The states lost the war though.

…or at least that's what everyone in the Northeast keeps saying.

Jeeper79 said:

---

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.

---

Sorry but this is Pollyanna thinking.

When you create a system that's harder for the electorate to understand and candidate to win… all you are actually doing is giving incumbents an even bigger advantage than they've already got.

The incumbents would almost surely have even larger name recognition and massive money advantage than they enjoy now if opposition funding starts getting chopped more ways than currently seen.

This video, while informative, represents a pretty idealistic view of ranked choice voting (here called single transferable vote.)



Disclaimer: Posted for educational interest, not because I necessarily agree with the ranked choice optimism. Also because I really like CGP Grey's videos.

Sorry to disagree
Any change to the voting procedure lessens the two party's duopoly ballot access power. Jungle primary and Ranked choice are the two that are being experimented with currently.

These are very small steps but as one poster mentioned if Murkowski had to run in a party primary she might lose because she is a too liberal to win the R spot on the ballot and as a lifelong R probably can't win the D primary

Sq 17 said:

---

Sorry to disagree
Any change to the voting procedure lessens the two party's duopoly ballot access power. Jungle primary and Ranked choice are the two that are being experimented with currently.

These are very small steps but as one poster mentioned if Murkowski had to run in a party primary she might lose because she is a too liberal to win the R spot on the ballot and as a lifelong R probably can't win the D primary

---

Interesting that your example case is a Senator who has had a seat for 22 years… initially given to her by her Father AND in that run won an election around the 2 party primary system. Incumbency matters a lot.

I've shat on ranked choice voting a few times on this thread now. Truthfully, I don't hate the idea but I just think there's so many things that has to be fixed upstream of it that it's sort of silly to take it seriously.

ranked choice voting punishes extremism and rewards moderation, which is why it's generally unfavorable around here

ATM9000 said:

---

Jeeper79 said:

---

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.

---

Sorry but this is Pollyanna thinking.

When you create a system that's harder for the electorate to understand and candidate to win… all you are actually doing is giving incumbents an even bigger advantage than they've already got.

The incumbents would almost surely have even larger name recognition and massive money advantage than they enjoy now if opposition funding starts getting chopped more ways than currently seen.

---

If the citizenry is voting for candidates simply because they recognize a name, we're beyond ****ed.

BonfireNerd04 said:

---

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.

---

I thought the Borda Count was what CBP did as illegals walked past them?