The video was very informative, well done. The closed primary system has created a monster. The current far right leadership of the party is accountable to no one and the representatives being elected care more about impressing the party leadership than about what is best for their constituents, because they are getting voted into office by such a small percentage of the total population through the closed Republican primary. Vote yes on prop 1!
I have participated in a ranked vote. It wasn’t confusing. It encouraged me to research all candidates. The final results were easy to understand and to be audited.
Yes!!! Long overdue! As a right-leaning libertarian, I would no longer be "throwing my vote away", since it would simply move to my second choice (the Republican candidate in my case) if needed.
He didn't convince me. The ranked choice voting is a bad idea. I know people in Alaska they have been fighting to get back to normal primary voting. They were all misled and didn't do they own research, we have to be smarter than this!
They were misled by their own candidates. They were told to only vote for one person and leave the others blank. If they had ranked Palin and Begich a Republican would have won Peltola's seat. Alaskans sabotaging their own ballots and complaining it didn't work doesn't mean the system didn't work.
The Independents have the option to register democrat or republican and vote in their primary. I do it. I'm registered as a Republican and I'm an Independent. The vote splitting is a problem worth addressing. A true runoff would be better, like Georgia. Then people would vote their conscience. Nate always asks the questions we want answers to. Thanks!
I just watched this video and the video on "Why you should vote No to Prop 1" Very informative. This is exactly the kind of stuff I like to see from the news. Nate what an incredible job. Unbiased, seeking to understand, and asking questions from the opposing view. Well done. I would love to see open primaries (or honestly the just parties abolished completely) but the ranked choice voting does not seem like the right way to accomplish this. Why doesn't Hyrum simply advocate for the republican primaries to be open instead? Way less confusing. Wouldn't set up a new voting system. Wouldn't cost more tax dollars to set up. Doesn't add up. I'm curious why there's so much out of state money trying to push this Prop through🤔
"Why doesn't Hyrum simply advocate for the republican primaries to be open instead?" : Open primaries and ranked choice voting go together. With an open primary (top four advance) if for example three Republicans advance and one Democrat does ranked choice prevents the outcome where a small minority determines the winner (ex : 26% D1, 25% R1, 25% R2, 24% R1). In RCV the first candidate past 50% wins the contest which in this example would be a R if the R voters have a republican as their second and third choices.
The out of state money is really only by national organizations that promote similar policies across the country and it’s non-partisan. In fact, the opposition has out of state money as well, but from organizations that are only a few months old and from real estate companies in California. Food for thought
Go back and watch the video, and pay attention to the segment 2:39m. Open primaries create a vote-splitting problem, where it is possible for Republicans in Idaho to lose the election if there are more Republican candidates than Democrat ones. Ranked-Choice solves 2 problems: 1. I am not a true fan of Kamala or Trump, and would prefer some moderate - BUT I cannot risk casting my vote for such a person because then someone I REALLY don't want to win likely will. I must pick the lesser of 2 evils. 2. As Hyrum Erickson stated, open Primaries w/o ranked-choice will create a situation where parties with less support have a significant advantage. If there are 70% of Idahoans who vote for 1 of 4 Republican candidates roughly equally and 30% of Idahoans who vote for 1 Democrat, the Democrat wins as each Republican has about 25% of the vote. With Ranked-Choice, you have a run-off. The votes are re-run with with one of the Republican candidates (with least votes) removed. Then, people who voted for that candidate move to having their votes count towards one of the remaining candidates if they had more than 1 choice. Opponents argue that if you only vote for 1 and you don't for 2, 3 and 4th choice, your vote fails to count if your candidate is removed. Personally, I see that what we have has somehow produced 'representatives' like AOC and MJT. These types from both parties are turning our congress into circus and making it impossible to get anything done in Congress. Folks spouting insane theories and even more dangerous plans that would cause untold harm to our nation's prosperity. Perhaps I think too highly of Americans, but I have a hard time imagining a majority of any district saying: "That's my lady!" about weather of them. Also, note that there's plenty of out of state funding for the opposition of prop 1, which has so far out-spent the 'pro' side by nearly 30%.
Rank choiced voting doesn't make sense because some people would get to vote twice, especially if the person they voted for received the least votes and gets removed so the system automatically assigns their vote to their second choice. That's not fair. Alaska tried this exact system and it didn't work for them. Why would we think it's going to work of Idaho?
