aggie93 said:

---

Runoff elections are far better than Ranked Choice. The idea that someone who didn't get the most votes wins is just wrong on every level. Ranked choice is also confusing and many voters don't put in a 2nd choice so it is easy to manipulate.

Alaska has a Dem in Congress now in spite of being a 60 percent GOP State and they have Murkowski because she didn't have to win a primary.

---

Even in our system, the person who wins almost never has the most votes. Let's say someone wins their primary in a landslide of 70% and then goes on to win the general with 60%. Well then the person won even though they were only the first pick for 42% of the people. It's possible for someone in a run off system to win an election while still being only the first choice for 25% of the people.

The run off system is already a flavor of ranked choice. You pick your favorite and if that person loses round one, you pick a new favorite.

The only thing the run off system favors is major political parties because it guarantees them a one-on-one show down for SOMEONE in their party, even if barely more than half of the party actually liked him. With ranked choice voting, the individual candidate is prioritized over the party.

How can you claim Alaska is a GOP state when they elected Dems? Theres no winding path to victory for the minority if the voters don't vote for them. If Rs want more chances to win, put more than one R on the ballot. Dont primary yourself out of a race before it's even started. Give them multiple conservative choices and they won't have to pick the D. And if they still pick the D, then they were never conservative to begin with, but the voice of the people was still heard.

With ranked choice voting in 1992, Clinton likely never sees the White House because Perot siphoned a lot more voters from Bush. Assuming a majority of people that voted for Perot had Bush as their second choice, the direction of this country would have been a lot different because we wouldn't have had the Clinton dynasty.

That said, I agree with people who say a lot of Americans don't understand ranked voting.

One person one vote (not some fraction of a vote).

coconutED said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

The Kraken said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

B-1 83 said:

---

My son in law, who I seriously respect, is a big believer in it. I seem to recall where it went terribly wrong. Help me out

---

Alaska.

Murkowski.

---

Jungle primary with ranked choice. Don't confuse the two.

---

I pointed out a case that he was probably thinking about.

So, not sure what you're thinking I confused.

---

Murkowski would have been shellacked if not for the Jungle Primary. Ranked choice had nothing to do with it.

---

According to this, it was the ranked choice election that she won...

After the initial election, Murkowski had 43.37% and Tshibaka had 42.6%. The Dem had 10.37%.

So, instead of going to a runoff, they did the ranked choice stuff...and 20K+ of the Dem's votes went to Murkowski, which put her over 50%.

Now, would Tshibaka have won a runoff, I don't know. But the ranked choice election allowed the people who voted Democrat to push Murkowski over the top without the runoff.

Jeeper79 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Runoff elections are far better than Ranked Choice. The idea that someone who didn't get the most votes wins is just wrong on every level. Ranked choice is also confusing and many voters don't put in a 2nd choice so it is easy to manipulate.

Alaska has a Dem in Congress now in spite of being a 60 percent GOP State and they have Murkowski because she didn't have to win a primary.

---

Even in our system, the person who wins almost never has the most votes. Let's say someone wins their primary in a landslide of 70% and then goes on to win the general with 60%. Well then the person won even though they were only the first pick for 42% of the people.

The run off system is already a flavor of ranked choice. You pick your favorite and if that person loses round one, you pick a new favorite.

The only thing the run off system favors is major political parties because it guarantees them a slot in the last round which is a one-on-one show down. With ranked choice voting, the individual candidate is prioritized over the party.

How can you claim Alaska is a GOP state when they elected Dems? Theres no winding path to victory for the minority if the voters don't vote for them. If Rs want more chances to win, put more than one R on the ballot. Dont primary yourself out of a race before it's even started. Give them multiple conservative choices and they won't have to pick the D. And if they still pick the D, then they were never conservative to begin with, but the voice of the people was still heard.

---

The runoff also factors in turnout...

Maroon Dawn said:

---

I personally like the idea of ranked choice as away to break the monopoly of the Big 2 parties but it's big draw back is it REALLY requires an engaged populace to understand how it works and then use it as intended and we don't have that.

---

I think this is where I fall. The more confusing the process; the less effective it will be.

We are a dumb, unengaged populace and we need to follow the KISS method with voting.

We also already have highly questionable and likely illegal actions taking place in blue and purple counties to sway elections. We need to focus on ensuring our current process is fair before we move to an entirely new process ripe for manipulation.

