How ranked choice voting could tip the scales in Maine's tight 2nd District
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 вер 2024
- Maine is pioneering ranked choice voting in its federal elections this fall and it could change everything about the way that candidates campaign - and win. We take a look at the race for Maine's 2nd Congressional District, where ranked choice voting could decide the race. Read more: wapo.st/2DdhMfj. Subscribe to The Washington Post on UA-cam: bit.ly/2qiJ4dy
Follow us:
Twitter: / washingtonpost
Instagram: / washingtonpost
Facebook: / washingtonpost
Maine took a step in the right direction by introducing ranked choice voting, it may make changing to a proportional system easier.
Yea. Still would be a while. And need to go in Via Ballot
Approval Voting is naturally proportional-ish, the more, smaller districts you have.
Ranked voting is a great system. Definitely reccomend it
Mighty Mouse, you don’t have to rank every candidate in the race if you don’t want to. If you don’t believe me, just look at the Maine government’s page. It’ll tell you the same thing I’m telling you.
If anything, this voting system is as susceptible to voter fraud as the one you prefer, although it’s less likely to occur because the extra steps in this process make fraudulent results easier to spot if and when they do occur.
Voter ID laws don’t prevent voter fraud. At best, they only prevent voter impersonation, which is a low yield, high cost crime that can carry up to 5 years in prison for just one count. By its very nature, it’s a drop in the ocean when compared to other types of voter fraud that are far easier to commit. Also, of the very, very few incidents of voter impersonation in 2016, all were die-hard Trump supporters.
Hoo boy, please learn about other, actually helpful, voting methods before you jump on the RCV bandwagon.
Ranking could be great if voters ranked sincerely. But unfortunately, voters must betray their favourites, by ranking the more popular (lesser evil) first. A voter can only safely rank their sincere favourite first (symbolic gesture) if and only if the voter believes the favourite will be dead last before another (evil) candidate reaches majority (always after an unequal count). If my highest ranked candidates (A,B) are popular (neither dead last in the count) my second rank will never be counted. Similar voters' (B,A) second rank will also remain uncounted. Similar candidates can both lose precisely because they are both too popular. Splitting, spoiler is thus disastrous under RCV, exactly as in single vote FPTP plurality.
In Approval voting, there is never any rational reason (no successful strategy) to not approve of a more favoured candidate. If I approve of the popular vanilla and chocolate candidates, I should also approve of my favourite pistachio. Failure to approve of my favourite never helps my favourites or approved candidates. Betraying favourites never makes any sense in Approval Voting (unlike ranking: RCV, IRV, FPTP, etc).
Yess!!! I’m so excited that this is happening!! I hope the whole nation follows!!!
I being from Maine and voted love this system we voters passed it i voted for it then. Bruce Poliquin not so much. Oh well can’t make everyone happy lol
Help spread the movement
RCV fails with more than three candidates. Even three often produces convoluted undesirable results. Ranking could be great if voters ranked sincerely. But unfortunately, voters must betray their favourites, by ranking the more popular (lesser evil) first. A voter can only safely rank their sincere favourite first (symbolic gesture) if and only if the voter believes the favourite will be dead last before another (evil) candidate reaches majority (always after an unequal count). If my highest ranked candidates (A,B) are popular (neither dead last in the count) my second rank will never be counted. Similar voters' (B,A) second rank will also remain uncounted. Similar candidates can both lose precisely because they are both too popular. Splitting, spoiler is thus disastrous under RCV, exactly as in single vote FPTP plurality.
In Approval voting, there is never any rational reason (no successful strategy) to not approve of a more favoured candidate. If I approve of the popular vanilla and chocolate candidates, I should also approve of my favourite pistachio. Failure to approve of my favourite never helps my favourites or approved candidates. Betraying favourites never makes any sense in Approval Voting (unlike ranking: RCV, IRV, FPTP, etc).
This is standard in all Australian elections and helps prevent more radical views (see latest Economist articles). This form of voting to me is the most democratic because it captures my view of all the candidates. Also I strongly recommend compulsory voting like we have in Australia (we are fined if we don't turn up to do our democratic duty) as it ensures that our elections truely capture the nations opinion.
I agree completely and America needs this for all political voting nationwide.
It does nothing because there's still a single winner district - the entire district still only gets one winner.
Leif Harmsen while you only get a single winner, I think that it’s a good start. Eventually I would like to see legislative races move to have multi member districts, and use the Single Transferable Vote method to elect politicians. I love STV because it combines proportionality while having elected officials who represent your area. But again RCV or instant run-off is a good start.
Well looks like you Austrailian knows a whole lot more about fairness than we here in the US. You are a true Democracy, we only say it but don't mean it.
@@garrycole9187 Not necessarily. We have a need for a true representative democracy just like you do, Government can be formed with the minority of the vote just like your president can, and because each electorate is broken down individually, a total of say, 15% green votes can possible equate to a grand total of 1/75th of seats. I do agree though with your last part. Automatic voter registration and ranked choice voting would be a good start for the US.
