No rank choice voting anywhere, ever.
7 Likes
This is why I support Approval voting. The system inherently benefits candidates who would do well in Approval polls, because the process is similar. It also just uses existing ballots and places no arbitrary restrictions on how voters can complete them. It is quite simple for the possible improvement in representation we could see.
2 Likes
S.T.A.R. Voting is best because RCV has many problems. This site shows the difference. A Renaissance in Voting Reform - Equal Vote Coalition
RCV has errors with equal ranked votes & under voting. Exhausted ballots happen since RCV rounds tally from bottom (least-liked) to top & when choices are eliminated it exhausts those votes prematurely. Also, RCV needs to be centrally tabulated to distribute all votes which increases risk of mistakes/fraud. To name a few problems.
3 Likes
I think RCV could be a viable option if done right.
To me, I think the real question up for discussion is how could RCV work in the US? Could we add rules to fix how RCV has failed or been manipulated in the past?
For example, in Franceās parliamentary elections in 2024 where hundreds of candidates, mainly from centrist and left-wing parties, withdrew from the race in a tactical strategy to consolidate votes against the far-right candidates.
I would argue this strategic play could have been thwarted by preventing candidates from dropping out by voiding all their votes.
Either way without RCV at least at the congressional level and below, almost all elected candidates will continue to be red and blue.
1 Like
Good points, for the most part. Iād just respond to #4 with the data from real RCV elections. It turns out the candidate with the most 1st ranks wins 93% of the time.
Indeed, the common advice from campaign managers is to prioritize first ranks, since they are so decisive. This presentation from the Center for Election Science discusses how this was the common strategy in the NYC Democratic Mayoral election:
Ranked-Choice in NYC: A Look at the Voter Experience" with Professor Lindsey Cormack. (Watch till about 6:24. About a minute from where I start it.)
Iād appreciate if RCV advocates stopped promoting the instant runoff model, and went with a Condorcet model like Ranked Robin. The most egregious failures of RCV are from the way it counts ballots, leading to inefficiencies in administration, and mistrust in the results, which can seem chaotic.
Ranked Robin is both simpler to administer, and more intuitive: People are already used to the idea of a sports tournament (i.e. a āRound Robinā), where teams play against each other, and the team who wins the most games is crowned the champion. Likewise, in Ranked Robin, the candidates are considered in head-to-head comparisons, and the candidate who beats the most others is elected. In the case of a tie, the candidate with the largest margins wins - similar to how teams that score more goals are placed higher in championship rankings.
1 Like
Ranked choice voting manufactures consent and is used to manipulate elections as a spoiler. These are elections, not condominium board games.
3 Likes
Weāre long past pulling the country back from division at this point. The polarisation has become so extreme that nothing but a decisive victory bears consideration. Sorry, but the middle road was eliminated around 2020 in the US. All RCV does is guarantee no change and disenfranchisement on both wings. The band aid needs to be pulled off quickly.
2 Likes
Does any method consider pre programmed vote weighting in tabulation software? Thatās where weāre at.
RCV in NYC uses open-source software to count the votes. This is what we need to keep all the machines from being used to cheat.
I completely agree RCV wonāt change anything. Itās not a solution. That was a major part of my argument above.
What we also need to realize is that we are being disenfranchised using existing voting systems; indeed, you just mentioned 2020 as an example of that. So we do need to be looking for solutions. This is why I advocate strongly for Approval voting, which uses existing ballots (no ranked ballots). It (a) puts more control in the hands of the individual voter, and (b) yields a more accurate picture of the will of the people at large.
1 Like
Blockchain is the only foolproof solution to disenfranchisement and fraud.
The other kicker with RCV is of that pool of candidates, my first choice may not be different, and yes I can choose who my successive preferences are ā¦but as the pool narrows, my 2nd choice may not be anymore depending on the remaining pool.
If my top choice doesnāt win and is outā¦my 2nd choice may not be my top when going against say my 4th and 5thā¦it kinda depends on who my other choices would be.
In my opinion we already have a āranked choiceā type system with the primary system then general, but it gives you multiple actual votes instead of trusting a system that would be nigh impossible to audit and verify.
In my opinion it makes things way too convoluted and then you can have issues where candidates will collude and drop out to block one they all really donāt want to win, like what happened in France.
It may not be perfect, but our system where the one who gets the most votes wins is as simple as you can get it.
2 Likes
You should author a non-AI generated response.
2 Likes
The problem of a spoiler candidate remains with RCV so I am curious why you are advocating for it over STAR?
1 Like
Iām more inclined to support open primaries. Itās unconstitutional to require people to register with a party to vote in general elections. It should be unconstitutional to require people to register with a party to take part in any part of the electoral process. In a nation where half the voters are registered as independents, weāre alienating half the people through the primaries and wondering why we get low voter turnouts.
But ranking candidates much better reflects the votersā feelings. For instance, Kennedy would be my first choice, Stein my second, and Trump a distant third. If I merely āapprovedā of all those candidates, Trump would take first place. RCV gives independent candidates more of a chance to get ahead.
1 Like
The reason why āapprovalā voting seems to eliminate the effects of campaign funding is that the voter is forced to vote in a way that makes it appear as if he/she feels equally about all of the candidates he/she āapproves.ā In reality, voters tend to prefer one candidate much more than the others. Approval voting is used nowhere in the world, so you have no results to point to to make your case. Approval voting (and star voting, which is so complicated I keep forgetting how it works no matter how many times I look it up) will reinforce the current situation where the candidate most people have heard about will get the most votes.
Campaign funding is a problem. But it is a problem distinct from FPTP. RCV solves the FPTP problem. Different solutions are needed for campaign finance reform. We might just stop allowing candidates to buy ads.
1 Like
Iād refer you back to my earlier comment. Independents tend to have more of a middle-ground approach, and you can see visually how RCV really doesnāt change the bias against these candidates (what it does do is decrease the possibility of the most extreme of the extreme candidates from gaining seats). Approval (or STAR, or Ranked Robin) would actually give Kennedy a much better chance.
Something thatās hard to see when you are casting your own vote is the distribution of society as a whole. So itās understandable to think āhey, I donāt get to express a preference between these two candidates, thatās hurting meā. But in actuality, thereās statistics at play; there are other people who would approve Kennedy, but not Trump, and that is what gives the method its accuracy. Thatās not to say there isnāt some degree of strategy, but itās mathematically proven that is an impossibility; indeed, if we want to get away from dictatorship or two-party rule, we have to accept strategy in our voting method.
Approval voting (and star voting, which is so complicated I keep forgetting how it works no matter how many times I look it up) will reinforce the current situation where the candidate most people have heard about will get the most votes.
Actually, RCV will reinforce the current situation, and perpetuate the problems with FPTP. Thatās what both the real-world data and mathematical models indicate.