C@LAg said:

---

• In Maine's 2018 Second Congressional District election, more than 8,000 ballots were thrown in the trash. Bruce Poliquin (R) received 46.33 percent of the vote ahead of Jared Golden's (D) 45.58 percent. But since Poliquin didn't receive 50 percent, there was a second round of tabulation. The secretary of state threw out more than 8,000 ballots and Golden was declared the winnerbut with only 49.2 percent of the total ballots cast.
• In Alaska's 2022 congressional special election, Republican candidates received 60 percent of the vote in the first round, but the Democrat won. Nearly 15,000 were trashed, and the Democrat won by a little more than 5,000 votes.

---

The corruption is much deeper in the country than I ever knew.

Sq 17 said:

---

Alaska has a Dem in Congress because a significant chunk of R's can't stand Palin

Run a terrible candidates and occasionally lose races that an average candidate wins easily
basically FAFO

Murkowski won a statewide election as a write-in candidate She is very popular liberal Republican. She went from being a Rino to being an independent and won.

---

If they had normal voting laws Palin wins and Murkowski loses in the primary.

ATM9000 said:

---

Ranked is an overly complicated solution that doesn't really know what problem it is trying to solve. As such, it's a dumb idea.

---

It breaks the duopoly of American politics and strengthens the voice of the middle instead of rewarding the extremes.

ts5641 said:

---

C@LAg said:

---

• In Maine's 2018 Second Congressional District election, more than 8,000 ballots were thrown in the trash. Bruce Poliquin (R) received 46.33 percent of the vote ahead of Jared Golden's (D) 45.58 percent. But since Poliquin didn't receive 50 percent, there was a second round of tabulation. The secretary of state threw out more than 8,000 ballots and Golden was declared the winnerbut with only 49.2 percent of the total ballots cast.
• In Alaska's 2022 congressional special election, Republican candidates received 60 percent of the vote in the first round, but the Democrat won. Nearly 15,000 were trashed, and the Democrat won by a little more than 5,000 votes.

---

The corruption is much deeper in the country than I ever knew.

---

To say the ballots were trashed is incorrect. They didn't have a choice after the candidate(s) they selected were eliminated. Given the lack of another choice, there was nothing left to count on the ballot. So the ballots were counted but in the final head-to-head vote, they were essentially treated as voting present. Ranked choice voting doesn't require people to rank more than one candidate.

Jeeper79 said:

---

aggie93 said:

---

Runoff elections are far better than Ranked Choice. The idea that someone who didn't get the most votes wins is just wrong on every level. Ranked choice is also confusing and many voters don't put in a 2nd choice so it is easy to manipulate.

Alaska has a Dem in Congress now in spite of being a 60 percent GOP State and they have Murkowski because she didn't have to win a primary.

---

Even in our system, the person who wins almost never has the most votes. Let's say someone wins their primary in a landslide of 70% and then goes on to win the general with 60%. Well then the person won even though they were only the first pick for 42% of the people. It's possible for someone in a run off system to win an election while still being only the first choice for 25% of the people.

The run off system is already a flavor of ranked choice. You pick your favorite and if that person loses round one, you pick a new favorite.

The only thing the run off system favors is major political parties because it guarantees them a one-on-one show down for SOMEONE in their party, even if barely more than half of the party actually liked him. With ranked choice voting, the individual candidate is prioritized over the party.

How can you claim Alaska is a GOP state when they elected Dems? Theres no winding path to victory for the minority if the voters don't vote for them. If Rs want more chances to win, put more than one R on the ballot. Dont primary yourself out of a race before it's even started. Give them multiple conservative choices and they won't have to pick the D. And if they still pick the D, then they were never conservative to begin with, but the voice of the people was still heard.

---

Essentially you like the system because it elects Moderates and you are a Moderate. Of course it's much easier for Dems to appear like Moderates because they own the media. It also is very favorable for establishment candidates to manipulate that system.

Ag with kids said:

---

After the initial election, Murkowski had 43.37% and Tshibaka had 42.6%. The Dem had 10.37%.

So, instead of going to a runoff, they did the ranked choice stuff...and 20K+ of the Dem's votes went to Murkowski, which put her over 50%.

Now, would Tshibaka have won a runoff, I don't know. But the ranked choice election allowed the people who voted Democrat to push Murkowski over the top without the runoff.

---

And you think a traditional runoff would have turned out differently? lol.

"Ranked Choice" is a runoff... why is this so hard to understand?

coconutED said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

After the initial election, Murkowski had 43.37% and Tshibaka had 42.6%. The Dem had 10.37%.

So, instead of going to a runoff, they did the ranked choice stuff...and 20K+ of the Dem's votes went to Murkowski, which put her over 50%.