This is good, though switching to a proportional system would be even better
Ranked ballots can be used in a certain way that is proportional, but you need multi member districts to do that. Say that there is a district with not one but 5 candidates running, or even just three. In a single member district, you need half plus one of the votes under a ranked ballot, because it's impossible for two candidates to both have that. In a 3 member race, you need 25%+1, because it's impossible for more than three candidates to all have 25%+1 of the votes.
So off the polls. Your challenge as an elected official is to reach that quota. And you will likely be competing against not just one main opponent but potentially 5 or more, and in Ireland in a 3 member district, about 9-11 is common, with the main parties usually fielding two and the smaller ones and independents presenting just one candidate.
If you win more than 25%+1, your voters are a big section of the population and deserve to not just have one of their candidates elected, so the surplus is also transferred just as votes from eliminated candidates are.
With a 3 member district, you could potentially be representing the will of 75%+3 of the population, instead of representing 50%+1 in each of three. The more members in a district, the more proportional it is. With 5 members, you need 16.667% to win because 6 or more candidates can't all have that many, and with 5 candidates each reaching that number of votes, you could represent at least 83.333% of the votes.
In the US context, it's likely to give you one Republican and one Democrat in a 3 seat district, along with either one centrist Republican or Democrat or an independent or third party candidate. In a 5 member district, you will probably have one more partisan Democrat and one more partisan Republican, plus one centrist from each party, and maybe one more centrist Democrat or one more centrist Republican or an independent or third party. But as third parties and independents get more popularity with this system, they may very well be able to challenge the other parties for even more seats.
And Golden won because he appealed to the independent voters, while Bruce said "Screw 'em'. Red is all ya need".
Ranked Choice Voting worked.
'Nuff Said. Timt to use this Nationwide.
If this is unconstitutional, that's why it's good the constitution can be amended.
UA-cam is making sure few see this. I've seen unboxing videos get more views.
Unfortunately is the people who are more interested in a box than their country. These people later on complain about their president though.
Oh, I can't wait to see how successful this would be!
Meanwhile in fascist CA, "Legislation that would have allowed all cities in California to use ranked-choice voting, the system in San Francisco and three other Bay Area communities that lets voters rank candidates by preference and decide an election in a single round of ballots, has been vetoed by Gov. Jerry Brown."
But they just passed a law in favor of pedophiles 👏 bravo Cali! 🤦♂️
That's wonderful. Now you can work on getting ACTUAL voting method reform passed, like Approval Voting.
I disagree with this sist, i like the two rounds vote (ballotaje)
Good ideak but Borda count is the way to go
Are you telling me that everybody's vote is gonna count? The GOP is not gonna like this!!!! HAHAHAHAHA
Nah, ballots can be exhausted, making a majority winner literally impossible. (Not that this matters, actual majority winners are rare regardless of voting method, but it's a so-called perk of RCV that I like to debunk.)
Biggest scam Maine has had put upon them
How
With fptp, the system gets increasingly polarized. Ranked-choice voting will mean less polarization.
Starting at 3:45, the melody from the background music was very familiar... It's from Tricky - Suffocated Love, from the album Maxinquaye (1995), but now I wonder if that melody was actually taken from another song before that, does anyone know?
Golden 2nd place winner......
We can hope that all political parties are dismantled once and for all nationwide by RCV. George Washington, in his Farewell Address on September 19, 1796, said, “Let me...warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.” A few days ago the GOP demonstrated how right he was
Ranked choice voting is the answer
This sounds like a fantastic system. There's do it.
It's as crooked as the roads in Maine.
@@melaniejane9877 well, here in Australia we use preferential voting system nationwide for every election, to local election to state and federal, and according to the un, we are more democratic and less corrupt country than yours
@@dancingbanana168 What do you mean by "preferential" voting system? How is that different than Ranked choice voting?
Abolish the electoral college and introduce ranked choice voting
With a borda count instead of instant runoff though
Nah, keep the electoral college but add ranked choice voting
Ranked Choice Voting must be incorporated in all 50 states and in all elections(primary and general). It is currently used in at least 12 states.
Here is how it works. The voters ranks their candidates. If a candidate gets less than a majority, then the candidate with the least amount of 1st place votes has his or her 2nd votes distributed to the remaining candidates. This process continues until a candidate has the majority of
votes and is declared the winner.
Rank Choice Voting is an excellent option for voters. While a firm supporter of an establishment party candidate expecting to get at least 40% will probably have no need to exercise this option, the voters who have an affinity for 3rd party and independent candidates will prefer this. If their "underdog" candidate loses, then their 2nd place vote will go to in all likelihood a major party candidate of their choice.
Rank Choice Voting will prevent that no vote is wasted and people do not have to pick the "lesser of the two evils".
