Posted on 07/03/2021 6:57:06 PM PDT by Libloather
“Has anybody run simulations that test how to game the system so that the primary vote goes to the least desirable but the second vote goes to the real desired candidate?
Is it possible to run a Dark Horse campaign with this tactic to ensure that the second vote actually wins?”
*********************************************************************
Why not have the “1st choice vote” go to the desired candidate so that the real desired candidate gets your vote in both the first round as well as subsequent rounds? Believe me there will be candidates in ranked choice voting who don’t get the most votes in the first round but end up winning. But it won’t be because the winner’s campaign worked strategically to not have that candidate voted as “first choice”.
The real problem is primary elections themselves. Primary elections are state subsidies to the major political parties. Why the hell should tax dollars pay for and run a system to decide who the major parties run for offices? I think that is for the parties to handle. And at their own expense.
As for RCF? It is designed to stop political reform and control access to power and club membership.
In a "representative" republic, we vote for the person to represent us, not " if not that person, then this one, and then that one..."
One person, one vote.
Ranked choice voting is one person, as many votes as it takes.
-PJ
Stop the scenario game.
The Left is heavily investing in this national wide .
The Lefty Cali Group funded by that Evil Cali Billionaire had a huge PR and door knocking campaign in FL .
That commie is trying to destroy FL each election period with another
Amended to our state constitution . A bad loop hole we have .
I am quite open to having my mind changed about this. Maybe ranked voting or having a runoff election really is a bad idea. But please, give me a concrete reason why. And please provide an example.
It’s up to you, of course. But it might be worth your time to do so. Because if you can convince me, then I’ll pay it forward. I’ll pass your argument along to my conservative friends.
It’s not just the viting system that’s the problem.
It’s the RCV-enabled voting machines.
RCV needs to be repealed wherever it’s in use.
And we need to go back to dumb voting machines.
Those RCV provisions are in HR1 for a reason.
Thank you for that link. At first glance, I am not totally convinced. The author seems to be focusing on the more extreme of all the possible problems. I’ll read the whole article carefully tomorrow with my morning coffee.
Thanks again.
Vote for your candidate for first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. Or is that not allowed?
If Georgia applied its majority rule only to state elections, then that's Georgia's business.
But since the 17th Amendment does not expressly prohibit electing senators with a simple plurality, Georgia wrongly ignored bonafide federal voting power of voters who did vote and supported Republicans for federal office imo.
Also, Georgia Democrats allegedly predictably stole the runoff election from Republicans.
Insights welcome.
FYI, Weather Underground scion Chesa Boudin became D.A. of San Francisco through ranked-choice voting. Yes, the young commie came in 2nd in the election, but managed to be enough idiots’ 2nd or 3rd choice to win the election as the candidates with lower tallies were eliminated. The system works to the advantage of “unacceptable” fringe candidates like Boudin because even if, say, 60% of S.F. voters would never want such pro-criminal radical to be D.A. he can still win by making sure that the other 40% who think he’s okay know about him and at least give him their 2nd or 3rd-choice vote. In a true head-to-head runoff with the 1st place candidate, he’d lose.
Ranked choice is one person, three votes.
-PJ
According to Ballotpedia Boudin was leading from round 1 and the transfers helped Suzy Loftus to catch up, but not enough.
After Round 1 Boudin was leading by ~8,800 votes and by the final round his lead had melted down to less than 3,000.
https://ballotpedia.org/Chesa_Boudin
Okay, thank you. I misremembered some of the details of that election. Ultimately, though, Boudin’s election was the product on ranked-choice, as only 45% of S.F. voters ranked him 1st, 2nd or 3rd. There’s a good explanation here:
https://www.city-journal.org/instant-runoff-voting
This shows to me people just don’t care about these elections as it makes absolutely no sense that 5,000 INFORMED voters would put the most pro-police candidate as their first choice and Boudin as their second.
They probably just filled it in randomly. I have heard some people do that - they mistakenly believe they can’t leave empty spots, vote for those they know about and then fill in the rest by chance.
Some people in S.F. believe that Chesa also benefited from sharing his surname with a popular local sourdough bread brand. He’s in no way related to the bread company, but stupid people vote.
Whatever happened to ‘one person, one vote’??? The Left will do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to corrupt our voting rights.
I vote for this person, but if he/she doesn’t win outright, my vote will go to another person??? Circling the drain.
Yeah…and it provides enough time so you will never find out who REALLY won.
It works in certain situations (for example, election of a board of supervisors, city commissioners, etc.) where there are numerous positions to be filled. But the whole point of a presidential or mayoral election is that there is only one choice, and you either select that person or you don’t.
That’s only because the NYC Board of Elections is full of incompetent dumbasses. Maine handles theirs just fine.
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.