"because some people would get to vote twice" : No, in your example ~everyone~ voted twice. Some voted for their second choice when their first was eliminated and some voted for their first choice twice since that same candidate was still viable in the second round.
Mechanically, it essentially works like this: we all show up to the polls and vote for our favorite candidate. If nobody wins 50%, then the least popular candidate is eliminated. The next week, we all show up again and cast a vote for our favorite among whoever is left. We repeat this until somebody gets 50% (no need to keep going, they might get more than 50% in later rounds, but they won't get less). The key point is that each week, EVERYONE gets another vote. If their candidate is still in the race, we assume that they will vote for them again. But that doesn't mean the losers get to vote more often. RCV streamlines the election by using your rankings from a single ballot to know how you will vote in that week-by-week process, without actually having to hold multiple elections for the same race. It does seem a little wonky at first to eliminate candidates, but it actually significantly improves the likelihood of selecting the one candidate whom voters collectively prefer over all other candidates (the Condorcet candidate).
THANK YOU! I'm losing my mind listening to people who oppose RCV. Clearly, they don't understand how it works and I'm not fathoming where the disconnect is. It's the same/very similar as how people decide a nominee for a party presidential candidate, ex. Trump in the 2016 Republican debates or Joe Biden in the 2020 Democratic debates, just much more efficient because it's all on one ballot
I caution idaho residents on this. Washington state has something similar (top 2 go to the general). All the decisions are pretty well made by blue Seattle/ King County area, though, at least 80 percent of the counties are red.
This is somewhat misleading. The reason King County is king is because Washington voters are concentrated there. And like everywhere in America, urban areas tend to run liberal while rural areas run conservative. It's not the number of counties that matters, its the number of voters, and red counties just don't have enough of them.
Any time proponents of any proposition lie and subvert the true purpose of a proposition in order to get enough signatures to put said proposition on the general ballot, in this case rank choice voting, I will always vote no! This gentleman describing prop 1 is the first person I have ever heard refer to it as rank choice voting!
So you just heard the word ranked voice voting and immediately shut off your brain? You do know that for open primaries to work you need ranked choice voting. In Idaho ranked choice voting would actually benefit republicans in all likely situations. For example- in the open primary you have the 4 candidates with the most votes advance regardless of party. Let’s say that 3 of the candidates are republicans and one is a democrat. When the actual election comes around let’s say republican 1 gets 24% of the vote, republican 2 gets 25% of the vote, republican 3 gets 25%percent of the vote and that leaves the democratic candidate with 26% of the vote. If there was no ranked choice the democratic candidate wins because he got the majority even though 74% of voters voted republican. With ranked choice the republican with 24% gets eliminated and the votes he got go to the candidates that the people who voted for him ranked second which would be one of the other republican candidates causing a republican to inevitably win the election. Even better, the republican that wins would be the fairest comprise between all voters. Don’t listen to the rich nepo baby politician propaganda from the Idaho elites controlling our state’s politics
@@HeatMiserr, thanks,you’ve just convinced me that Prop 1/Ranked Choice Voting is a really bad idea. Just look at Alaska. Everything is fine the way it is, we have a beautiful state, with limited issues because we are a Republican State. I lived in NM a year, upon returning to ID it was like entering paradise. You must be a Dem to support this BS.
@@martylucas8557 alaska is a beautiful state but claiming it has limited issues is just not true in the slightest. Per capita you guys have some of the worst crime and drug use in the entire country among other things and it isn’t the fault of ranked choice voting.
I’m an Idaho Democrat. I like the general election rank choice voting, but I’m not sure about the primary election top four idea. I still don’t know how I’m going to vote on this. Thank you for covering both sides of this issue!
I'm an unaffiliated Idaho voter and have been for years. I believe it's unconstitutional for the state to disallow anyone that's not red or blue to vote in primaries. I believe in free and open primaries. Whoever gets the biggest number wins, period. Then you put them on the ballot. Whoever gets the biggest number wins. And that's the winner. This is just total common sense people, not politics.
@@william_mac How do you think the Democrats feel about not being allowed to vote for their candidate? They had no vote for Harris. She was forced on them. I believe the R & D should be able to vote for their candidate in the primary. Also, some who are in support think that everyone who pays taxes should be able to vote. Think about that.
@@shelley2086 I don't know what the fight is here. I think you should vote for the person that you've researched and feel it's best for you. If you can't feel free to vote for the candidate of your choice preliminary voting..... That's totally unconstitutional. If I can vote for whoever I want no matter what my party is that's called the United States. Idaho is not part of that, clearly.
@@william_mac You are allowed to vote in the primary as it is unless it's not the party you're registered with. imagine one party voting for the weakest candidate in the other party just to win in the general. The votes would not be legit. Also, some want to take it further with who is allowed to vote. Noncitizens pay taxes. I heard people say that any taxpayer should be able to vote. No, only citizens should be allowed to vote. It hasn't work in other states. I don't know why people think it'd be any different here.
I wish they would separate these two changes. I think the open primary part would have a lot of support. Ranked choice is less popular and may make the prop fail
That is the reason most of their messaging only focuses on an open primary. They know rank choice is unpopular. The fact that they seem to be hiding it is concerning.
To me, RCV is the true selling point. I actually would have preferred them to do away with the primary entirely and just do RCV across all candidates, but I understand why they didn't. RCV tends to not scale well. Actually, if I could have my wish, I'd choose STAR voting, which is both simple and scalable. But it's not on the ballot.
Do you really think Alaskans would have voted for the Democrat over Sarah Palin in a runoff? I don't think so. Ranked choice voting confuses people and that's a good enough reason to not do it.
Laura, there is no issue. These jokers are making it seem like an issue, which we don’t have. Just look at AK and what happened there after they voted this in!
@ @ I agree and did look at Alaska and am voting no simply because why take the chance of a random winner. Plus, I don’t like that they put a second part into one bill.
@, right on Laura. Were you aware that this bill consist of 16 pages? What I do know is this…we have a beautiful state with far fewer issues than many states in our great country. The last thing we need is for a Dem to get in power that usurps our way of life and livelihood, e.g. Constitutional Carry, Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, etc… I don’t conceal carry all the time, but if I want to I can legally do it. I’ve been pulled over a couple of times over the years. Each time I’ve mentioned to the cop or ID State Trooper that I have a gun in the Glove box or there’s one in the vehicle. Each time they said okay, like it’s no big deal and carried on with what they were doing.
The Democrats are all for this tells you ALL you need to know. This will also triple the expense of elections. If you're someone who doesn't like the available candidates, go find a good one that people are willing to vote for. Idaho's system is so good that like minded Oregonians want their state to become part of Idaho. This guy claims to be a lifelong Republican, but seems to want nothing to do with any elected Republicans that represent the majority of Idahoan's values.
He says that far right candidates want you to vote no. None of them are conservative enough already if this moves to more "Moderate" no thank you. A butch otter endorsement doesn't help the case. I have voted in the Primaries my vote hasn't mattered why should a Democrat's vote count in the Primaries
This is a horrible idea it's definitely vote. The signature gatherers weren't completely open and honest. The majority of people who signed the the signatures we're only told part of the story.
This is a two part bill. One is for open primaries and the other part is rank choice voting. Many thought they were only signing a petition for open primary.
Is anyone else finding as many typos in this document as I am? If it has made it this far in its current form, has anyone pushing this even read it all? pol1 should be poll aparty should be two words who.received should have a space instead of a period Seriously. THIS is what we are voting on? Holy moly. What else in here is mistyped that will end up in a lawsuit because the "spirit of the law" doesn't match "the letter of the law."
If you want to open the primaries, open the primaries. Forget the ranked choice voting. It was right to vote it down. It should have been called that, if that is what you want.
The fact that it takes longer than 1 sentence to explain how the ranked choice voting works and even then he didn't tell the whole process, and that it's impossible to audit it, should tell you this is a ridiculous idea.
@@kbkylebsh except it is. There is no way to look at a ballot and know exactly who got the vote. You can maybe guess. But not know 100% like you do on One Ballot One Vote ballots.
I’m in Madison and remind me not to vote for him later. No to prop one. For me mostly because of ranked voting. How about just open it up for people to vote instead of ranked voting.
This assumes the premise that RCV is driven by liberal views. The only argument to support that premise is the nebulous claim that someone (probably liberal! and out of state!) is financing this proposition. Frank Vandersloot says follow the money, but doesn't point us to any particular pile of cash. I am a lifelong Idahoan. I vote conservative every election. And I'm absolutely in favor of breaking away from single-vote ballots that unavoidably drive us to a two-party system and preserve incumbents for years in office. Evidence - count up the number of elected officials from the White House on down who are neither Democrat nor Republican. You'll find one or two here and there, but that's it. Count how many years each has been in office. It is a career for most. This is the direct result of how our single-vote ballot elections work, not how voters actually feel. I just wish more people were interested enough to research and understand why this is the case.
