Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Maine votes to use Ranked Choice Voting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Maine votes to use Ranked Choice Voting

    Residents of Maine voted yesterday to keep their new system of Ranked Choice Voting and to use it in the midterms.

    Ranked choice voting, for those unfamiliar with it, is a change away from plurality voting, which allows you to number your preferred candidates on your ballot paper rather than just tick the one you want.
    e.g.
    Maggie Jones . . . . . . .
    John Smith . . . . . . . . . 3
    Simon Archer . . . . . . . 1
    Aaron Daily . . . . . . . . .
    Paula Scarlet . . . . . . . . 2
    If you want to cast a ballot equivalent to an old plurality vote, you just put a '1' beside the candidate you'd previously have put a tick beside.

    But the new system allows you to express additional preferences: So if your #1 candidate doesn't win, the computer moves your vote to be a vote for the candidate you've labelled #2, etc. You can number as many or as few candidates as you wish.

    As I have said before here, I think changing to ranked choice voting is the easiest change Americans can take to massively improve their political system.

    As everyone familiar with it knows, plurality voting is really annoying and silly, as it basically forces voters to pick between two options, least their vote end up being a 'spoiler'. The biggest effect of the ranked choice voting system is it allows voters to vote for an independent or 3rd or 4th party candidate as their #1 preference, safe in the knowledge that their vote will still "count" if that person doesn't get elected because they can put a major party candidate as #2 or #3.

    Maine's governor, the infamously somewhat insane Paul LePage, weighed in: He told reporters that the new voting system is "the most horrific thing in the world."
    "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
    "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
    "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

  • #2
    I'm a major proponent of this voting system. This removes the excuse always given to avoid voting for third parties.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #3
      A further modification that Ranked Choice Voting allows, if states want to do it, is to merge 2-4 congressional districts into larger districts. Then have the voters within those larger districts vote for 2-4 representatives simultaneously. e.g. in a 4-sized district they might end up electing a libertarian, an independent, a republican, and a democrat. This would mean, for example, that in the general election itself up to 4 Republicans and 4 Democrats would be on the ticket, and general election voters could choose between those different options with their rankings much as they would in a primary. So a voter might number 3 of the Republicans #1-#3, then put an independent as their #4 and a Democrat as their #5, and leave off the 4th Republican because they don't like them.

      It's another way of giving voters more freedom to choose their politicians rather than having the politicians choose their voters - i.e. Republican voters in the general aren't "stuck with" having to vote for the Republican candidate who happened to have won the primary (possibly due to party rigging it / name recognition / whatever), but rather they can choose among their own party's candidates, and/or can happily stray to other parties with some of their lower numberings if they wish.

      (The math algorithms backing the number crunching work in such a way that the bigger the district the more closely the elected representatives end up matching to the population's votes. e.g. if the district is 66%-33% Republican to Dem, and 3 candidates are being elected, then you'll get 2 Republicans elected and 1 Democrat.)
      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #4
        It seems unfair to me. Kinda like giving people extra votes if their guy loses.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          It seems unfair to me. Kinda like giving people extra votes if their guy loses.
          Yeah, that doesn't seem fair at all - in essence they are getting three votes.
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            It seems unfair to me. Kinda like giving people extra votes if their guy loses.
            I don't see where you get that. Each voter can only vote for each candidate once.

            This form of voting is extremely common in award balloting (such as the Heisman Trophy in college football), and it's worked well enough there.
            "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

            Comment


            • #7
              So it'd be great if someone could confirm whether I understand this or not.

              A bunch of people are on the ballot. Voters put a 1 next to their most preferred candidate, a 2 next to their second most preferred candidate, and so on. Let's say there are 5 candidate in total. After voting, the votes are tallied based solely on who each voters' first choice was. If someone gets a majority (50% or more of the vote), then they win. If no one gets a majority, then whichever candidate got the least number of votes is stricken off, and anyone who chose them as their first choice instead has their vote counted for whoever their second choice was. If this new count produces a majority for one candidate, then that candidate wins. If not, the next candidate who got the fewest votes is stricken off, and anyone who had the two removed candidates as their top two choices will have their vote counted for their third (and anyone who had only one of those two be their first but didn't have the other be their second will then have their second choice counted). It then goes on like this until a candidate achieves the majority of the vote, and then that candidate wins.

