Posted on 11/07/2019 9:07:55 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
New York City voted on Tuesday to change the way it determines election winners. With approval from more than 73% of voters, the Big Apple joins Maine and countries including Australia and New Zealand in adopting what’s known as ranked-choice voting.
This popular electoral system allows voters to rank candidates by preference, meaning they can submit ballots that list not only their first-choice candidate for a position, but also their second, third and so on.
Ranked-choice voting advocates, including Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who has championed it as a key policy initiative, say it could help prevent evermore polarized election campaigns, increase the number of women and minority candidates running for office, and reduce negative campaigning. Critics say that the new system could make elections much more complicated for voters and be abused by parties trying to game the system.
In addition to Maine, which has adopted the system statewide, several states are experimenting with ranked-choice voting. Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming plan to use ranked-choice for voters in the 2020 Democratic primaries, and Nevada plans to use it for early voters in their 2020 Democratic caucuses, according to FairVote, a nonpartisan group that advocates for election reform.
“We are really settling on ranked-choice voting as the most promising reform to democratize and depolarize our politics,” says Larry Diamond, the former director of Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law. “I think it’s not only here to stay but that it’s gaining support across the country.”
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
So if your election looks like this:
Republican: 49%
Democrat: 46%
Green Party: 3%
Socialist Workers Party: 1%
In today’s paradigm the Republican would win.
In ranked choice the Green Party and SWP voters would have selected the Democrats as their second choice. Hence all of those votes would swing to the Dem, giving him the win.
THAT is why they freakin’ love this system.
If Kentucky did this Matt Bevin would be governor rn and if the US did this Bill would have lost to HW
It’s another “reform” that will move politics further and further Left just like top two in California that was sold to voters as a way to moderate the candidates from each party. All it did was eliminate the Republican choice.
This will kill democracy.
We have a winner!!
What happens when “None of the Above”. wins?
Even here on FR, there are a lot of people who don’t have a problem with this.
Without even knowing how it worked, I was against it because the Rats were for it.
Then, I was on vacation in Maine during election season, and I saw how this swung the election to a jackass rat.
Not only jackass rat, but one masquerading as a conservative in his commercials, touting his military service, showing hime shooting at a range, only to find out later he is a gun grabber.
No. This is another Leftist tool.
This will dilute the pool of second-tier candidates.
Only if a majority of the people who show up to vote really prefer the democrat to the republican.
If someone shows up to vote 3rd party because they hate the democrat, they probably won’t choose anybody as a “2nd choice”.
meanwhile, republicans can use this just as easily as democrats, just make sure you get good libertarian and constitution-party candidates, who then could tell their supporters to be sure to pick the republican as the 2nd or 3rd choice.
As a change, it is different, but probably the least offensive way to update the election process.
THe reason they think this will reduce negative attacks is because you will not want to turn the other candidates supporters against you.
True. For example, when Kamala Harris ran for Senator, her opponent was another Democrat.
Pick a Democrat, any Democrat
Libertarians boast of laughing at conservative tears when Democrats win
really, all this does is streamline the process and eliminate the need for a runoff
This is a terrible system. Why bother to vote at all?
This is preposterous. It means EXACTLY that those who vote for bad candidates get an automatic re-vote, effectively voiding one-person/one-vote.
Here in California we don’t have ranked choice, but it does wind up that way in one sense.
When you have Republicans running against Democrats, the two who receive the most votes, are on the general election ballot.
So while there was a Republican primary winner, that winner may not be on the ballot, if the top two democrats receive more votes.
When it comes to voting for US Senator for instance, there is no Republican on the general election ballot anymore.
It really is a one party state.
>>>True. For example, when Kamala Harris ran for Senator, her opponent was another Democrat<<<
Yep, the first and only time I ever Voted for a Democrat, choosing the Dumb one over the Evil one.
Is this even Constitutional??
Ranked-choice voting is a two-edged sword. In your example, the Democrat would win. But if it were in effect back in 1992, Bush 1 would have beaten Bill Clinton. And then whole Clinton family would have been soon forgotten.
I’m in favor of run-off elections for executive positions. This ranked-choice voting seems like the next best thing.
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.