If the document doesn't say candidates can list whatever party they want regardless of their affiliation, please elaborate and actually show me. You said you could but you didn't. When I read it, it literally states they can. "CANDIDATES COULD LIST ANY AFFILIATION ON THE BALLOT, BUT WOULD NOT REPRESENT POLITICAL PARTIES, AND NEED NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARTY THEY NAME." Section 22 and 24 are convoluted and make it difficult to understand party affiliation vs. party endorsement.
This guy is spot on. Vote YES on Prop 1! It's wrong that our closed primary elections block 270,000 Idahoans from voting just because they don't belong to a political party. These are taxpaying citizens and they deserve the right to vote in every Idaho election. Yes on 1!
Saying that the winner gets 50% support is false though. Thats like saying I can’t have my main choice so I’ll take this other sucky option because you have to. And that qualifies as “support”? Doesn’t sound like support to me. Sounds like a way for the establishment to get what they want and leave the populace confused.
So 270000 Idahoans are too ashamed of even claiming to be a Republican. Why should they be able to pick republicans candidates? This makes no sense, plus it violates the Idaho Constitution in two respects: one person one vote and one item per proposal
"One Person One Vote" is neither a law nor a principle. It is a slogan that succinctly sums up the actual principle that each voter has an equal voice with all other voters in electing our representatives. RCV preserves this. Each voter has an equal voice, but the mechanics of voting mean that each voter can express relative preference among all candidates instead of only one. Each voter still gets one vote, but that vote happens every round in an election instead of just once. Whether you vote for the same candidate each round while I vote for a different doesn't change the equality of our voice. Legal challenges to RCV have all met the same result: it does not violate the US constitution's election protections. I haven't seen any challenges to Idaho's constitution, but I'd be interested to see one made. I'm doubtful such a challenge would be any more successful against Idaho than it was against the US.
The video was very informative, well done. The closed primary system has created a monster. The current far right leadership of the party is accountable to no one and the representatives being elected care more about impressing the party leadership than about what is best for their constituents, because they are getting voted into office by such a small percentage of the total population through the closed Republican primary. Vote yes on prop 1!
I have participated in a ranked vote.
It wasn’t confusing.
It encouraged me to research all candidates.
The final results were easy to understand and to be audited.
Yes!!! Long overdue! As a right-leaning libertarian, I would no longer be "throwing my vote away", since it would simply move to my second choice (the Republican candidate in my case) if needed.
I don’t think so Mike. Absolutely no need for this. Everyone can vote for their choice, as they’re on the ballot.
Great questions Nate. I would want to see his voting records and his donations before I voted on this. Outside money can and would change the voting.
He didn't convince me. The ranked choice voting is a bad idea. I know people in Alaska they have been fighting to get back to normal primary voting. They were all misled and didn't do they own research, we have to be smarter than this!
This is one of the reasons that Dems stay in power in Cali. No on Prop 1 !
They were misled by their own candidates.
They were told to only vote for one person and leave the others blank. If they had ranked Palin and Begich a Republican would have won Peltola's seat.
Alaskans sabotaging their own ballots and complaining it didn't work doesn't mean the system didn't work.
If out of state interests are pushing Prop 1 then that is enough of a message to know it is not in Idaho's best interest... Vote NO...!!!
Out of state interests are pushing against it.
Some of the major out of state donors for the opposition are real estate interests from California who want to make Idaho housing more expensive
The Independents have the option to register democrat or republican and vote in their primary. I do it. I'm registered as a Republican and I'm an Independent. The vote splitting is a problem worth addressing. A true runoff would be better, like Georgia. Then people would vote their conscience. Nate always asks the questions we want answers to. Thanks!