              Is all of this accurate?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                It seems unfair to me. Kinda like giving people extra votes if their guy loses.
                Another name for the system is Single Transferable Voting (STV). Everyone's vote eventually counts once in the final tally (so long as they have numbered enough people on the ballot). So they can vote for any number of losing candidates, and the moment the algorithm determines those candidates have lost (and hence that the votes for them don't "count"), it moves the votes for that candidate to the next preferences in the hope of making their votes count for something. As long as people have chosen to number enough of the candidates, everyone's vote will end up counting for exactly 1 full vote in the final tally).

                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                So it'd be great if someone could confirm whether I understand this or not.

                A bunch of people are on the ballot. Voters put a 1 next to their most preferred candidate, a 2 next to their second most preferred candidate, and so on. Let's say there are 5 candidate in total. After voting, the votes are tallied based solely on who each voters' first choice was. If someone gets a majority (50% or more of the vote), then they win. If no one gets a majority, then whichever candidate got the least number of votes is stricken off, and anyone who chose them as their first choice instead has their vote counted for whoever their second choice was. If this new count produces a majority for one candidate, then that candidate wins. If not, the next candidate who got the fewest votes is stricken off, and anyone who had the two removed candidates as their top two choices will have their vote counted for their third (and anyone who had only one of those two be their first but didn't have the other be their second will then have their second choice counted). It then goes on like this until a candidate achieves the majority of the vote, and then that candidate wins.

                Is all of this accurate?
                Correct. There are alternative ways to implement a ranked choice voting algorithm, but the one you describe is the most common method and is the one Maine is using. This version is also known as "instant run-off voting".

                Pretty much no voting system is perfect according to the various theorems that political scientists come up with, and it's possible to come up with scenarios where this system gives a bit of a weird result. However, it's vastly superior to Plurality voting in general in terms of generating sensible winners from people's preferences.
                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                  So it'd be great if someone could confirm whether I understand this or not.

                  A bunch of people are on the ballot. Voters put a 1 next to their most preferred candidate, a 2 next to their second most preferred candidate, and so on. Let's say there are 5 candidate in total. After voting, the votes are tallied based solely on who each voters' first choice was. If someone gets a majority (50% or more of the vote), then they win. If no one gets a majority, then whichever candidate got the least number of votes is stricken off, and anyone who chose them as their first choice instead has their vote counted for whoever their second choice was. If this new count produces a majority for one candidate, then that candidate wins. If not, the next candidate who got the fewest votes is stricken off, and anyone who had the two removed candidates as their top two choices will have their vote counted for their third (and anyone who had only one of those two be their first but didn't have the other be their second will then have their second choice counted). It then goes on like this until a candidate achieves the majority of the vote, and then that candidate wins.

                  Is all of this accurate?
                  Yup.
                  Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                  MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                  MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
                  MM on climate change: Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable ...

                  mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I wouldn't have a problem with this. It could effectively break the two-party gridlock and allow for a more diversified field of candidates. But the cynic in me also thinks this is precisely why we'll never see this system adopted on the national scale. The establishment parties wouldn't want to risk losing their power.
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                      I don't see where you get that. Each voter can only vote for each candidate once.

                      This form of voting is extremely common in award balloting (such as the Heisman Trophy in college football), and it's worked well enough there.
                      So I voted for Hillary, she lost, so I get to vote for Bernie as second choice? That is like getting a do-over and a second vote. Basically Bernie gets all of Hillary's votes PLUS his own follower's votes and beats Trump? And you don't think that would be unfair?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        So I voted for Hillary, she lost, so I get to vote for Bernie as second choice? That is like getting a do-over and a second vote. Basically Bernie gets all of Hillary's votes PLUS his own follower's votes and beats Trump? And you don't think that would be unfair?
                        No, because Donald would have acquired all the votes for Rand, Herman, Jeb, Bobby, Rick, Mitt, etc. Quit being a snowflake.
                        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

                        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
                        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.
                        MM on climate change: Looking at the historical temperature data in my region over the past ten years shows that temperatures have been stable ...

