'Ranked Voting'.

[Doc Dutch]

Did you say something?

Yes; you're a loser now and you'll always be a loser if you don't change.

Again; talk to those you respect and trust then follow their advice to be like them.

[Bill]

In national elections, the GOP has not been able to consistently convince a majority-plurality of voters of the superiority of their ideas since the mid to late 20th century.

Whatever the founders were doing, they certainly did not intend to create a tyranny of the minority*.


* of eligible voters

IMHO some of them certainly did...

You add to that jim crow's filibuster & there yea have it..

[Doc Dutch]

In national elections, the GOP has not been able to consistently convince a majority-plurality of voters of the superiority of their ideas since the mid to late 20th century.

Whatever the founders were doing, they certainly did not intend to create a tyranny of the minority*.


* of eligible voters

Preventing a tyranny of a majority or a minority was the intent. Should Americans be allowed to be stripped of their rights simply because 50.0001% say so?

[Doc Dutch]

IMHO some of them certainly did...

You add to that jim crow's filibuster & there yea have it..

People in power are reluctant to give up that power. This is why I strongly believe that by giving the Feds more power, we are cutting our own throats in the long run.

[Nordberg]

The bookkeeping can be long and laborious. If nobody hits 50 percent plus one, they go to the ballots of the last place candidate and his second-ranked vote is counted and his first eliminated. If you have a lot of candidates it could take a month or more. Every vote will have to be rescanned.

[BidenPresident]

"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?

Yes. New York city is using it for the mayor's race.

[Nordberg]

Preventing a tyranny of a majority or a minority was the intent. Should Americans be allowed to be stripped of their rights simply because 50.0001% say so?

Of course, but we do not go by popular vote, They are not stripping people of their rights. What is un-American is gerrymandering giving the reds seats that they do not deserve. The Dems are almost 55 percent in Mich and they never get the house majority due to gerrymandering. That Is not Democracy in action.

[Bill]

"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?

Why is it bad??

Mitt was everyone in the gop 4th choice..

There have been many times when a compromise candidate was put to the top of the tix because the big boys could not agree on their boy/girls not getting it.....

Difference here seems to be on who is making the call, the voters or the power brokers in the "smoke filled back rooms"......................??

[anonymoose]

"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?

Yes.

[Doc Dutch]

Of course, but we do not go by popular vote, They are not stripping people of their rights. What is un-American is gerrymandering giving the reds seats that they do not deserve. The Dems are almost 55 percent in Mich and they never get the house majority due to gerrymandering. That Is not Democracy in action.

I don't like gerrymandering or the screwing around with voting rights, but what they were talking about is getting rid of the EC. First, I doubt such an amendment would pass and, second, it's a really bad idea.

Ranking is easier and can be done by each state. I think it is fair and will be a popular idea.

https://www.npr.org/2021/06/22/10088...ty-mayors-race

[Cypress]

Ranking would have knocked out Nader and seen Gore as the clear winner just like ranking would have knocked out Perot and seen GHW Bush as the clear winner in 1992.

Disagreed that a popular vote loss by the Republicans will see a huge swing in Red States ratifying eliminating the EC. Most know the population increases are mainly in the cities.

Hillary's infamous "3 million votes" were on the West Coast, one or two states. Eliminating the EC means the most populous states dictate the leadership of the USA to all smaller states.

All you know about the EC is what rightwing media personalities have ordered you to believe.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Jack,

"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?

Y

[T. A. Gardner]

"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?

No. Ranked voting assumes that you would make the same choices as the number of names on the ballot dwindle.

That is, let's say there are 6 names on the ballot. You have to pick choices from first to sixth.

The first problem comes when people only pick say a first and second choice leaving the rest blank. This weights the resulting ranking in favor of those that rank all six. That skews the results.
Then comes the problem of how someone might rank the ballot if one or more of the choices were removed. That is, we don't know how someone might rank the choices if these were more limited.
Since reallocation of votes is done on a proportionate scale, as the ranking continues it is possible for a second or third place contender to end up being the winner over the original leader in votes.
Because you have to rank each candidate, many voters will worry about how their rankings will alter the outcome when the rounds of re-ranking occur and not vote for their best choice but to either help a particular outcome occur, or to avoid the worst outcomes.

It's all very much like a Vegas crap table. You roll the dice and get your point. The next roll is either craps or not. What's the odds you get the outcome you are looking for?

[T. A. Gardner]

Of course, but we do not go by popular vote, They are not stripping people of their rights. What is un-American is gerrymandering giving the reds seats that they do not deserve. The Dems are almost 55 percent in Mich and they never get the house majority due to gerrymandering. That Is not Democracy in action.

Not true. As with most states, the distribution of voters by party isn't even within districts even if there is zero gerrymandering going on. Democrats tend toward urban and Black population districts. Republicans towards more affluent, suburban, and rural districts.

Thus, you might have in Michigan districts that are overwhelmingly Democrat or Republican. If you have some that are dense urban Democrat districts, while the majority of the state is rural / suburban Republican dominated, you end up with a legislature that is Republican dominated on the number of districts were they have a majority while the Democrats only have a solid lock on a smaller number of very high percentage Democrat voter urban districts.

Your statement assumes even distribution of voters by district, and that isn't going to happen without massive amounts of gerrymandering to distribute voters evenly throughout them.

[NiftyNiblick]

Yes. I fully support it.

Had ranked voting existed in 1993, GW Bush would have won reelection. If it existed in 2000, Al Gore would have been elected. In 2016, I suspect Hillary would have won but that one turned more on the states versus total votes.

I totally oppose ranked voting.
If a candidate doesn't reach majority, he has no mandate.
I don't like sending the election to the House, either.
Have a runoff of the top two, just as if you were electing a president of your chess or garden club.

How Papa Bush is any better than Bubba, Oom, I'll never know.

I supported Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown in '92. He was the most progressive candidate in the Primaries.