Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Maine votes to use Ranked Choice Voting
Collapse
X
-
"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
-
More generally: This would have the advantage of allowing voters to vote for who they believe is the best candidate rather than who they think is most likely to win among any candidates they find acceptable. The latter consideration prevents any meaningful challenge to the two party status quo which I think most voters will admit is unsatisfying."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
-
Ranked choice voting seems to generally be viewed by modern day politician scientists as one of the best voting systems available (especially in its multi-seat form where 2-4 seats are combined into larger seats that have 2-4 representatives elected to fill them).
The only voting system I'm aware of that generally seems to be regarded as better is Range Voting (or Approval Voting in its simplified form), where voters score each candidate out of 5 or 3 or 2. e.g.
or in the out-of-2 version known as approval voting, where you give each candidate an 'approve' or 'disapprove' (by voting or not voting for them in the example below):
"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
-
BTW, Maine's ranked choice method is not really suitable for US presidential elections because of the existence of the Electoral College. It could only be implemented for national presidential elections if there was an constitutional change or an interstate compact to remove or rig the Electoral College. So although Sparko and I have been using Bernie, Hillary and Trump in our examples, it's worth clarifying that this method cannot actually be applied to Presidential elections the way things currently stand.
The ranked choice method is fine for all other elections though (congress, senate, state congress and state senate, governor, mayors, city councils, judges etc)."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
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostNo, because Donald would have acquired all the votes for Rand, Herman, Jeb, Bobby, Rick, Mitt, etc. Quit being a snowflake.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostSo 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.
And you guys were upset because Hillary won the popular vote but not the electoral votes?
Can you imagine if Trump had won because he garnered the votes from a third party candidate? Ha!
All of these schemes the democrats keep coming up with are only because they lost. If their person was in power and some republican suggested something like this, or eliminating the electoral college, the democrats would be screaming about how we need to respect the constitution and the founding fathers knew what they were doing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostNo, because Donald would have acquired all the votes for Rand, Herman, Jeb, Bobby, Rick, Mitt, etc. Quit being a snowflake.
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
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostMany 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.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
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThat's not how elections work. In the Presidential election you would have one final candidate for each party. Republican, Democrat, and Independent. I was thinking of Sanders as an independent.So if the votes were 45% Hillary, 49% Trump, and 6% Sanders, then instead of Trump winning, all of the votes that went for Hillary could go for Sanders ...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
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostAnd you don't think that applies symmetrically to Hillary/Bernie?
A lot of folks were none too pleased about rigged primaries and the like and don't want the powers that be selecting who wins. They want their vote to go to who they voted for, not be given to someone else.
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
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI don't recall a Never Hillary movement among the Democrats.
A lot of folks were none too pleased about rigged primaries and the like and don't want the powers that be selecting who wins. They want their vote to go to who they voted for, not be given to someone else.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
-
Originally posted by Roy View PostAgain, you need to make sure you understand a concept before you criticise it. You shouldn't be making these errors, rogue. You're smarter than this.
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
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI don't recall a Never Hillary movement among the Democrats.
A lot of folks were none too pleased about rigged primaries and the like and don't want the powers that be selecting who wins. They want their vote to go to who they voted for, not be given to someone else.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
-
Originally posted by One Bad Pig View PostIn my understanding, it would go to who they voted for - just not necessarily their top preference. If someone ONLY wanted, e.g., Rand to win, they'd only vote for Rand - and their vote would not be given to someone else. If they only voted for Rand and Herman, once those two were eliminated their vote would not go to anyone else.
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
-
Originally posted by rogue06 View PostI don't recall a Never Hillary movement among the Democrats.
They want their vote to go to who they voted for
Originally posted by Sparko View PostAll of these schemes the democrats keep coming up with are only because they lost.
In Maine, the primary impetus is their crazy governor Paul LePage. His approval rating is negative, and so many people keep trying to run against him simultaneously to get rid of him that they end up splitting up the anti-LePage vote between them and so he skates through with a plurality and keeps on being in office despite the populace hating him. So they want a voting system that can actually detect that everyone hates LePage and that he therefore shouldn't win."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 seer, Today, 01:10 PM
|
7 responses
35 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
Today, 03:52 PM
|
||
Started by Roy, Today, 02:39 AM
|
6 responses
57 views
2 likes
|
Last Post Today, 12:53 PM | ||
Started by mossrose, Yesterday, 10:37 PM
|
50 responses
209 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 02:08 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-24-2024, 06:18 AM
|
129 responses
622 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sam
Today, 04:31 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-24-2024, 06:02 AM
|
111 responses
585 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by Mountain Man
Yesterday, 05:00 PM
|
Comment