Broader based measures such as Rank Choice Voting, Top Two Open Primary, expansion of the electoral system, and redistricting the state senate districts to be area-based are desperately needed reforms.
Filtration based measures also needed to establish the proper
representative democracy needed to bring back the constitutional republic. Ending secret ballots, demanding strict ID and address proof at the time of registration and voting, as well as eliminating unnecessary elections for public servants who have nothing to do with the lawmaking process are the best means also to re-establish public and divided governance.
It can also be opened to manipulation.
For example, in Alaska, there were 3 candidates: 2 republican and 1 democrat. The democrat recieved 38% of the vote and the Republican candidates shared 60% of the vote, however, with RCV, the Democratic candidate wins despite an overwhelming majority for a Republican.
@@InattentiveADHB RCV should only be used when no candidate gets the simple majority of votes.
Second
Australia has a similar system called preferential voting. All candidates on the ballot must be voted in order of preference. If a voter misses a candidate, that part of the ballot won't be counted. It's an informal vote and up to 10 percent of votes in Australia are informal and not counted.
Ps, the ranked choice movement in the US loses support when they blame the 2000 election fiasco on Ralph Nader. Blame it on voter suppression to the point that for each of the 537 votes Bush got over Gore, up to 1000 voters were disenfranchised and unable to vote at all.
Too few views...share this with everyone you know
Ranked choice is meaningless without proportional representation.
you're right, we need that as well as ranked choice voting.
At least it takes out the spoiler effect
Ranked Choice Voting is far better than the plurality based system we have now.
What form of proportional rep do you want?
We must help move this idea along. It may very well be what saves this country.
RANKED CHOICE VOTING NOW!
Watching Golden win an R+11 DISTRICT with RCV is absolutely amazing.
This clearly done and informative video is a credit to the Forward Party. Those of us who support the party need to get messages like this one into the homes of people.
first.
I am under the impression that - currently - the winner is the one with the most votes.
If RCV makes it possible for a winner to emerge who DOESN'T have the most votes, how is this better?
Think of it this way, 3 people are running for one position and two of those people share similar policies, except ones a republican and ones an independent. Now wouldn’t it be nice if instead of splitting the republican vote and handing the election to the democrat, the lesser of the 2 same candidate’s votes were added on to the other to represent what majority actually wanted?
@@Fusdew If YOU were running for office, and got more votes than anyone else to fill that position, YOU would be glad that this system kept you OUT of office because of secondary and third-ary votes, right? It makes sense. Why would getting more votes than anyone else be the reason ANYONE, EVER takes office?
Bryan Daley Secondary votes are votes too. Politicians and the public know they are participating in a ranked choice race, most people don’t randomly chose their second and third vote. To win you still have to have to most voters overall.
I would however, be a bit pissed if I lost a race by 4% because an liberal independent ran and got 5% of votes, 5% that would’ve voted democratic / wouldn’t vote republican. Wouldn’t you?
@@Fusdew So, we know you can only vote for the candidate you want - you don't have to put in 2nd and 3rd place votes, correct?
We also KNOW - from studies that have been conducted - that across ALL races, creeds, sexes, orientations, etc. that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DISCREPANCY, correct?
In other words, do African Americans choose to vote 'one and done' at the SAME RATE as whites, or gay, or Lesbian, or hispanic, or trans, etc.
Once we have determined there is no difference between all sexes, creeds, denominations AND party lines, then - AND ONLY THEN - can this be considered an UNBIASED voting system.
Finally, I will say that I am all for voting for (the ranked-choice-voting system,) PROVIDED there is a ranked-choice-voting OPTION provided on the ballot.
@@IlIlllIllIlIIIll RCV can get a winner who doesn't have the most (first place) votes.
But the biggest flaw is in 'filler votes'. That is where people take their FREEDOM TO VOTE seriously, and fill out the votes (2, 3, 4, 5...) with people they have never heard of.
This BEST demonstrates 'the will of the people' doesn't it?
Red Wave! Im voting Bruce Poliquin again! We dont need Liberal Jared Golden!
Tony Looks like it’s up to Ranked Choice Voting now to be the final say in their race. Also, I hope you enjoy our new completely Democratic/left-leaning State. As it should be!
@@zacharymorin5696 ewww. Liberal agendas is what is ruining America!
LOOKS LIKE BRUCY IS GONEEEE. AHAHAHHAHA
You LOST
L 😂
This is extremely unconstitutional and wrong
Us Mainers are very happy with it.
How exactly?
@Ben livengood Yay, a challenged opinion with no rebuttal, way to really sell your argument.
Minority rule is unconstitutional
Ben livengood how so? Statistically it makes complete sense. Morally it makes complete sense. Democratically it makes complete sense as it encompasses what the majority wish But I’m new to the concept, so I’d like to pick your brain. Specifically, why do you think it is unconstitutional?