Now, would Tshibaka have won a runoff, I don't know. But the ranked choice election allowed the people who voted Democrat to push Murkowski over the top without the runoff.

---

And you think a traditional runoff would have turned out differently? lol.

"Ranked Choice" is a runoff... why is this so hard to understand?

---

a) I have made no judgement on ranked choice.

b) As to your bolded question, I SPECIFICALLY addressed that in my post.

c) The runoff also factors in turnout for the second election. Not everyone that voted on election day will show up to the runoff. I doubt those Democrat voters would go out and vote as readily in an election between two Republicans - and as the numbers showed, it was the Democrat voters that put Murkowski over the top.

d).There wasn't a "jungle primary" in AK. CA has one, though, maybe you were thinking about that for your earlier comment.

Ranked choice voting is how you end up with people in office that neither side wants. It is like a doomsday machine and botj sides pull the trigger to kill the opposition (voting legitimate candidates as last choice) leaving the also-ran to sort it out.

Some voters get one vote, others get multiple. It's that simple.

I'd be OK with it in smaller-scale elections where there are 5-6 people running in a nonpartisan scenario...school board elections, for instance. Our most recent SB election had candidates that got 35 and 32 percent win their respective positions (breakdowns were 35-30-20-15 and 32-27-15-14-12)

But, as was stated above, RCV requires a more informed and engaged voting population, and we have pretty much anything but that.

Ag with kids said:

---

There wasn't a "jungle primary" in AK.

---

Wrong

coconutED said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

There wasn't a "jungle primary" in AK.

---

Wrong

---

My bad. They apparently do for some offices.

And of the top 4 that came out of it, 3 were Republicans.

Here are the results of that primary...

Murkowski still got the most votes, 45% to Tshibaka's 38.6%. If it had been a closed primary, would it have been different?

How did the "jungle primary" change things?

Ag with kids said:

---

Murkowski still got the most votes, 45% to Tshibaka's 38.6%. If it had been a closed primary, would it have been different?

How did the "jungle primary" change things?

---

Murkowski got the most votes in the primary because Democrats voted for her. In a closed Republican primary she wouldn't have done nearly as well, and in my opinion would have lost handily ala Liz Cheney in WY.

The Jungle Primary messed up the "Ranked Choice" system because it produced a General Election slate with no third party/independent candidates. In a traditional primary, it would have been 1 Republican, 1 Democrat and 1 each of any third party, a Libertarian and a Green for example. This is the type of slate that was envisioned in an Instant Runoff format. Instead there were 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat

Iteration Nation

coconutED said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

Murkowski still got the most votes, 45% to Tshibaka's 38.6%. If it had been a closed primary, would it have been different?

How did the "jungle primary" change things?

---

Murkowski got the most votes in the primary because Democrats voted for her. In a closed Republican primary she wouldn't have done nearly as well, and in my opinion would have lost handily ala Liz Cheney in WY.

The Jungle Primary messed up the "Ranked Choice" system because it produced a General Election slate with no third party/independent candidates. In a traditional primary, it would have been 1 Republican, 1 Democrat and 1 each of any third party, a Libertarian and a Green for example. This is the type of slate that was envisioned in an Instant Runoff format. Instead there were 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat

---

Maybe, maybe not. How do you know this for a fact?

She got about the same percentage in the general election as she did in the primary on the first pass...

Ag with kids said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Murkowski got the most votes in the primary because Democrats voted for her. In a closed Republican primary she wouldn't have done nearly as well, and in my opinion would have lost handily ala Liz Cheney in WY.

The Jungle Primary messed up the "Ranked Choice" system because it produced a General Election slate with no third party/independent candidates. In a traditional primary, it would have been 1 Republican, 1 Democrat and 1 each of any third party, a Libertarian and a Green for example. This is the type of slate that was envisioned in an Instant Runoff format. Instead there were 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat

---

Maybe, maybe not. How do you know this for a fact?

She got about the same percentage in the general election as she did in the primary on the first pass...

---

Simple math. You really think >80% of the primary voters were Republicans?

We're getting really awesome candidates now. Why change?

coconutED said:

---

Ag with kids said:

---

coconutED said:

---

Murkowski got the most votes in the primary because Democrats voted for her. In a closed Republican primary she wouldn't have done nearly as well, and in my opinion would have lost handily ala Liz Cheney in WY.