                        mikewhitney: What if the speed of light changed when light is passing through water? ... I have 3 semesters of college Physics.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Roy View Post
                          No, because Donald would have acquired all the votes for Rand, Herman, Jeb, Bobby, Rick, Mitt, etc. Quit being a snowflake.
                          00000000000000ars5aa.jpg


                          I think you mean nay-sayer or the equivalent.

                          I'm always still in trouble again

                          "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                          "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                          "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            I wouldn't have a problem with this. It could effectively break the two-party gridlock and allow for a more diversified field of candidates. But the cynic in me also thinks this is precisely why we'll never see this system adopted on the national scale. The establishment parties wouldn't want to risk losing their power.
                            Well, there is actually an advantage to the establishment parties: It largely removes the problem of "spoiler" candidates.

                            Consider the 2016 Senate election in New Hampshire, which was very close... 354,649 votes for the Democrat, and 353,632 votes for the Republican, meaning a difference of only 1017 votes. How many votes did the third party candidates (a Libertarian and a conservative Independent) get? 30,339. Now, we can't know for sure how the third party voters would have voted had there not been a third party option; many would have presumably not voted at all, for example. But considering policy positions, it's likely that more votes were taken from the Republican candidate than from the Democrat candidate, causing the Democrat to win the election. So in such a situation, ranked voting would have been of benefit to the Republicans, as in such a situation the third party voters would have had their votes transferred over to the Republican and give them the win. Alternatively, if ranked choice voting spurred many more to vote for one of the third party candidates to the point they received more than the Republican candidate, this still would have resulted in the elected candidate being more palatable to Republican interests than the Democrat.

                            I know the example I chose was all about how ranked choice voting would benefit the Republicans, but one can easily find counter-examples of cases where a third party candidate acted as the "spoiler" and probably cost a Democrat the election. So there is at least potential benefit for them to allow such a thing.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              So I voted for Hillary, she lost, so I get to vote for Bernie as second choice? That is like getting a do-over and a second vote. Basically Bernie gets all of Hillary's votes PLUS his own follower's votes and beats Trump? And you don't think that would be unfair?
                              So in this example case, you're saying the majority of voters prefer Bernie to Trump, yet you think it's "unfair" that a vote-counting system should produce an outcome where Bernie beats Trump in such a situation? I think that's actually exactly the outcome a vote-counting system should produce.

                              Unfortunately in the situation you outline, ranked choice voting actually doesn't produce the outcome you suggest, because its algorithm removes candidates from the bottom-up not top-down. So if people's first votes are Trump 45%, Hillary 35%, Bernie 20%, the system does not wipe out Hillary like you suggest and then look at her voters' 2nd preferences. The system wipes out the lowest first-preference getter, which is Bernie at 20%. With Bernie gone, it looks at the Bernie-voters 2nd preferences and adds them to the Hillary-Trump tallies. Let's say all Bernie voters put Hillary 2nd. Then it would be a Trump 45%, Hillary 55% match-up in the second round, and thus Hillary wins. The voting system has produced this result because the majority of the voters preferred Hillary to Trump.

                              But what you might reasonably argue to be unfair is that Hillary won over Bernie. Because, let's say 100% of the Trump voters had listed Bernie second and left off Hillary entirely because they loathe her - Bernie would then be the candidate most liked overall by voters out of the 3 available candidates, but the algorithm never even looked at the Trump voter's 2nd preferences so it never spotted this. (There are other ways of implementing ranked choice algorithms that do spot this, e.g. if a voter has ranked a candidate #1 that candidate gets 3 'points' and if #2 the candidate gets 2 'points' and if #3 the candidate gets 1 'point', and then all points are totaled and the candidate with the most points wins) It's possible to construct situations where the outcome looks a bit 'unfair'. But the voting system overall is still leagues ahead of plurality voting in terms of general fairness and allowing voters to express their preferences.
                              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by whag, Today, 05:11 PM
                              0 responses
                              18 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by Cow Poke, Today, 11:25 AM
                              32 responses
                              186 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post oxmixmudd  
                              Started by whag, Yesterday, 01:48 PM
                              24 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 11:56 AM
                              52 responses
                              270 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post seer
                              by seer
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-16-2024, 07:40 AM
                              77 responses
                              383 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X