Posted on 02/02/2021 4:52:28 AM PST by devane617
Some House Democrats hope to pass legislation this year that would give voters the option to list their choices in order of preference in future federal elections, a practice known as ranked-choice voting. It’s part of a package of reforms designed to reduce extremism in politics, making politicians more responsive to the majority of voters rather than the noisy minorities in both parties. Advocates also want to increase the number of House members for the first time in over 100 years, and to move to multimember congressional districts. “The most likely piece, which I hope we can pass this year, is just ranked-choice voting in primaries and general elections for federal elections,” Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., told Yahoo News.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Will someone please explain this to me...It’s buried in yahoo and it is a topic I have not heard discussed...Ranked Choice voting.
—
It is a system whereby Dems always win.
Let’s say there is one Republican, one Communist, one Socialist and one Democrat on the ticket. You could vote for, say, the Communist, but if he doesn’t get enough votes, then your ranked vote would be for the Socialist, then if he didn’t get it your vote would go to the Democrat.
States with ranked voting never elect a Republican.
This would stop, say, some billionaire from being a spoiler in an election. If you vote for the third party billionaire and he doesn’t get it, and your second choice was the Deomcrat, then the Democrat gets your vote.
On the other issue, if we had a House ratio to population such as 200+ years ago, we would have 7000+ Congresscritters.
MA had this as a referendum question last year. Even the far-Left Massachusetts voters rejected this as a terrible idea.
I think it is one of those bi-partisan things which doesn’t require Republican support to be bi-partisan. Something like that.
When the words Democrat and voting appear in the same sentence, fraud is afoot. Their highest priority is to never allow another free and fair election in this country. and they are determined to attain this objective.
The “explanation” is that Democrats, by their own confession, are in favor of marxism and socialism and communism and as 2020 proved their ideas prevail ONLY when they can steal an election which, with the help of RINO legislators, RINO State office holders, RINO judges and Corporate Media they did.
I am in favor of expanding Congress - by a lot honestly. One of the reasons we have so much political lobbying is far too few members and easy to steer. We should have around 7,000 if similar level to 200 years ago, which would also make congressmen far more accountable to their voters than their current sometimes massive districts
Voters cast their ballot by voting for their candidates in order of preference. If there are 4 candidates they rank them in order of preferred to least preferred. If a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, they win outright. If there isn’t a clear winner then a new form of counting begins. The candidate with the least amount of votes is eliminated and their votes are passed up to the next lowest candidate. If a clear winner isn’t determined at that point then the process is repeated until the winner loses and the loser wins.
I say that in all seriousness. If a candidate receives 48% of the vote, they could lose to a candidate who only got 20% of the vote.
Candidate A:48% B:20% C:17% D:15% -— guess who wins?
Answer: not A. Most likely C.
D is eliminated because a clear winner isn’t determined. D’s votes are rolled into C’s making C the new 2nd place winner. The B’s votes are rolled into C’s because B is now lower than C. C now has 52% of the vote and therefore the voters have chosen a clear majority winner.
This cannot stand.
It would make some sense in a primary contest.
Let’s say you’re a Democrat and it’s 1992 and your favorite candidate is Paul Tsongas. You vote him #1, because you think he’s great. Then you look down the list and see a bunch of weirdos, but you can sort of tolerate Bill Clinton so you vote him #2. And so on.
Then when the votes are counted, nobody has a majority, because there are 7 candidates. But Paul Tsongas came in last place with 2%. Then all the PT votes are thrown out and yours accrues instead to Bill Clinton.
If no one still has a majority, you repeat the process for the second lowest vote getter.
You could also see this playing in with 3rd party candidates. Say you just love Libertarians or Greens. You cast your first vote for the Libertarian, but if neither the Republican nor Democrat has 50%+1, then all your Libertarian voters get zeroed out and their second favorite (R or D) candidate gets the vote. It’s basically a tool to eliminate the need for runoffs in that sense.
Maine has it. That’s how they lost a republican congressman a couple of years ago even though he won the majority of votes on the 1st ballot.
That is absolutely NOT how it works.
If he had a majority, ranked choice would not come into play.
There are no federal elections.
There are only state elections, county elections, city elections, etc.
Unfortunately, we have it Maine and it cost us the Republican House seat in CD-2. He won the election on election night but lost it after the rank choice voting was allocated.
The sad part of this story is that the advocates of rank-choice voting were left wing Democrats (yes I know the same) and far left-wing Marxist/Leninists types.
And of course the Maine Republican Party fought the proposal with tooth and nail (NOT). The party just went along its merry way humming and skipping down the road and playing nice.
You are correct. I worked that election and saw the results first hand.
Sure why not more fraud
Except Collins. She benefited from it.
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.