Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 84

Thread: 'Ranked Voting'.

  1. #46 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Olympia, Wa
    Posts
    70,494
    Thanks
    3,125
    Thanked 15,029 Times in 12,559 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1,401 Times in 1,345 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Yet another modern bad idea.
    This illegal illegitimate regime that runs America is at fault...not me.... they do not represent me and I have long objected to their crimes against humanity.

  2. #47 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    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.
    So, instead the minority rules, I don’t understand how that is better?

  3. #48 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2021
    Posts
    80
    Thanks
    11
    Thanked 11 Times in 10 Posts
    Groans
    1
    Groaned 1 Time in 1 Post

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    "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?
    Originally we did that; the President was the one with the most votes and the Vice-President was the one that got the second most votes.

  4. #49 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NiftyNiblick View Post
    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.
    A runoff if a person doesn't reach over 50% of the vote, as Hillary did not in 2016, is fine with me.

    Personally, I'd like to see a study of which is most fair and least costly to We, the People: Ranked or Runoff.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  5. #50 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    So, instead the minority rules, I don’t understand how that is better?
    The point is the current system is flawed but works. The Republicans have bitched about Obamacare for over 10 years, but as Trump proved, they have nothing bette as an alternative.

    The question shouldn't be why Hillary, where more Americans voted against her than for her, lost to Trump. The question should be "Why is the vote so close it matters?"
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  6. #51 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    The point is the current system is flawed but works. The Republicans have bitched about Obamacare for over 10 years, but as Trump proved, they have nothing bette as an alternative.

    The question shouldn't be why Hillary, where more Americans voted against her than for her, lost to Trump. The question should be "Why is the vote so close it matters?"
    You’re wrong, Hillary won the popular vote. More people voted for her than Trump.

  7. #52 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    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 don't think it would be used in presidential elections since there are only two major candidates.

    How do you know GW Bush would have been re-elected or Gore?

  8. #53 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill View Post
    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"......................??
    Maybe when all the dust settles we'll get a consensus?

  9. #54 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anonymoose View Post
    Yes.

    Hmmmm ... now that YOU said that, I'm scratching my chin.





  10. #55 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phantasmal View Post
    You’re wrong, Hillary won the popular vote. More people voted for her than Trump.
    Sorry, ma'm, you're wrong. Hillary got 48.2% of the vote. Most Americans voted against her despite the lies of the Yankee Press.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...ntial_election
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  11. #56 | Top
    Join Date
    May 2018
    Posts
    47,509
    Thanks
    17,005
    Thanked 13,151 Times in 10,077 Posts
    Groans
    452
    Groaned 2,450 Times in 2,265 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    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?

    Thanks for the counter-view. Last I heard, there were 4 Contenders, and then the rest were 'Long Shots'. I'll wait to hear what the 4 Contenders have to say about it before making a decision.

  12. #57 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    136,609
    Thanks
    46,754
    Thanked 68,633 Times in 51,921 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,506 Times in 2,463 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    Maybe when all the dust settles we'll get a consensus?
    ....and humanity goes on. Or not.
    God bless America and those who defend our Constitution.

    "Hatred is a failure of imagination" - Graham Greene, "The Power and the Glory"

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Doc Dutch For This Post:

    Jack (06-23-2021)

  14. #58 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Dutch Uncle View Post
    Sorry, ma'm, you're wrong. Hillary got 48.2% of the vote. Most Americans voted against her despite the lies of the Yankee Press.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_U...ntial_election
    https://apnews.com/article/electoral...5d8574e10ff4e7

  15. #59 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    73,391
    Thanks
    101,921
    Thanked 54,771 Times in 33,632 Posts
    Groans
    3,155
    Groaned 5,065 Times in 4,683 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Certified results in all 50 states and the District of Columbia show Clinton winning nearly 65,844,610 million votes — 48 percent __ to Trump’s 62,979,636 million votes __ 46 percent — according to an analysis by The Associated Press.

  16. #60 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Federal Way, WA
    Posts
    68,352
    Thanks
    18,375
    Thanked 18,674 Times in 14,047 Posts
    Groans
    628
    Groaned 1,136 Times in 1,080 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jack View Post
    "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?
    I was hoping it would lead to that retarded Maya Wiley getting elected, just so I could watch NYC go up in flames. Instead, hypocritical Dems appear to have nominated a cop to unfuck their own stupid theories about policing.

Similar Threads

  1. Ranked-choice voting
    By Supposn in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-30-2021, 10:38 AM
  2. The dirtiest teams in the NFL, ranked from No. 1 to No. 32
    By Bill in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 04-14-2019, 09:56 AM
  3. Crazy's ranked
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 11-11-2015, 01:47 PM
  4. Florida State Should Not Be Ranked #2.
    By Mott the Hoople in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 11-17-2013, 08:50 PM
  5. Does being ranked No. 1 matter?
    By Big Money in forum Sports, Hobbies & Pictures
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-18-2013, 09:30 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •