Ranked Choice Voting!?! Here's How it Works
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 жов 2024
- San Francisco's new mayor will be chosen next month by a system few voters can fully explain, much less understand, and a process that even the guy who runs the city's elections struggles to describe.
Ranked choice voting (RCV), sometimes called "instant runoff," was approved by city voters in 2002. For offices decided by RCV, each voter ranks their first, second and third choices. Through a complicated system of algorithms, if no candidate gets 50 percent plus one after counting all the first place votes, the last place candidates are eliminated one by one and their voters' second choice votes are redistributed.
Read more: www.kqed.org/n...
Animation by Mark Fiore
*Ranked Voting:*
_-Would make gerrymandering exceedingly difficult. Because nothing is absolute._
_-Give Third parties a chance.(giving more voting options.)_
_-Eliminates winning presidency by default because split voting._
_-There would be no such thing of "throwing away a vote."_
_-No more run off elections that cost money and everyone's time._
That’s why our government is trying to make it unconstitutional, they really don’t like that idea
@@riffhousestudios96 Actually government can't. These are constitutional state's rights to run their own elections. You'd may need a constitutional amendment for Presidential Elections to become rank choice but then again abolishing the Electoral College already requires a constitutional amendment.
ooh, 0/4 pretty bad, but hey thanks for playin
Even better than a runoff election. No need to start over. Its an election and a run off election rolled into one.
I made a video that shows 2 examples of flaws in the instant-runoff method.
Ranked Voting Explained in 1 minute (Ranked-Choice/ Preferential Voting)
ua-cam.com/video/5Cytjnf0enU/v-deo.html
Ranked voting would allow for 3rd party candidate's. Great idea, IMO.
Absolutely! It should be noted that one Maryland Multimember district in Eastern Montgomery County, MD almost elected a Green Party candidate to the House of Delegates in 2002. Because of MMDs, there were too many hardline voting Democrats and that really crushed her chances, she fell short of 5k votes. With that candidate being from Takoma Park, under a single member district system. Takoma Park would get almost its own district and with RCV it would be a real competition between the Democrats and the Green Party. Our country lacks political diversity.
Or Just three Republicans or three Democrats
*candidates. Save your apostrophes for possessive words, not plurals.
Nope, still a Duverger's Law system (mathematically enforced Two-Party system)
The only thing is, the only two parties in power don’t want this. So why would they implement it.
How difficult is it to understand? This allows you to vote for someone you like, as opposed to strategically voting against someone you don’t like.
It's a contest and matter of rounds to reach 50%. It would put an end to the "Lesser of Two Evils" argument.
But you still must strategically rank, but can't predict a reasonable strategy. RCV doesn't eliminate splitting, complicates tactics in multi-candidate races, with convoluted and unexpected results. Approval Voting is much simpler, cheaper, excels with numerous candidates, and by all criteria, AV is superior to RCV.
Consider 2020 Dem primaries under RCV: Sanders and Warren likely split votes 1 and 2 (and 2 and 1). Neither second choice would be counted until the first choice was dead last in any round before another candidate reached majority. Both might have lost, precisely because they split the most popular votes.
@@jgallardo7344 actually no, only ONE candidate wins so what does that matter ? This just makes it even easier for the left to cheat
@@whaterverman479 Through Ranked Choice Voting in 2020, Biden won Maine, Susan Collins won her Senate re-election, Jared Golden won his House re-election, his Congressional district voted for Trump. Very mixed outcome.
In Alaska, voters said they ultimately preferred the Democratic candidate because she had a platform while Palin and Begich resorted to negative campaigning, so the voters ranked them lower.
Votes are earned. Your argument is rooted in nothing
@@jgallardo7344 lesser of two evils and 50% approval are none sequester and don’t really matter. They just use that langue to manipulate public. Most of the public has really low IQ and doesn’t know any better so why would 50% even be a good thing.
I like the idea, especially since it helps alleviate the "wasted vote" problem with supporting a decent third-party candidate.
No what it does is keep things behind closed doors and u have to trust demoncrats to not CHEAT and thats all demoncRATS DO is Cheat.
RCV let's you declare more wasted votes, including your preference and front runner. RCV doesn't eliminate splitting, complicates tactics in multi-candidate races, with convoluted and unexpected results. Approval Voting is much simpler, cheaper, excels with numerous candidates, and by all criteria, AV is superior to RCV.
Consider 2020 Dem primaries under RCV: Sanders and Warren likely split votes 1 and 2 (and 2 and 1). Neither second choice would be counted until the first choice was dead last in any round before another candidate reached majority. Both might have lost, precisely because they split the most popular votes.
@@vegahimsa3057 -- I would not want anything to do with any ballot that contained Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders on it.
LOL!
@@1VaDude whatever. It's just an example with a bizarre unexpected undemocratic outcome. I assume Trump would have won the 2020 primary under Plurality, RCV, Approval, pretty much any system. However, the Dem would have won in other split cases (Ralph Nadar, Ross Perot, etc) under different election systems in the general
Approval voting has a much better chance of electing a third party with zero risk of the spoiler effect (the only spoiler is the third party actually winning). Your preference never hurts another preference under Approval voting. That's definitely not the case under Plurality nor RCV.
Literally on here after listening to a ton of Andrew Yang vids, thanks for the explanation #YangGang #yang2020
Yang Gang 2020!
Cringe
@San Diego meanwhile he continued to push for RCV and stood up for Tulsi on CNN. He has also started a nonprofit to fund UBI trials and support UBI candidates (which he's currently using to provide Covid relief checks), sued the NY election board to reinstate the presidential primary, and has also started another project to protect citizens' data rights from big tech companies
As for the Biden endorsement, while I disagree with it, Yang always said he'd endorse the nominee, and at that point Biden had all but won the primary
Oh so this is what was happening on Hunter x Hunter lol
Nice, underrated comment
Lol dactz.
Our elected leaders are always saying competition makes a better product. We should follow their wise advice.
Sports voting for MVP candidates do this
One main advantage that doesn’t get mentioned or given any emphasis is that RCV increases the power of democracy and collaboration by enabling candidates to adopt ideas proposed by opposing candidates to: 1) win ranked votes from people that support their opponents; and most all 2) add, revise & improve their proposals/solutions in their campaign platforms.
No, it gives you the impression of democracy through confusion. RCV doesn't eliminate splitting, complicates tactics in multi-candidate races, with convoluted and unexpected results. Approval Voting is much simpler, cheaper, excels with numerous candidates, and by all criteria, AV is superior to RCV.
Consider 2020 Dem primaries under RCV: Sanders and Warren likely split votes 1 and 2 (and 2 and 1). Neither second choice would be counted until the first choice was dead last in any round before another candidate reached majority. Both might have lost, precisely because they split the most popular votes.
@@vegahimsa3057 ; nonsense.
Sorry but I have a problem with a candidate being automatically elected just for having the "highest number" of votes, but finishing below 50% + 1 more vote. In Texas in 2006, Rick Perry got elected governor at 39%, when he knew most of the state did not like him. Had ranked choice voting been allowed, he would NOT have gotten reelected.
@@vegahimsa3057 your hypothetical example is extremely situational. The vast majority of candidates aren’t going to have the exact same supporters as another.. and even if two candidates did have the same supporters that doesn’t mean support would split evenly.
In the case of Warren and Sanders, history proved he was the more popular of the two and no large percentage of Sanders/Warren supporters would have written Biden in as their number 3.
Ranked choice has no negatives other than some people finding the process confusing, because of ignorance or lack of exposure.
Rank choice voting takes the least selected voter candidate ballots and gives their vote to someone else. How can that voter like that? If a voter doesn't vote for all the lesser candidates their vote is discarded. How can that voter like that?
The system we have had in place for decades is best way to conduct elections. The primary election is the election to whittle the field down to the top candidates, then you get to cast ONE vote for the candidate of your choice. People may change their minds between the Primary and General elections. I think that is the best way.
@@darbyl3872 You must be one of those cry babies that think everything is UNFAIR. Generally the reason why you always feel like you have to vote for the lesser of two evils is because both of the candidates are picked by the Establishment. When Trump got elected, that wasn't supposed to happen and that is why we haven't had a peaceful transfer of power. The Establishment is running scared because Trump isn't one of them and he is willing to Drain the Swamp and expose the corruption. The Swamp Creaters are squirming. I am praying they all go to prison.
The current system only divides us
we cannot allow Ranked choice voting folks. its a very very bad idea.. do not allow it !!!! its a trap
This video is about how instant-runoff voting works, not ranked-choice voting in general. It's better than plurality voting, but there are better ways to determine the winner of the election.
theres a proportional version of rcv, if they implemented that alone with the single winner for the president and senators, then i think that would break the 2 party system (along with adding regulations to funding)
I'm excited to see alternatives to FPTP being used in the U.S.! More people are seeing how terrible FPTP is.
I still don't know how it works after watching the video. They just want me to support it without telling me exactly what it is.
This is the dumbest, most unnecessary confusing way to vote. Just no
I see lots of people not understanding this
Just ran a few scenarios and found the answer in my head. The model paints itself as a system to make sure third party voters aren’t wasting their vote, but all it does is empower the secondary votes of the least popular third party candidates.
1. First choice votes are tallied
2. If no candidate reaches 51% majority, last place candidate is eliminated and the 2nd choice votes from ONLY those voters are re-calculated.
The problem is that the vast majority of third party voters are defecting republicans - which means that 3rd place will probably be libertarian. The model simply takes back the votes from much smaller 3rd party candidates that appeal to leftists. Ergo, only the libertarians walk away with wasted votes and all the socialists & Green Party voters can still get their vote cast for the democrat ticket even though their vote went to an unviable candidate. It’s a great way for the left to get the votes of their third party voters, while consequently eliminating Libertarian voters who prefer republicans over democrats. The only way the Libertarian votes don’t go to waste is - if all parties other than dem/rep are eliminated and neither candidate still has the majority necessary to win.
If the vast majority of 3rd party votes are defecting Republicans, doesn't that just imply that the primary Republican option is simply too unsavory to be elected? The same would hold true if the situation was reversed.
Maybe at a presidential level but at congressional level in a lot of districts libertarians could probably get enough of the vote to win elections.
Finally, a person capable of critical thinking.
So, when are we going to switch to this method of voting? And then we also need to either eliminating the electoral college or at least change it to a percentage based electors instead of the "winner takes all" electors as of today.
I want this to happen. Shit makes more sense.
If there are 6 candidates and you vote for only or, your ballot is discssrded
It doesn't work. RCV doesn't eliminate splitting, complicates tactics in multi-candidate races, with convoluted and unexpected results. Approval Voting is much simpler, cheaper, excels with numerous candidates, and by all criteria, AV is superior to RCV.
Consider 2020 Dem primaries under RCV: Sanders and Warren likely split votes 1 and 2 (and 2 and 1). Neither second choice would be counted until the first choice was dead last in any round before another candidate reached majority. Both might have lost, precisely because they split the most popular votes.
Or how about we simply allow the candidate receiving the most votes be declared the winner? Is that concept far out of reach? I swear we will find a way to complicate just about anything in this country. It's hard enough to identify one likable candidate on the ballot and now you want me to select 3?! So unnecessary.
I think the problem with that is getting candidates that don't get even 50% of the votes. It turns into a minority rule. Nobody is going to force you to pick a second or third choice, but many people do have ranked preferences on candidates and they want their vote to go to another one if their first choice is clearly not winning. It removes the problem that voting 3rd party is "throwing your vote away".
The problem with "whoever gets the most votes wins" which ranked choice voting (RCV) addresses is this: in a "whoever gets the most votes wins" system (often called first past the post, or FPTP), it is possible to elect the least popular candidate. However, in RCV, it is impossible to elect the least popular candidate. Let me give you an example:
Suppose there are three candidates in an election. Candidate A receives 33% of the vote (and all of candidate A's voters think candidate B is the second best choice), candidate B receives 32% of the vote (and all of candidate B's voters think candidate A is the second best choice), and candidate C receives 35% of the vote.
In a FPTP system, candidate C would be elected with 35% of the vote, even though 65% of the voters think candidate C is the worst candidate. In RCV, however, candidate B would be eliminated for receiving the fewest votes, and all of B's votes would be transferred to candidate A (since that's who they had as second choice). So then candidate A would win with 65% of the vote.
In this scenario, significantly more people are satisfied with the outcome of the election than they would have been under the FPTP system.
@@MuffinsAPlenty I get that, and I understand the point you're making, but I still disagree. Can't say I'd never change my mind but for now I prefer the traditional plurality voting. For one, I strongly believe RCV was intently put in place to neutralize unpopular political platforms. Voters don't like it when their candididate lose. And they really don't like it when interference from a lesser popular candidates consequentially contributes to the loss. The common nuisance of lesser popular candidates is their ability to use minority support to derail a single mainstream candidate or spoil the race by taking advantage of votes being split between top-tier candidates. It's an advantage they desperately need to get elected. They may not align with Republican or Democratic parties, nor have the endorsement of major institutions and this may be the best (or only) opportunity they'll ever have at propogating their own ideas and principles (which aren't always so bad) into policies, galvanizing constituents, or significantly expanding their platform. It could turn into a dramtic shift in power and if fruitful, threaten the establishment's influence. To keep that from happening, the establishment is weaponizing our traditional electoral system with RCV. RCV is nothing more than a systematically restrictive way to confine us into a small electoral box and force us to preserve the same conventional political philosophies over and over again. Seems more strategic than democratic. The example you provided lends credence to this theory. In your example the ideological platforms of campaign A and B are undoubtedly popular amongst voters and the establishment has decided that it should remain that way--just like the Republican and Democratic parties have both intentionally and inadvertently done for decades. RCV not only quiets opposition, it flat out eliminates it in the so-called name of democracy.
There wouldn’t be any intellectually dishonest claims of spoiler candidates either.
Chesa boudin is already attacking this system. Cuz he’s losing.
Still intellectually HONEST claims of spoiler candidates: ua-cam.com/video/JtKAScORevQ/v-deo.html
I’m hesitant to agree with this considering it’s coming from California.
I thought it was an excellent idea, until I heard San Francisco did this - one of the worst place in America today, as people are leaving in droves.
Umm.. not sure how RCV of a whole diverse(politically speaking) country and RCV of a non- diverse city is equivalent.
isn't San Francisco facing a massive homeless and crime problem right now? shows how much this system worked.
What a poor argument lol
@@blueciffer1653 policies dictate crime and homelessness and poverty, who passes these policies? The people we vote for.
@@NaffiAxx Homeless in Cali is the result of the market, not policies. Too many people moved there driving up the cost of housing. And because of Cali's terrible housing market it resulted in more poverty which in turn resulted in more crime. There is a reason Cali, including San Francisco saw increases in crime after the pandemic. The problem would have still happened no matter who they voted for since both parties are nothing but Liberals.
Should be mandatory viewing for all american citizens. We need rank choice voting and popular vote nationwide.
Thanks Linda Belcher
That's fkn crazy. It complicates the entire process.
… which opens it up for shenanigans!
Great idea but I have a question: What happens of your second choice has already been eliminated? Or your third choice as well? Do the votes go back to those eliminated parties or do they drop out of the voting pool?
if your second choice or 3rd choice is already eliminated then their votes go to your first choice.
Yes but it doesn't matter because you can't predict your best rank strategy. RCV doesn't eliminate splitting, complicates tactics in multi-candidate races, with convoluted and unexpected results. Approval Voting is much simpler, cheaper, excels with numerous candidates, and by all criteria, AV is superior to RCV.
Consider 2020 Dem primaries under RCV: Sanders and Warren likely split votes 1 and 2 (and 2 and 1). Neither second choice would be counted until the first choice was dead last in any round before another candidate reached majority. Both might have lost, precisely because they split the most popular votes.
Its easier to cheat. Imagine trying to figure out if the candidate who won should have won when you have to ask everyone who they voted for and in which order.
It’s written on the ballot which order they voted in, it’s not very complicated.
I believe 24 states currently have this in affect someone correct me if I'm wrong
Ya: this won't cause any disputes at all!😒
is it a possible w RCV that some would try to skew the outcome by people deliberately voting for an unpopular candidate of the opposite party so that candidate would be on the general election ballot against their parties candidate? Also, IF a large percent of people DONT fill in for all the choices, that skews the vote counting too. AND it’s time consuming - Also costly to redesign the voting machines and ballots ! Alaska is trying to eliminate RCV since they voted it in place before - it’s a mess to work out. i’m voting NO
It's an excellent idea that is too good for it's own well being. Anything that tilts the system toward greater equity and fairness for candidates and voters is nightshade in U.S. politics. In my experience spiders tend to fare well in elections - especially ones that suck the blood of the working class.
I'm watching this and I realized, that's how the Oscars determine who wins best actor, director, picture etc
We should do this.
Disenfranchisement on a wide scale. You either have to cast a vote for somebody you don't want or only have your vote count once.
Ranked choice voting: where the most voted for choice is the most likely to lose
Right makes perfect sense
Highest number of votes, and highest percentage, are two different things.
With 100 registered voters, if
Candidate A gets 30
Candidate B gets 47
Candidate C gets 12
& Candidate D gets 11
WHYY should Candidate B get automatically elected when most of these registered voters who voted DID NOT have him as a first choice!!????
If Candidate B can't manage to pull 4 more vote to get over half in the second round, then candidate B deserves to lose.
What if I only vote for one candidate?
so, basically, a runoff with extra steps
Are there any drawbacks to this?
I can scarcely believe the lengths the creators of this cartoon went to to make this simple topic confusing.
You lost me at "San Francisco did it"
Let's be honest, no one was ever going to vote for the spider, they have terrible policies!
Works from the bottom up. Second to the least popular's total percentage is recalculated over and over until somebody gets over half the votes. Cool algorithm.
The math in this video doesn’t make sense to me. If the lowest vote getter in the first round is eliminated and those votes get redistributed to the 2nd choice of those voters. Then in the example, spiders got 1% of the vote and that 1% gets redistributed, But the math redistributes much more than 1%. And lizards somehow decrease in percentage? If there were 1000 votes and lizards got 30, then when the 10 that went to spiders got redistributed, lizards would still have at least 30/1000 or 3%, but the second total screen shows lizards with 2%. Can someone explain this to me?
Gold, Silver and Bronze. Makes sense to me, if runoff then how interesting…
I will never vote for this in Texas.
what if 4 people running, 4th drops, then 3rd drops. but 3rd's second choice overwhelmingly for 4th? is 4th revived with all 4th 1st choice + all 3rd second choice?
no
Once a candidate is eliminated, they don't come back. Ballots never get redistributed to eliminated contestants. Where a ballot goes after the choice it was counted for is actually the next highest ranked alternative not earlier eliminated which is the third choice on the ballot in your example.
You just hit the nail on the head, about what is wrong with this ignorant idea.
They'll come up with anything but direct democracy I guess
CGP Grey 0:33
Ranked Choice Voting is not complicated.
There have been studies on this and so far it’s looking like flawed system that deceivingly looks good unless every person knows everything about every candidate. Would increase the complexity of the voting system. Becomes much more difficult for the average person to be informed about the candidates which will cause a lack of knowledge for them on the ballot. Makes voting more difficult, slower, and increases the rate of errors unless the system needs an overhaul to be more digitized in order for this to be fluid, even then that will create opportunity for error..requires you to vote for all candidates on the ballot even if you don’t know anything about them or else your vote could be exhausted. It creates an artificial majority, not a natural one.
It's like betting on horse races
How does this address mob rule?
That's a cool system.
It can still create ties
This is our last hope to save our representative democracy. Every state needs this.
It's better and I like, it but it's not a Panacea. This works with candidates in the same party (primaries), or just one candidate per party. Also, It doesn't solve the problem with a heavy gerrymandered districts. Solution? You also need to get rid of districts and distribute the seats proportionally, like Germany. You need two elections, the first one to get an order of priority candidates using ranked choice (public primaries). Then another ranked choice election with the parties, not the candidates. Dependeding of how many seats a party got in the second election, fill those seats using that list of priority of the first (primary) election.
Now it makes sense
I love ranked choice voting, but this video transfers votes very strangely. In the first round, spider is eliminated, and that 1% of voters goes to dog. In this same round, dog goes from 28% to 36%. With 1% added, dog should go from 28% to 29%. In this same first round, ALL the other animals get their numbers changed some up, some down. The math is screwy and doesn't represent ranked-choice voting well.
That was pretty easy to understand.
So what happens in the event the last place overall candidate, is 100% of the 2nd votes? Now they’ve been eliminated for being lowest on first choice ballots. Not likely, but still possible.
Then it would be his fault for not running a more proactive campaign. Otherwise, he would have survived the first round in order to get elected in the second...... But chances are he'd realize that he got that kind of traction after the election, and likely run a better campaign the next go around, and actually win.
But if he's already eliminated, and a majority still hasn't happened, then everyone's votes will go down to third choice with another candidate being eliminated as well.
I would never live in a state that had that kind of voting this is horrible I'm literally confused on why or how the person who won this is ridiculous top three throw Three hats
Rank choice voting sucks for Maine. Need to get rid of it! Never vote this in your State! You will hate it as much as us Mariners
Why third candidate, though? You haven't explained. Also... why my 1st and 2nd vote is calculated evenly? Could I NOT vote for 2nd and 3rd? I trust only 1st candidate. Weak explanation.
I prefer this.
It isn't really ranked choice voting if you only pick three.
It isn't standard or mandatory for there to only be three choices to vote on
This is litterally just a rip-off of a CGP Grey video
Great video
What if you don't have a second or third choice candidate? Like I only like Bernie do I just vote for Bernie for first choice and leave rest blank?
Weather Forecaster Kris Jackson In most real life applications of rank choice voting, you just leave the rest blank.
@@ryanl8226 Or can you just fill all three with Bernie Sanders for example? Just asking since we do not have it here in Georgia.
Weather Forecaster Kris Jackson I don’t think that people generally do that. Although in the video they mention ranking only three candidates, in most places this is used all candidates can be ranked. This would result in more work for the voter.
sure you can do that, but why not choose a second best candidate. Why abide by the all or nothing mentality? Would you rather have a whole cup of water or no cup of water? Why not make it so at least you can have half a cup of water too?
@@hector665 If we were allowed to vote for our desired candidate across all 5 choices, it would be meaningful ranked choice voting. Only simple minded persons would think it means theyve cast a total of 5 votes, and only Affluent Oxygen Thieves are arrogant enough to think the average voter would think thats how it works. Its plain but subtle vote manipulation.
Now this is a dangerous thing being done
Very, it's just pro demonrat and rino
Ranked choice is the second worst option. It's not the worst, so still an upgrade, but you can do better.
Country's with run off elections be like, "doh, why didn't we think at that?"
Omg no......you vote for the person you want, not a second runner up or a third. One vote pick the best one you like. If you want more than two parties then include more options. If a runoff is needed then so be it then cast the votes again. Those who’s candidate didn’t make it may absolutely not want anyone else. So be it.....they can’t even get a simple voting app to work and we are supposed to trust how they count votes...yikes no way!
This makes a great point. As for the run off, why not have a committee, or one delegate from each party with the highest number of votes, that way there is discussion from all parties instead of having just one party ruling for the term. But harmoniously discussing multi partisan. Council may be the wrong word for it, but a group with one delegate from each party with the majority vote. This bipartisan thing is just a mess. There needs to be more options.
Ranked voting also forgets the Constitution of the U.S. We vote for those who will represent us in Congress and the Presidency, and the states. We do NOT vote to give someone else an equal chance to be elected. We also do NOT vote for what the average of the populace would like!
This is litterally just a rip-off of a CGP Grey video
That was pretty easy to understand.
Dogs win!!!
So basically we're going to put someone nobody prefers in charge. Sounds about right.
Nope. We'd put whoever the majority of people would support in charge, even if it's not most people's first choice. That way, the most people are happy with who is in charge, even if they may have preferred someone else.
It puts in charge someone everyone agreed would be a good choice. Do you really want to elect someone ho only got 30% of the vote?
@@adamtak3128 Tell me about it. Maryland does this and it's hyperpartisan.
@@jgallardo7344we are also generally happy about our elected officials so.......
As opposed to having someone you hate be in charge?
I prefer a different method; each voter can vote for as many candidates as they like. Candidates with most votes wins. Simple and direct. Less chance for unintended consequences. Allows for 3rd party without confusing the issue of counting too much, simple and clean.
This could work, but it still doesn’t allow voters to have a preference as to who they truly want to win over the rest.
I would preferred if each vote was weighted. So with 13 candidates your first choice would have a weight of 13 and second 12 and one less down the line. Still if you don’t want to vote for more than 2 candidates that’s fine.
@@majorlazor5058 That sounds like it would work as intended resulting in the winner being desired by the majority and allowing the voting base to make their vote counted amongst all their favorite candidates.
Wonderful, we are going back to the early days of voting, and it most be better it was invented in Europe in the 1850's.
people who aren't smart enough to figure out how to vote on election day, or smart enough to figure out how to get free ID, are suppose to be able to figure out rank voting?
They couldn't even figure out how to vote for only one Presidential candidate in 2000.
If you're interested in RCV, check out the most exciting race in the country. Maine is featured in this story, and we are working to elected independent Green candidate Lisa Savage to U.S. Senate. It's time for change and this is how we change the political landscape. Let's show that RCV works at the highest echelons of government...check out our campaign, contact me. I'm the Field Director for Lisa Savage for U.S. Senate. www.lisaformaine.org/ranked_choice_voting
What if your 1st choice needs a certain percentage to qualify for Federal Funding, and they get that percentage, but are in last place and the votes get redistributed to the voter's 2nd choices. Does your 1st choice still qualify for Federal Funding?
That's a really interesting point! That would be directly relevant here in Kentucky. Logically speaking, making the target percentage on the initial ballot would qualify them. However, given entrenched resistance to third parties, it's very reasonable to expect legislators to try to do something sneaky in there.
That sounds like a very bad idea.
Bad idea
How can you beat it ???/
The 2 parties will figure a way around it by just stacking the deck with party clones pretending to be alternate party candidates.
Sad, but true ... but at least the two major party's would be forced to spend precious funds on turd sandwich candidates within such a system in order to get around what RCV is attempting to prevent.
RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
Why don't the people just vote for one person to throw this stupid way of voting out the window
how would this fix the current system?
It doesnt they just want popular vote to decide who gets in so they can keep there corrupt polititions on office
Minimizes spoiler effect (voting strategically), gives 3rd (or 4th or 5th) parties an actual chance to win, promotes a candidate that has the most overall support rather someone that could only have 34% of the total vote. In other words, it's way more fair!
It dosen't like most 💩 here in the U. S.the burocrats just want to make simple things more complicated then they need to be IDK why!
this is how it is in maine, but the democrats fought it all the way up to the supreme court. funny how that works!
well, they won.
They want it rigged to their favor
Dogs win!!!
Cats are okay with that, they didn't care either way LOL!
Ranked choice is relatively useless when there's only a single winner per district anyway (as with AV). With multi-member districts though, a ranked ballot makes good sense (as in STV).
The main issue is proportional representation Vs. distorted misrepresentation.
The problem with MMDs is candidates not winning a majority of their districts and very extreme candidates win. Most states like Nevada have abolished this system. West Virginia would like to next. It is greatly a problem in Maryland
Leif Harmsen The best way to achieve proportional representation is with mixed member proportional where you have two votes. The first vote would be on the left side of the ballot where you get one vote for a candidate to represent you in your district. While in the second vote, you vote for a political party and based on the number of votes each party got in the 2nd vote would be proportionally represented in the legislature. A party has to receive 5% of the second vote or win a constituent seat to be represented in the legislatures.
@@theyoungcentrist9110 One of the best way to have proportional representation to have an accurate number of people in the redistricting process. The problem in many states is they are brokering power between Republicans and Democrats when they are not a 50-50 split. Where are the people who do not want either?
Oh so
It’s a scam ….
This is something Andrew Yang supports!
Interesting way of voting. Still prefer the current way as it’s easier to count votes.
It sounds like a scam to me.
Actually what you will end up with is that the red states will go blue and the blue states if enacted fairly will go red, if enacted fairly but we know that won't happen
🤦♂️
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 based on area 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's so sad that I know so many people just like this girl in the video lmao