The runoff that occurs like Georgia is ran as a whole other election that costs the taxpayers more money
I just watched this video and the video on "Why you should vote No to Prop 1" Very informative. This is exactly the kind of stuff I like to see from the news. Nate what an incredible job. Unbiased, seeking to understand, and asking questions from the opposing view. Well done. I would love to see open primaries (or honestly the just parties abolished completely) but the ranked choice voting does not seem like the right way to accomplish this. Why doesn't Hyrum simply advocate for the republican primaries to be open instead? Way less confusing. Wouldn't set up a new voting system. Wouldn't cost more tax dollars to set up. Doesn't add up. I'm curious why there's so much out of state money trying to push this Prop through🤔
"Why doesn't Hyrum simply advocate for the republican primaries to be open instead?" : Open primaries and ranked choice voting go together. With an open primary (top four advance) if for example three Republicans advance and one Democrat does ranked choice prevents the outcome where a small minority determines the winner (ex : 26% D1, 25% R1, 25% R2, 24% R1). In RCV the first candidate past 50% wins the contest which in this example would be a R if the R voters have a republican as their second and third choices.
The out of state money is really only by national organizations that promote similar policies across the country and it’s non-partisan. In fact, the opposition has out of state money as well, but from organizations that are only a few months old and from real estate companies in California. Food for thought
Go back and watch the video, and pay attention to the segment 2:39m.
Open primaries create a vote-splitting problem, where it is possible for Republicans in Idaho to lose the election if there are more Republican candidates than Democrat ones.
Ranked-Choice solves 2 problems:
1. I am not a true fan of Kamala or Trump, and would prefer some moderate - BUT I cannot risk casting my vote for such a person because then someone I REALLY don't want to win likely will. I must pick the lesser of 2 evils.
2. As Hyrum Erickson stated, open Primaries w/o ranked-choice will create a situation where parties with less support have a significant advantage. If there are 70% of Idahoans who vote for 1 of 4 Republican candidates roughly equally and 30% of Idahoans who vote for 1 Democrat, the Democrat wins as each Republican has about 25% of the vote. With Ranked-Choice, you have a run-off. The votes are re-run with with one of the Republican candidates (with least votes) removed. Then, people who voted for that candidate move to having their votes count towards one of the remaining candidates if they had more than 1 choice.
Opponents argue that if you only vote for 1 and you don't for 2, 3 and 4th choice, your vote fails to count if your candidate is removed.
Personally, I see that what we have has somehow produced 'representatives' like AOC and MJT. These types from both parties are turning our congress into circus and making it impossible to get anything done in Congress. Folks spouting insane theories and even more dangerous plans that would cause untold harm to our nation's prosperity. Perhaps I think too highly of Americans, but I have a hard time imagining a majority of any district saying: "That's my lady!" about weather of them.
Also, note that there's plenty of out of state funding for the opposition of prop 1, which has so far out-spent the 'pro' side by nearly 30%.
Rank choiced voting doesn't make sense because some people would get to vote twice, especially if the person they voted for received the least votes and gets removed so the system automatically assigns their vote to their second choice. That's not fair. Alaska tried this exact system and it didn't work for them. Why would we think it's going to work of Idaho?
"because some people would get to vote twice" : No, in your example ~everyone~ voted twice. Some voted for their second choice when their first was eliminated and some voted for their first choice twice since that same candidate was still viable in the second round.
Mechanically, it essentially works like this: we all show up to the polls and vote for our favorite candidate. If nobody wins 50%, then the least popular candidate is eliminated. The next week, we all show up again and cast a vote for our favorite among whoever is left. We repeat this until somebody gets 50% (no need to keep going, they might get more than 50% in later rounds, but they won't get less). The key point is that each week, EVERYONE gets another vote. If their candidate is still in the race, we assume that they will vote for them again. But that doesn't mean the losers get to vote more often.
RCV streamlines the election by using your rankings from a single ballot to know how you will vote in that week-by-week process, without actually having to hold multiple elections for the same race. It does seem a little wonky at first to eliminate candidates, but it actually significantly improves the likelihood of selecting the one candidate whom voters collectively prefer over all other candidates (the Condorcet candidate).
THANK YOU! I'm losing my mind listening to people who oppose RCV. Clearly, they don't understand how it works and I'm not fathoming where the disconnect is. It's the same/very similar as how people decide a nominee for a party presidential candidate, ex. Trump in the 2016 Republican debates or Joe Biden in the 2020 Democratic debates, just much more efficient because it's all on one ballot
Rank choice is the easiest process to skew the outcome.
I caution idaho residents on this. Washington state has something similar (top 2 go to the general). All the decisions are pretty well made by blue Seattle/ King County area, though, at least 80 percent of the counties are red.
