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

  • #46
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    The biggest problem is that a completely unpopular candidate could actually win by collecting the left over votes from the popular candidate who lost
    Nope, because the system uses bottom-up elimination, not top-down elimination. It:

    1. checks to see if one of the most popular candidates has won (>50% of vote)
    2. if not, it kills off the least popular candidate and transfers their votes to more popular candidates
    3. repeat 1 & 2 until someone wins

    So in the last election, Jill Stein, who got hardly any votes, could have conceivably picked up all of Hillary's votes
    Jill could never have gotten Hillary's votes, because Jill was less popular than Hillary. So the system would never ever kill off Hillary and transfer the votes to Jill, it would always kill off Jill and transfer her votes to Hillary. It's bottom-up elimination not top-down elimination.


    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Yes, but with ranked voting, you only get back what you put in: you cast one vote, and at the end of the day, it only counts as one vote.
    We have a different system here for national elections called MMP (sadly, though we use ranked choice in some local elections), so I get two votes, one for my favorite party (e.g. Green) and one for my favorite electorate candidate (which itself works by plurality voting and not ranked choice voting... ~mutter mutter~ ~shakes fist at right-wing party who blocked changing it to ranked choice~). The candidates get elected like normal from electorates, and then the party vote is used to stick additional representatives into parliament based off lists of names each party has supplied pre-election, until the percentage of representatives that party has in parliament matches the percentage of people who voted for that party (or close enough subject to some cut-offs). So the party vote is by far the more important one, and tends to be the only one anyone actually cares about, as it determines the percentage of power each party has in the elected parliament.
    "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


    • #47
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      Nope, because the system uses bottom-up elimination, not top-down elimination. It:

      1. checks to see if one of the most popular candidates has won (>50% of vote)
      2. if not, it kills off the least popular candidate and transfers their votes to more popular candidates
      3. repeat 1 & 2 until someone wins

      Jill could never have gotten Hillary's votes, because Jill was less popular than Hillary. So the system would never ever kill off Hillary and transfer the votes to Jill, it would always kill off Jill and transfer her votes to Hillary. It's bottom-up elimination not top-down elimination.


      We have a different system here for national elections called MMP (sadly, though we use ranked choice in some local elections), so I get two votes, one for my favorite party (e.g. Green) and one for my favorite electorate candidate (which itself works by plurality voting and not ranked choice voting... ~mutter mutter~ ~shakes fist at right-wing party who blocked changing it to ranked choice~). The candidates get elected like normal from electorates, and then the party vote is used to stick additional representatives into parliament based off lists of names each party has supplied pre-election, until the percentage of representatives that party has in parliament matches the percentage of people who voted for that party (or close enough subject to some cut-offs). So the party vote is by far the more important one, and tends to be the only one anyone actually cares about, as it determines the percentage of power each party has in the elected parliament.
      yeesh! OK. I get it.

      Still seems unfair the other way around too. It would have given Hillary extra votes that she did not deserve. It would still be a "do-over" for Jill Stein's voters. They could safely vote for her, and know if they lost, they could then vote for Hillary.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        yeesh! OK. I get it.

        Still seems unfair the other way around too.
        Really? Let's see:
        It would have given Hillary extra votes that she did not deserve. It would still be a "do-over" for Jill Stein's voters. They could safely vote for her, and know if they lost, they could then vote for Hillary.
        It would have given Donald extra votes that he did not deserve. It would still be a "do-over" for Darrell Castle's voters. They could safely vote for him, and know if they lost, they could then vote for Donald.

        Is that unfair too, or are things only unfair when Democrats benefit?
        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


        • #49
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          Really? Let's see:It would have given Donald extra votes that he did not deserve. It would still be a "do-over" for Darrell Castle's voters. They could safely vote for him, and know if they lost, they could then vote for Donald.

          Is that unfair too, or are things only unfair when Democrats benefit?
          yeah that's unfair too!

