currently is?  Hmm. I am not necessarily against that but not sure it’s a winning battle anytime this decade. 

Mixed Member Proportional 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed-member_proportional_representation

We get 2 votes - one for the Member to represent our district, and one for the Party that we want represented in the government. Obviously, this system is not a reasonable choice for the USA given you need to past a constitutional amendment, but it is why we have such a diverse parliament, because the List MPs don't have to be elected on a ballot so can be 'unelectable' types.  NZ actually used a referendum to bring this system in. 

[Rosie_0801]

3 hours ago, Murphy101 said:

I’d never be for required voting that did not include a “none of the above” option on every ballot.  No one should ever have to vote for someone or something they don’t want to.

But required voting would completely change the entire “game” of elections.

There are several "none of the above" options. Pay the fine for not voting, hand in an empty ballot paper, or don't fill it out correctly. 

[Rosie_0801]

2 hours ago, kbutton said:

IDK for sure, but I think it's the idea that there are less likely to be two viable candidates, and if there is a 3rd or 4th, then the votes of the last place finishers will be redistributed to those voters' second choice. 

Like this:
https://education.aec.gov.au/getvoting/content/instructions-counting.html
(This is from the Australian Electoral Commission website, a politically neutral organisation responsible for running elections.)

[Murphy101]

31 minutes ago, Rosie_0801 said:

There are several "none of the above" options. Pay the fine for not voting, hand in an empty ballot paper, or don't fill it out correctly. 

Nope. I want a “None of the above”. I want people to be able to say they do not want Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini for example of a ballot full of awful choices.

Ranked voting won’t change that we need to stop having our only choice be the “lesser evil”.

[Rosie_0801]

24 minutes ago, Murphy101 said:

Nope. I want a “None of the above”. I want people to be able to say they do not want Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini for example of a ballot full of awful choices.

Ranked voting won’t change that we need to stop having our only choice be the “lesser evil”.

You can write "none of the above" if you like. It would be an informal vote, but the electoral commission here does keep a record of informal votes. 

Ranked voting doesn't change who runs for office, no. The only ways here in Australia to influence that are to be voting members of political parties (which is irrelevant in the US because of your primaries) or to own large news corporations.

[kbutton]

1 hour ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Like this:
https://education.aec.gov.au/getvoting/content/instructions-counting.html
(This is from the Australian Electoral Commission website, a politically neutral organisation responsible for running elections.)

Thanks!

[Spy Car]

CA now has what are called "jungle primaries." 

Previously one voted in party primaries. The winner of the party primary advanced to the general election to face the nominees of the other parties.

Now there are no party primaries. Everyone votes by for one candidate among all the people running from all parties. The top two candidates (among all those running) advance. Typically one from each party advance, but sometimes it is two from the same party.

But we do not have ranked voting for General Elections.

Bill

[bookbard]

6 hours ago, Rosie_0801 said:

Did you see Annabel Crabb's politics for kids on iView?

Thanks for that!

[shawthorne44]

CA seems even worse than the U.S. national method.   Basically no primary, just an election and a guaranteed run-off.  

Australia has a warm place in my heart for many reasons, and the Australian Ballot is one.  

One problem with the method I'm used to, which is open primaries and then the general election.   I don't know if this is in all of Texas or just Dallas, but the Democrats have the voting areas ridiculously gerrymandered so that a white Democrat will win most of the elections in the primary. 

I'd rather primaries were closed.   I remember when Hillary and Obama were running against each other and it wasn't decided by the time it came to Texas, which is rare.    The Democrat line for the voting booths were Disney-World-ride-in-July long.   You know that was Republicans just messing with people.  
 

[shawthorne44]

The reason I'm really against forced voting can be boiled down to, that guy who renamed himself Jack Sparrow would win.    Even if there was None of the Above as an option.  You force someone to vote, they'll be cranky when there.    Even if it was just a heavily Get-Out-The-Vote area but not forced, people won't be cranky but they won't know who to vote for and will go for name recognition.  

