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

  • #31
    Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
    So much for one person one vote.
    It's also known as Single Transferable Vote (STV), because their one vote can be transferred to their lower-ranked candidates. Their voting paper always ends up counting for a mathematical total of 1 vote (unless they haven't ranked enough candidates, and then it can end up counting as 0).

    Another way to think of Ranked Choice Voting is as 'instant-run-off' voting. Some states currently do run-off elections, where the top two place getters of the election have a second election just between the two of them. That takes a lot of time and money because people need to go vote a second time in the second election, and all their votes need to be processed for that second election etc. In Ranked Choice Voting that second run-off is calculated immediately based on how people have ranked candidates. It saves time and money.
    "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


    • #32
      Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
      We have this quaint concept here about one person one vote. If your candidate loses you don't get a second vote which is in effect what happens if you get to shift it.
      "One person one vote" is a concept established in Baker v. Carr (and expanded upon in subsequent decisions like Reynolds v. Sims) that says that each person's vote should be weighted equally (or roughly equally) in legislative apportionment. In other words, each congressional district within a state needs to have roughly the same population as the other districts within that state so that a person living in District 1 has about the same voting power as someone living in District 3. Ranked choice voting is entirely irrelevant to that.

      Certainly, the doctrine isn't a literal case of requiring each person to get one vote, because if that were the case then there would have been no reason to order those districts be changed based on population... after all, even if a district consists entirely of one house of 4 people, each person in that house is allowed one vote. The point is equality in voting, at least in regards to districting (i.e. senate races don't qualify for this). This equality is clearly maintained in ranked choice voting because it applies to all voters.

      But even if someone wants to ignore what "one person one vote" actually is about and take it wholly literally, this still doesn't violate it, because each person gets one vote. That vote may switch between rounds (unless someone wins a majority right off that bat), but each time their vote is counted just once.

      This article goes into some more detail about this, including (most importantly) citing cases before state or federal courts that found no constitutional issue with the system.
      Last edited by Terraceth; 06-18-2018, 06:20 PM.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        So much for one person one vote.
        The US has never had "one person, one vote" in presidential elections. They've always been affected by the electoral college, faithless electors and disproportionate representation, and sometimes affected by three-fifths counting, voter disqualification and supreme court rulings.

        If it truly was "one person, one vote", Clinton would have beaten Trump.
        Last edited by Roy; 06-19-2018, 04:41 AM.
        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.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          The US has never had "one person, one vote" in presidential elections. They've always been affected by the electoral college, faithless electors and disproportionate representation, and sometimes affected by three-fifths counting, voter disqualification and supreme court rulings.

          If it truly was "one person, one vote", Clinton would have beaten Trump.
          Sure it has. For all eligible voters, one person has always had one vote for how their elector should cast their ballot. Faithless electors are rare. The Supreme Court ruling in Bush/Gore, after all was said and done, did not affect the outcome. The Electoral College has done an excellent job of ensuring that more people have a say in who should be president. It was a deliberate setup to defeat the tyranny of the majority, giving smaller states a vital input to the election process.
          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


          • #35
            Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
            It was a deliberate setup to defeat the tyranny of the majority
            That's a very Orwellian way to say it was deliberately undemocratic and deliberately gave much more power to some people and much less to others.
            "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


            • #36
              Originally posted by Roy View Post
              If it truly was "one person, one vote", Clinton would have beaten Trump.
              We don't know how the election being conducted by popular event could have changed things, either by campaign strategies differing or, more importantly, voters deciding to vote differently (it is very easy to imagine that people who live in solid states like California or Texas would be more incentivized to vote because their votes could actually matter, whereas those living in swing states like Wisconsin or Florida would feel less of a reason to because it would be much less likely to make any difference). Therefore, this statement of yours is speculation.

              Originally posted by One Bad Pig View Post
              Sure it has. For all eligible voters, one person has always had one vote for how their elector should cast their ballot. Faithless electors are rare. The Supreme Court ruling in Bush/Gore, after all was said and done, did not affect the outcome. The Electoral College has done an excellent job of ensuring that more people have a say in who should be president. It was a deliberate setup to defeat the tyranny of the majority, giving smaller states a vital input to the election process.
              Actually, and I was surprised to learn this, the primary reason the electoral college is used to elect a president rather than a popular vote doesn't seem to be tyranny of the majority or anything like that (indeed, the electoral college is very much tyranny of the majority within states, because if you aren't in the majority for your state, your vote doesn't count at all, unless you live in Maine or Nebraska). Instead, the reason was that the southern states wanted to get a benefit from their slave population (the 3/5 compromise) without actually letting them vote. Here's James Madison's own words from his notes on the constitutional convention:

              "If it be a fundamental principle of free Govt. that the Legislative, Executive & Judiciary powers should be separately exercised, it is equally so that they be independently exercised. There is the same & perhaps greater reason why the Executive shd. be independent of the Legislature, than why the Judiciary should: A coalition of the two former powers would be more immediately & certainly dangerous to public liberty. It is essential then that the appointment of the Executive should either be drawn from some source, or held by some tenure, that will give him a free agency with regard to the Legislature. This could not be if he was to be appointable from time to time by the Legislature. It was not clear that an appointment in the 1st. instance even with an eligibility afterwards would not establish an improper connection between the two departments. Certain it was that the appointment would be attended with intrigues and contentions that ought not to be unnecessarily admitted. He was disposed for these reasons to refer the appointment to some other source. The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

              Source

              Though once again, "one person, one vote" is a somewhat misleading name. "Equal vote weight" would probably be a better term, as the doctrine refers less to the number of votes someone has, but the weight it carries--hence, district population needs to be fairly even (at least within a state) so that a person living in one district has their vote carry the same "weight" as in another; for example, if one district has twice the population of the other, then the vote strength of an individual in the smaller district would be twice as much as that of the larger one, and that is what "one person, one vote" prohibits. Note also that this really only applies to "district" elections (e.g. House of Representatives, state legislatures), and thus does not apply to elections for the Senate or president.

              For the record, the usage of ranked choice voting in no way contradicts the electoral college, as states can simply have ranked choice voting to decide the winner for that state, and then that person receives the requisite electors.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                We don't know how the election being conducted by popular event could have changed things, either by campaign strategies differing or, more importantly, voters deciding to vote differently (it is very easy to imagine that people who live in solid states like California or Texas would be more incentivized to vote because their votes could actually matter, whereas those living in swing states like Wisconsin or Florida would feel less of a reason to because it would be much less likely to make any difference). Therefore, this statement of yours is speculation.
                Ok, conceded. We can't know.
                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.

                seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Many of those who voted for "Rand, Herman, Jeb, Bobby, Rick, Mitt, etc" would have been very displeased if their vote was suddenly transferred to Trump. That was not the person who they voted for.
                  As I understand it, their vote would only be "transferred" if they selected Trump as their second choice, which in your scenario seems unlikely.
                  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


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                    As I understand it, their vote would only be "transferred" if they selected Trump as their second choice, which in your scenario seems unlikely.
                    I wish horse races worked that way! I would be rich!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                      I wish horse races worked that way! I would be rich!
                      Curious analogy, because as far as I know, there's nothing to stop you from betting on more than one horse.
                      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


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                        Curious analogy, because as far as I know, there's nothing to stop you from betting on more than one horse.
                        True. but it get's really expensive to bet big on all of them. But if you could bet all of your money on one horse and if it lost, move your same bet to another, and another on down the line...

                        cha-ching!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          True. but it get's really expensive to bet big on all of them. But if you could bet all of your money on one horse and if it lost, move your same bet to another, and another on down the line...

                          cha-ching!
                          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.

                          Although I do see how it could be construed as repeatedly casting multiple votes until you pick a winning candidate.
                          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


                          • #43
                            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.

                            Although I do see how it could be construed as repeatedly casting multiple votes until you pick a winning candidate.
                            The biggest problem is that a completely unpopular candidate could actually win by collecting the left over votes from the popular candidate who lost, beating out the other front runner. So in the last election, Jill Stein, who got hardly any votes, could have conceivably picked up all of Hillary's votes, added her own, and beaten Trump.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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, beating out the other front runner. So in the last election, Jill Stein, who got hardly any votes, could have conceivably picked up all of Hillary's votes, added her own, and beaten Trump.
                              Actually, no. Since Stein got fewer votes than Hillary, it would be the other way around; Hillary would pick up Stein's votes. Of course, this would also be after the abolition of the electoral college, and then only if neither Trump nor Hillary had gotten at least 50% of the vote.
                              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


                              • #45
                                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, beating out the other front runner. So in the last election, Jill Stein, who got hardly any votes, could have conceivably picked up all of Hillary's votes, added her own, and beaten Trump.
                                It doesn't work that way as I understand it. The candidate who gets the least votes overall would be struck from the ballot, and votes would only move up the chain if voters happened to select one of the remaining candidates as their alternate choice.

                                So in your example, Jill Stein was obliterated in the election, so she would be struck from the ballot, and it's game over for her. At that point, anybody who selected Hillary or Trump as their alternate choice would have their vote then counted towards one of those candidates instead. If someone had voted for Hillary as their first choice and Jill Stein as their second, and since Hillary ultimately lost, their vote would not count towards Stein since she would no longer be an eligible candidate at that point having been struck from the ballot after the first tally.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                162 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                379 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X