          Comment


          • #50
            Ranked choice voting wouldn't seem to accomplish much with a strong two-party system in place; it's only when there is a plethora of significant parties that it would matter much. Another way to accomplish more or less the same thing is to use Louisiana's method of having a runoff of the top two vote-getters if no one gets a majority.
            Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

            Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
            sigpic
            I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Ranked choice voting wouldn't seem to accomplish much with a strong two-party system in place; it's only when there is a plethora of significant parties that it would matter much. Another way to accomplish more or less the same thing is to use Louisiana's method of having a runoff of the top two vote-getters if no one gets a majority.
              Or California's jungle primary.
              "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


              • #52
                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                Ranked choice voting wouldn't seem to accomplish much with a strong two-party system in place;
                I anticipate one of the biggest effects of ranked choice voting will be to create additional parties.

                Pretty much the whole point of ranked choice voting is that it frees up voters to put their actual preferred person as their #1 vote, even if that person has no chance of actually winning, safe in the knowledge that their vote will still 'count' because the system will transfer their vote to their#2 'safe' choice once their favorite is knocked out.

                So after implementation of the system, the first major development will be that in a few seats (~5% of them), you'll get some popular candidates from outside the 2-parties elected (e.g. independents, Greens, Libertarians, Working Families party etc). You'll probably see that in the very next election after ranked choice voting is implemented.

                The second major development will be, over the following 4 years, that those various independents and minor parties negotiate among themselves, until probably 2 minor parties emerge as stable and viable entities. Your country's politics will then become a 4-party system with 2 major parties and 2 minor parties.

                The third major development will be, over the following decade, a significant change in how the major parties function and market themselves. They will initially panic about the minor parties because nothing stops the voters abandoning the major parties in favor of the minor ones. So the major parties will scramble to alter their marketing and public image and messaging, so that instead of effectively saying "vote for us because the other party are evil" which seems to be their main current message on both sides of the aisle, instead they will have to say "vote for us because we're good" and they will have to produce policies and deeds to back up that claim. Because the Republican party will know that saying the Dems are bad isn't enough to get votes from conservative voters, since the voter could say "yes, I agree the Dems are bad, but I'm going to vote for my favorite libertarian or independent candidate, not a Republican". So the Republican party then has to make a case to that voter why they as a party are actually good and why the person should vote Republican rather than for one of the various other options, and saying "Dems are evil" doesn't cut it. A multi-party system does no end of good things in terms of causing parties to internally clamp down on their own corruption etc because they know that voters can abandon them in favor of one of the other parties because voters aren't tied into the "lesser of 2 evils" 2-party system.
                Last edited by Starlight; 06-21-2018, 08:18 PM.
                "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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                  Ranked choice voting wouldn't seem to accomplish much with a strong two-party system in place; it's only when there is a plethora of significant parties that it would matter much.
                  Well, yeah... but doesn't ranked choice voting increase the number of parties by giving them a better chance to compete?

                  Another way to accomplish more or less the same thing is to use Louisiana's method of having a runoff of the top two vote-getters if no one gets a majority.
                  That methodology actually tends to strongly disfavor third parties, from my understanding. And sometimes results in in the odd situation of two people from the same party going against each other in the general election.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    I anticipate one of the biggest effects of ranked choice voting will be to create additional parties.

                    Pretty much the whole point of ranked choice voting is that it frees up voters to put their actual preferred person as their #1 vote, even if that person has no chance of actually winning, safe in the knowledge that their vote will still 'count' because the system will transfer their vote to their#2 'safe' choice once their favorite is knocked out.

                    So after implementation of the system, the first major development will be that in a few seats (~5% of them), you'll get some popular candidates from outside the 2-parties elected (e.g. independents, Greens, Libertarians, Working Families party etc). You'll probably see that in the very next election after ranked choice voting is implemented.