The Jungle Primary messed up the "Ranked Choice" system because it produced a General Election slate with no third party/independent candidates. In a traditional primary, it would have been 1 Republican, 1 Democrat and 1 each of any third party, a Libertarian and a Green for example. This is the type of slate that was envisioned in an Instant Runoff format. Instead there were 3 Republicans and 1 Democrat

---

Maybe, maybe not. How do you know this for a fact?

She got about the same percentage in the general election as she did in the primary on the first pass...

---

Simple math. You really think >80% of the primary voters were Republicans?

---

I don't know the percentage that were.

But, in AK, the number of Republicans that vote in a primary will far outnumber the number of Dems. Just because there's a lot more Republicans.

And, with knowing that no Dem was going to win anyways, it would have been just as easy for the Dem voters to cross the aisle in a closed primary (or open, like TX). If they were going to go to the polls to vote Murkowski, I doubt the format of the primary was much of an issue.

Rank choice voting allows voters to 'weight' their preferences.

Voters that are more concerned with issues can weigh candidates based on the issue that matters to them. Voters that care more about abortion could weigh candidates based on that issue, just like voters that care more about the border, or inflation, or national debt, or even tribal allegiance.

People don't like it because it makes voters internalize and consider negative outcomes of their choices instead of just blaming 'the other team.'

In simple terms, there is never more than 1 good candidate running in any general race. Ranked choice lowers the chances of that 1 candidate winning.

C@LAg said:

---

ranked choice exists SOLELY to subvert the will of the electorate.

It should be 1 ballot for 1 election. Period.

---

No. That's how we got this crappy rigid two-party system. Duverger's Law.

Instant Runoff Voting has its flaws (e.g. nonmonoticity), but there are alternatives other than single-vote plurality: Approval Voting, Condorcet Voting, party-list proportional representation, etc. And if you don't know what those things are, then you are literally arguing from ignorance.

There's a bit of an inherent contradiction in Instant Runoff Voting (I refuse to call it "ranked choice") because while it acknowledges that the candidate with the most first-choice votes isn't necessarily the best, it assumes without question that the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is the worst. This discourages compromise candidates who are everyone's second choice but get eliminated in the first round.

Burdizzo said:

---

Ranked choice voting is how you end up with people in office that neither side wants. It is like a doomsday machine and botj sides pull the trigger to kill the opposition (voting legitimate candidates as last choice) leaving the also-ran to sort it out.

---

Lets pressure test this. The chance of a ranked choice election making it to round 3 seems relatively low. So the person that wins likely has the largest combination of first and second place votes. How is that not a person that neither side wants?

Jeeper79 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Ranked choice voting is how you end up with people in office that neither side wants. It is like a doomsday machine and botj sides pull the trigger to kill the opposition (voting legitimate candidates as last choice) leaving the also-ran to sort it out.

---

Lets pressure test this. The chance of a ranked choice election making it to round 3 seems relatively low. So the person that wins likely has the largest combination of first and second place votes. How is that not a person that neither side wants?

---

What if #1 and #2 each have ~40%, but #3 has 100% of the second choice votes?

TexasRebel said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

Burdizzo said:

---

Ranked choice voting is how you end up with people in office that neither side wants. It is like a doomsday machine and botj sides pull the trigger to kill the opposition (voting legitimate candidates as last choice) leaving the also-ran to sort it out.

---

Lets pressure test this. The chance of a ranked choice election making it to round 3 seems relatively low. So the person that wins likely has the largest combination of first and second place votes. How is that not a person that neither side wants?

---

What if #1 and #2 each have ~40%, but #3 has 100% of the second choice votes?

---

It doesn't matter because #3 is knocked out and the second place votes go to candidates #1 and #2. The first place votes for #1 and #2 would remain. (In your scenario there had to be a candidate #4 that received the other 20% first place votes since #3 only had second place votes).

Exactly, but #3, the one eliminated, turns out to be the best leader for everyone.


Ranked voting needs to be based on averages.

Say there are 5 candidates. Each voter gives them points.
First choice = 4
Second = 3
Third = 2
Fourth = 1


Most points wins.

TexasRebel said:

---

Exactly, but #3, the one eliminated, turns out to be the best leader for everyone.


Ranked voting needs to be based on averages.

Say there are 5 candidates. Each voter gives them points.
First choice = 4
Second = 3
Third = 2
Fourth = 1


Most points wins.

---

That system is called the Borda Count.

We can rename it to the TR system now.

Just curious are any of these posters actually Alaskan Voters

Obviously a lot of Bu**hurt that Murkowski keeps getting elected and Palin lost

Pretty sure how a state runs it election is kind of a state rights thing and F16 is usually very pro states rights