Posted on 10/27/2016 10:47:22 AM PDT by aimhigh
In a ranked-choice election, voters rank all candidates on the ballot in order of preference. If no candidate is the first choice of a majority of voters, the candidate who receives the fewest votes is eliminated.
The ballots of voters who supported the last-place candidate are then recounted, and their No. 2 preferences are tallied and awarded to the remaining candidates. The process of elimination continues until one candidate has a majority of votes.
(Excerpt) Read more at registerguard.com ...
Actually, it would be of benefit to us in areas with high numbers of “Never Trumper” types, since they might hate Trump, but may rank him slightly above Clinton.
How is this legal???
You know, it would make sense. For every election. For every office. Every voter writes the top ten candidates in order of his preference, all on the same day. No campaigns, no speeches. No fundraising. If you are the winner you are given the option of declining. No one can serve more than one term in that office.
I’d rather see a “none of the above” vote. If no candidate beats the “none of the above” vote the office goes unfilled until a voter approved candidate breaks through. Vote every six months during “none of the above”, regular term after.
I’m curious if Clinton would have been elected under this scenario, since Perot split the vote.
On the other hand, the primaries service this purpose.
It would sure “get the money out of politics”.
No, it's not. Stop repeating such a falsehood.
It's essentially an instant run-off system.
Let's use an example from the past: Bush, Clinton, and Perot.
Clinton won that election with only 43% of the vote. Bush got 37%, Perot got 19%.
If Perot voters had the opportunity to make a second choice on the same ballot, Bush could have won the election if at least 2 out of 3 Perot voters had chosen him.
And then there’s Buckley’s “first 400 names in the phone book.”
Depends on how Perot split it. See my post #8.
On the other hand, the primaries service this purpose.
No, primaries choose the party's candidate. It doesn't give someone the opportunity to rank their choice of parties in the general election.
The Constitution Party candidate is on the ballot in only 27 states this year. If you support their platform, it would give you the opportunity to vote for them, and then for Trump. You can express your true political preference without feeling like you wasted your vote.
When third party candidates get any significant support, the major parties take notice. The most recent example is the Contract For America in the 1994 off-year election: it was largely derived from the Reform Party platform.
Or Arthur C. Clarke's method in " Songs of Distant Earth".
The President is chosen by lottery, from all adults. But, actually campaigning to become President is an instant disqualification.
Compared to today, would be better to go back to how elections were run in the beginning. Way WAY in the beginning.
Elections were typically decided by the candidate that provided the most liquor to his prospective constituents.
For over one hundred years Illinois had a cumulative voting system.
Three votes one voter!
The cutback amendment was going to save piles of money!
By eliminating one third of the state reps and dump the bullet ballet!!!
The more things change, the more they stay the same!
Does it have to be a big city phonebook?
Yup. If you have a draft card you can be tapped to serve in office or on a chain gang. LOL.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.