                    The second major development will be, over the following 4 years, that those various independents and minor parties negotiate among themselves, until probably 2 minor parties emerge as stable and viable entities. Your country's politics will then become a 4-party system with 2 major parties and 2 minor parties.
                    I suspect it would take longer than that. Parties aside from the main two tend to register barely above background noise.
                    The third major development will be, over the following decade, a significant change in how the major parties function and market themselves. They will initially panic about the minor parties because nothing stops the voters abandoning the major parties in favor of the minor ones. So the major parties will scramble to alter their marketing and public image and messaging, so that instead of effectively saying "vote for us because the other party are evil" which seems to be their main current message on both sides of the aisle, instead they will have to say "vote for us because we're good" and they will have to produce policies and deeds to back up that claim. Because the Republican party will know that saying the Dems are bad isn't enough to get votes from conservative voters, since the voter could say "yes, I agree the Dems are bad, but I'm going to vote for my favorite libertarian or independent candidate, not a Republican". So the Republican party then has to make a case to that voter why they as a party are actually good and why the person should vote Republican rather than for one of the various other options, and saying "Dems are evil" doesn't cut it.
                    Negative campaign ads tend to focus on the individual, not the party. It's DNC/RNC fundraising which tends to focus on negatives of the other party in general.
                    A multi-party system does no end of good things in terms of causing parties to internally clamp down on their own corruption etc because they know that voters can abandon them in favor of one of the other parties because voters aren't tied into the "lesser of 2 evils" 2-party system.
                    Or not.
                    Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                    Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                    sigpic
                    I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                      Well, yeah... but doesn't ranked choice voting increase the number of parties by giving them a better chance to compete?
                      It might.
                      That methodology actually tends to strongly disfavor third parties, from my understanding. And sometimes results in in the odd situation of two people from the same party going against each other in the general election.
                      How would it result in that? Only one person from each party can run in the general election in LA, so the runoff would not be between two people of the same party. You're thinking of California, I suspect.
                      Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                      Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                      sigpic
                      I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                        I suspect it would take longer than that. Parties aside from the main two tend to register barely above background noise.
                        People only pay attention to the two parties because they are aware that in the current plurality voting system, only candidates from those two parties stand any legitimate chance of winning. But as soon as you chance voting systems, that will change. It happened here within 2 years when we changed away from a plurality voting system.

                        Negative campaign ads tend to focus on the individual, not the party. It's DNC/RNC fundraising which tends to focus on negatives of the other party in general.
                        Nancy Pelosi seems a popular target to campaign against in every Republican race.

                        I am familiar with the linked events. I am confused as to what you think they demonstrate.
                        Last edited by Starlight; 06-25-2018, 05:21 AM.
                        "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


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Nancy Pelosi seems a popular target to campaign against in every Republican race.
                          Not especially. You're doubtless unfamiliar with local campaign ads, since you're not local.
                          I am familiar with the linked events. I am confused as to what you think they demonstrate.
                          They demonstrate that Ranked Choice Voting will not necessarily force parties to clean up their own corruption, which in the case of the linked events seems to be precisely what did NOT happen.
                          Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                          Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                          sigpic
                          I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                            You're doubtless unfamiliar with local campaign ads, since you're not local.
                            I see a fair number of US campaign ads. The US commentators I watch have a tendency to like to show campaign ads they found interesting and comment on them.

                            They demonstrate that Ranked Choice Voting will not necessarily force parties to clean up their own corruption, which in the case of the linked events seems to be precisely what did NOT happen.
                            You've got the wrong end of the stick on that incident. Possibly even the wrong stick.
                            "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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                              I see a fair number of US campaign ads. The US commentators I watch have a tendency to like to show campaign ads they found interesting and comment on them.
                              In other words, you have no idea what a local campaign ad looks like, or how much they're shown vis-a-vis a nationwide ad.
                              You've got the wrong end of the stick on that incident. Possibly even the wrong stick.
                              You'll have to explain, since the link I found rather failed to clean up its own corruption, but had to be forced from the outside.
                              Enter the Church and wash away your sins. For here there is a hospital and not a court of law. Do not be ashamed to enter the Church; be ashamed when you sin, but not when you repent. – St. John Chrysostom

                              Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
                              sigpic
                              I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
                                In other words, you have no idea what a local campaign ad looks like, or how much they're shown vis-a-vis a nationwide ad.
                                Anyway, regardless of your theories about what I do or don't see, my point was that Republicans seem to like to pick on Nancy Pelosi in their ads - Nancy Pelosi targeted in more than a third of GOP House commercials:

                                Nancy Pelosi has long been a favorite target of GOP attack ads. But Republicans seem to be taking it to another level in this election cycle.

                                The House Democratic leader has been featured in roughly one-third (34%) of all GOP broadcast ads aired in House races this year


                                You'll have to explain, since the link I found rather failed to clean up its own corruption, but had to be forced from the outside.
                                It has nothing to do with corruption. Your citing of it is off-topic. It was a politician, confessing to a historical crime committed in her past before she became a politician, in order to make a rhetorical point in a speech. Nothing to do with political corruption in any way, shape, or form.
                                "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
                                185 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