Posted on 01/11/2023 9:20:18 PM PST by SeekAndFind
As different states and municipalities across the country adopt ranked-choice voting, it’s become obvious this mind-boggling election system deserves a new name: rigged-choice voting.
After nearly two months of tabulation, Alameda County, California, — one such ranked-choice voting (RCV) adoptee — announced it got the count wrong for its Nov. 8 election. As The Wall Street Journal reported, the California county admitted it made systemic errors while tabulating ballots. As a result of the snafu, an Oakland School Board race flipped: The top vote-getter (and certified winner) must now hand his board seat over to the third-place finisher.
While gross negligence on the part of some Alameda County election officials is not only probable but likely, RCV’s Byzantine election system must also take the blame. In it, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of votes in the first round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and his voters are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate. The process continues until one candidate receives a majority of votes. For the Oakland mayor’s race, it took nine baffling rounds of RCV for one candidate to receive the narrow majority. The local NAACP chapter demanded a manual recount but scrapped it due to the expense.
In the case of the Oakland School Board election, officials blame a software configuration problem for the error (even the machines were confused about how to count the RCV-way). But is it right for a candidate who receives a plurality of votes on the first go-through to eventually lose to someone who finishes last? Often, the victors that emerge from ranked-choice voting are not the candidates a majority of voters favor. Case-in-point: Democrat Mary Peltola won Alaska’s lone congressional seat despite nearly 60 percent of voters casting their ballots for a Republican.
What’s behind the RCV takeover? As The Federalist has previously reported, partisan Democratic activists and moderate Republicans are pushing RCV as a legal mechanism to push out more revolutionary (read: populist) candidates in favor of establishment-backed contenders. As Project Veritas has documented, the moderate, nominal Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski was behind the campaign to change Alaska’s primary to an RCV system, ensuring the defeat of her Trump-backed challenger Kelly Tshibaka. Had Alaska not implemented RCV, Tshibaka likely would have defeated Murkowski in the primary.
There is a myriad of problems with RCV, as the Alameda County debacle shows. The Foundation for Government Accountability notes that ranked-choice voting causes ballot exhaustion (when a ballot is cast but does not count toward the end election result), diminishes voter confidence, and lags election results. It can take weeks or even months for a ranked-choice race to be counted, threatening the security of the process.
If Americans desire democracy and election integrity, rigged-choice voting is clearly not the way to go.
This should be outlawed. You get one vote for one person.
It seems to me that RCV is a violation on the “one man, one vote” principle. In RCV, one man (or one member of any of the 94 genders) has 2 votes.
If Americans desire democracy INSTEAD OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC then ranked choice shall deliver.
They won’t be able to figure out what went wrong, of course.
Just call it what it is, one-party voting.
SNAFU = Situation Normal All Fried Up
Our found te knew better. This and trumps mail in ballots are permanent dem power grabs.
Why do the people who voted for the loser get a second vote, but nobody else does? Aren't their choices based on whom they thought would get knocked out? What if someone else came in last?
Wouldn't all the voters rethink their choices in a 3-person election after first voting in a 4-person election?
And when the election is narrowed to a two-person race, why do only the 3rd and 4th place votes get another vote, but the top-two candidate voters can't change their minds in what is now an entirely new race?
And what about the voters who stayed out of the 4-way election but have changed their minds in the 3-way or two-way race? Don't they have a right to add their new votes, too?
-PJ
I guarantee that if you randomly went up to 1000 people on the street and asked them to explain Ranked Choice Voting, you might find one person who could explain it accurately, if at all.
If you ask how regular balloting works, nearly everyone can get the right answer.
This is by design. It was and is being pushed wholly by the Left (with RINO’s signing on) and nearly wholly benefits the Left.
Minneapolis has adopted Ranked Choice Cheating. There will never be another non DFL mayor, until it’s repealed.
40 Richard Erdall December 31, 1973 Republican
41 Albert Hofstede January 1, 1974 December 31, 1975 Democratic–Farmer–Labor
42 Charles Stenvig January 1, 1976 December 31, 1977 Independent
43 Albert Hofstede January 1, 1978 December 31, 1979 Democratic–Farmer–Labor
44 Donald M. Fraser January 1, 1980 December 31, 1993 Democratic–Farmer–Labor
45 Sharon Sayles Belton January 1, 1994 December 31, 2001 Democratic–Farmer–Labor
46 R. T. Rybak January 1, 2002 December 31, 2013 Democratic–Farmer–Labor
47 Betsy Hodges January 1, 2014 January 2, 2018 Democratic–Farmer–Labor
48 Jacob Frey January 2, 2018 incumbent Democratic–Farmer–Labor
Basically it boils down to who ever collects the most participation awards wins?
Early voting = VOTER FRAUD
Mail in balloting = VOTER FRAUD
No ID required = VOTER FRAUD
Ballot harvesting = VOTER FRAUD
Same day registration = VOTER FRAUD
Rank choice voting = VOTER FRAUD
Why? Because such cities are populated by a strange mix of the elite and welfare parasites. The middle class has abandoned larger cities...nationwide.
This cannot be legal.
We get one vote, not two.
Why isn’t Palin suing for her stolen election? She sure isn’t the fighter she claimed to be.
IIRC, this particular race was a problem, because their tabulation system did NOT automatically change people’s blank first place choice into a non-vote and make their 2nd place choice their 1st place choice.
Basically, the election board said, you cannot not vote for a first-choice person...the election board decided that your favorite 2nd place vote will be counted as your 1st place vote.
So, basically, the election board CHANGED PEOPLE’S VOTES to get to the results they wanted!!
<>It seems to me that RCV is a violation on the “one man, one vote” principle.<>
The one-man-one-vote “principle” is a horrid Scotus construct from the early 1960s.
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.