[Guest]

1 hour ago, shawthorne44 said:

I'd rather primaries were closed.   I remember when Hillary and Obama were running against each other and it wasn't decided by the time it came to Texas, which is rare.    The Democrat line for the voting booths were Disney-World-ride-in-July long.   You know that was Republicans just messing with people.

Interesting. I dislike closed primaries, which is what Maryland has. I do not think it affects the length of lines, but FWIW, I am also *hugely* in favor of early voting, vote by mail, drop off boxes and everything else that makes it easy to vote. Those things really *do* affect line lengths, IME. 
 

I dislike closed primaries because people register as Independent, because they are neither far right nor far left, but registered Independents (or Libertarians or Green Party or anything else besides R or D) cannot vote in the primary. My ballot has only party affiliates in the primary, aside from non-partisan positions, like Register of Wills (which, really; who the hell cares who is Register of Wills??) Anyway…so this means that moderate people are less likely to vote in the primaries at all and the fringe candidates get the votes to become the nominee. 
 

This is also a separate issue, but I don’t like that we primary very late here, so in most cases, nominees are mathematically - if not actually by way of bow-outs - already chosen. In 2016, there were only two presidential candidates still in the race; I wanted neither and see them both as seriously fringe, and upon the close of Election Day, the second one dropped out, leaving only DT.

 

I hate all of this. It does not *feel* like my vote makes any difference. 

[shawthorne44]

5 minutes ago, Quill said:

I dislike closed primaries because people register as Independent, because they are neither far right nor far left, but registered Independents (or Libertarians or Green Party or anything else besides R or D) cannot vote in the primary. My ballot has only party affiliates in the primary, aside from non-partisan positions, like Register of Wills (which, really; who the hell cares who is Register of Wills??) Anyway…so this means that moderate people are less likely to vote in the primaries at all and the fringe candidates get the votes to become the nominee. 

You have convinced me.  

[Grace Hopper]

4 hours ago, Quill said:

Interesting. I dislike closed primaries, which is what Maryland has. I do not think it affects the length of lines, but FWIW, I am also *hugely* in favor of early voting, vote by mail, drop off boxes and everything else that makes it easy to vote. Those things really *do* affect line lengths, IME. 
 

I dislike closed primaries because people register as Independent, because they are neither far right nor far left, but registered Independents (or Libertarians or Green Party or anything else besides R or D) cannot vote in the primary. My ballot has only party affiliates in the primary, aside from non-partisan positions, like Register of Wills (which, really; who the hell cares who is Register of Wills??) Anyway…so this means that moderate people are less likely to vote in the primaries at all and the fringe candidates get the votes to become the nominee. 
 

This is also a separate issue, but I don’t like that we primary very late here, so in most cases, nominees are mathematically - if not actually by way of bow-outs - already chosen. In 2016, there were only two presidential candidates still in the race; I wanted neither and see them both as seriously fringe, and upon the close of Election Day, the second one dropped out, leaving only DT.

 

I hate all of this. It does not *feel* like my vote makes any difference. 

That raises an interesting idea. Wouldn’t it be better to have standardized voting days? I totally understand why it would never happen, states’ rights and all that, but what if all the primaries were held on the same day?

I imagine there are a dozen reasons why this is a bad idea, I just wish that campaign-election seasons were much shorter so those elected could focus on actual business of governing and problem solving. Not to mention, making people feel like their votes are valuable. 
 

I have totes [eta totes? 🧐 think I meant to say toyed] with the idea of registering independent but that would leave me unable to cast a vote of any significance in primaries. I’ve reluctantly remained registered in one of the dominant parties, and in addition to researching the major candidates, I have to strategize my vote - not just pull the lever for the person I’d like to see fill the spot, but figure out who to vote for wrt who is likely to fare better (or worse 😂) against the winner of the other major party’s primary. 

Edited May 13, 2022 by Grace Hopper