Yes.
I would say that it’s a problem, because it gives Democrats an advantage to keep shifting their votes to candidates that survive.
It wouldn’t be supported by Democrats if it didn’t operate to their advantage.
Some places have runoff elections, if a candidate doesn’t get 50% plus 1 in the first round. They should just have runoff elections, in my opinion, rather than this ranked choice business.
Why did it take Alaska two weeks to count the votes? I understand it adds a layer of complexity to have ranked choices that need to be tallied. But I suspect this creates time for shenanigans behind the scenes.
Ranked Choice Voting guarantees the “moderate” candidate always wins.
Republicans will put their 1st choice with a second choice and third choice.
Democrats will put their 1st choice, then put the GOP 2nd and 3rd choices as their 2nd and 3rd choices.
The GOP’s top choice loses because Democrats vote for the GOP 2nd and 3rd choices.
Remember to tell people NO ON RANKED CHOICE VOTING!
Alaska went 60% Republican, and yet a Democrat won. Does that seem democratic?
There is something to be said about keeping it simple. It has worked for centuries.
Of course it is anti-democratic.
Most people are confused by more complex ballots like this. Many thousands did not make a second choice because they didn’t understand it. That’s the only reason Sarah lost.
Democrats are famous for criticizing much less confusing ballots as “anti-democratic,” such as the “butterfly ballot” in the 2000 Florida election. Suddenly, ballots aren’t an issue for them.
RCV provisions were in HR1 for a reason...
Whine, whine, snivel, snivel.
Mary Pelota got more votes than Sarah Palin on the first round - 75K vs. 58K. Using “first past the pole” she still would have won.
Nick Begich got 53K votes. Since no candidate got over 50%, and his was the smallest total, his votes went to the voters’ second choices with with Palin getting 27K and Pelota getting 17K. 11K of his votes were “exhausted” meaning that the voters didn’t chose a second candidate.
So, “Worked as Designed.”
What the ranked vote revealed is that Sarah Palin was not the second choice of over half of Nick Begich voters. We need to ask why. We also need to ask why Pelota got such a high initial vote.
Of course, if this had been a Democrat losing with a second Democrat candidate, there would be a lawsuit demanding all of the exhausted votes be applied the Democrat total.
It’s a sham that allows someone other the #1 vote getter to win the election.
Either the #1 vote getter should win outright or, if he/she only get’s a plurality, there should be a runoff of the top 2 vote getters.
Any ranked voting system that lacks a “never ever ever, not even for free BBQ, a new car and a puppy” option is simply crap.
It’s got the chance of breaking the duopoly. It definitely ends the “don’t vote 3rd party, that’s wasting your vote”. Now you can vote 3rd party as your 1st choice and put the duopoly candidate you find less repugnant 2nd or 3rd.
The fact is we’ve got something wrong. The 2 parties combine for about 2/3 of registered voters, and about 50% approval, and yet 99.9% of elected office. That math ain’t right.
I have no idea, but ranked choice may be a way to break the two party monopoly. might be an upside...
It gives some people more than one vote.
It’s just flat out wrong.
As I have been saying, it is damned hard to beat both the Democrat and the GOPe/Vichy Republicans. And with a strong, attractive Democrat candidate, it is probably impossible.
I expect to see a lot more of this come November.
The GOPe would rather the Democrats continue destroying the nation than have any MAGA candidate win a seat. The Vichy Republicans being anybody’s dog that will pet them simply go along to get along.
Regarding federal elections, the problem is not the voting method, but voters who have never been taught about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers as the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had intended for those powers to be understood.
Insights welcome.
It’s the best way to get the rankest candidate. Dumbass banana republic elections have more serious consequences than normal elections.
Yes, period.
If you want to know why, because it is sold as having MORE choices, but having “more choices” means we have less discernment in those choices!!
It’s just ignorance on a grander scale!!
Yes.
