Posted on 01/29/2019 5:26:05 PM PST by originalbuckeye
Just watching Dr Jill Stein on Tucker and she was commenting on Starbucks’ Shultz announcing a Presidential run. She said ‘we are no longer constrained by the two party system, you just have to pass ‘Rank Choice’. Maine has passed Rank Choice and it cost the Republicans a House seat. The Republican had the most votes, but those who voted for the 3rd party candidate could say who they wanted if the 3rd party candidate didn’t win. And of course, their second choice was the Dem. So, with those ‘second choice’ votes added in, the Dem was awarded the win.
Big apologies for the vanity. I know there have been way too many these days. But Rank Choice had better be addressed, and before the next election!!
I oppose it.
I saw something like this in Tasmania, while I was in Australia.
It is a huge mess.
But, but, but...it has to be fair. And by fair, I mean it has to go MY way.
// sarcasm
Dank Choice, the way of CA. Maine I think?
There is a push here to install Dank Choice here in MA. I browsed their table at the MA GOP convention last year, disgusted that they were allowed in the door.
So, you think people having two choices/votes for the same office is the American Way?
Did you see the sarcasm tag?
That means I was making fun of it.
Reading comprehension is a wonderful thing. You might want to give it a shot.
Libertarians usually take votes from the Republican side. Run a good libertarian candidate and after the RATS lose because of this they will insist on changing the law back to where it was.
I don’t think CA has Rank Choice yet. They do have a Jungle Primary and have had for over a decade. The sad thing there is, with all the illegals voting in the Primaries, two Dems usually get the most and then second most number of votes. This (Rank Choice) is in the election, where people who vote 3rd party can say who they would like second, and the vote can then be assigned to the second choice candidate.
Oh no, I read it correctly, I just figured you were making fun of me. It’s been happening a lot lately.
Don’t be so sensitive. Not EVERYONE is out to get you. Just most of “them.”
True words well said
Just like Heisman trophy voting,BS
The way to really screw it up when there three candidates, is to only vote for two of them. The one you leave out gets no rank at all
You described it well.
Let’s say someone voted for Johnson, but listed Trump as second choice. When Johnson is the bottom finisher, that vote goes to Trump.
and have had for over a decade.
= = =
Not quite that long, I think
More like since 2012 (after court hearings and such).
Simple fact is, more of he people who showed up to vote liked the democrat. You solve that by finding more voters who like the republican candidare.
There are problems with rank choice which wont be solved because the two parties like winnjng.
For example. Imagine
Candidates A, B , C
A is preferred by 40%, B by 35%, and C by 25%.
Also, of C voters, 80% want B over A.
Also, of A voters, 90% want C over B, and 90% of B voters want C over A.
Rank chouce drops C, and 4/5tha of ghec25% go to B, and B wins 55 45. Sems fair, 55% of the voters preferred B to A.
But note, if A dropped, 9/10 of the 40% would go to C, and C would win 61% to 39%. And if B dropped, C would win 56.5 to 43.5.
By looking at 2 way matchups, we find that a lot more oeople will be “satisfied” by the outcome if C wins, rather than A or B. But because C wasnt the first choice, Bends up winning. If the people who voted for A Knew there gue would lose, theyd vote for C
one person one vote - rank choice is some people two votes, imo that’s wrong.
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.