Yeah, it's almost like they have a system of "one man...one vote" and not "one acre...one vote".
This is somewhat misleading. The reason King County is king is because Washington voters are concentrated there. And like everywhere in America, urban areas tend to run liberal while rural areas run conservative. It's not the number of counties that matters, its the number of voters, and red counties just don't have enough of them.
And in Idaho Dorothy Moon and a handful of wealthy elites decide who gets to the general election. I'd rather have more of a say in who represents me.
Any time proponents of any proposition lie and subvert the true purpose of a proposition in order to get enough signatures to put said proposition on the general ballot, in this case rank choice voting, I will always vote no! This gentleman describing prop 1 is the first person I have ever heard refer to it as rank choice voting!
So you just heard the word ranked voice voting and immediately shut off your brain? You do know that for open primaries to work you need ranked choice voting. In Idaho ranked choice voting would actually benefit republicans in all likely situations. For example- in the open primary you have the 4 candidates with the most votes advance regardless of party. Let’s say that 3 of the candidates are republicans and one is a democrat. When the actual election comes around let’s say republican 1 gets 24% of the vote, republican 2 gets 25% of the vote, republican 3 gets 25%percent of the vote and that leaves the democratic candidate with 26% of the vote. If there was no ranked choice the democratic candidate wins because he got the majority even though 74% of voters voted republican. With ranked choice the republican with 24% gets eliminated and the votes he got go to the candidates that the people who voted for him ranked second which would be one of the other republican candidates causing a republican to inevitably win the election. Even better, the republican that wins would be the fairest comprise between all voters. Don’t listen to the rich nepo baby politician propaganda from the Idaho elites controlling our state’s politics
@@HeatMiserr, thanks,you’ve just convinced me that Prop 1/Ranked Choice Voting is a really bad idea. Just look at Alaska. Everything is fine the way it is, we have a beautiful state, with limited issues because we are a Republican State. I lived in NM a year, upon returning to ID it was like entering paradise. You must be a Dem to support this BS.
@@martylucas8557 alaska is a beautiful state but claiming it has limited issues is just not true in the slightest. Per capita you guys have some of the worst crime and drug use in the entire country among other things and it isn’t the fault of ranked choice voting.
Ya hell no!! Clearly not for Idaho and what makes Idaho great at it's core.
I come from a state that did this. Big mistake. It’s a no for me.
I’m an Idaho Democrat. I like the general election rank choice voting, but I’m not sure about the primary election top four idea. I still don’t know how I’m going to vote on this. Thank you for covering both sides of this issue!
I'm an unaffiliated Idaho voter and have been for years. I believe it's unconstitutional for the state to disallow anyone that's not red or blue to vote in primaries. I believe in free and open primaries. Whoever gets the biggest number wins, period. Then you put them on the ballot. Whoever gets the biggest number wins. And that's the winner. This is just total common sense people, not politics.
@@william_mac How do you think the Democrats feel about not being allowed to vote for their candidate? They had no vote for Harris. She was forced on them. I believe the R & D should be able to vote for their candidate in the primary. Also, some who are in support think that everyone who pays taxes should be able to vote. Think about that.
@@shelley2086 I don't know what the fight is here. I think you should vote for the person that you've researched and feel it's best for you. If you can't feel free to vote for the candidate of your choice preliminary voting..... That's totally unconstitutional. If I can vote for whoever I want no matter what my party is that's called the United States. Idaho is not part of that, clearly.
@@william_mac You are allowed to vote in the primary as it is unless it's not the party you're registered with. imagine one party voting for the weakest candidate in the other party just to win in the general. The votes would not be legit. Also, some want to take it further with who is allowed to vote. Noncitizens pay taxes. I heard people say that any taxpayer should be able to vote. No, only citizens should be allowed to vote. It hasn't work in other states. I don't know why people think it'd be any different here.
@@shelley2086 go back and reread what you're writing in your comment. What type of brain would say in this? Your comment is not even worth a response.
Keep up with the good work love watching your videos on UA-cam God bless
I wish they would separate these two changes. I think the open primary part would have a lot of support. Ranked choice is less popular and may make the prop fail
I would love open primaries, but the ranking bit is going to cause my 'NO' vote.
That is the reason most of their messaging only focuses on an open primary. They know rank choice is unpopular. The fact that they seem to be hiding it is concerning.
Many who signed the pertinent to put this on the ballot were only told about open primaries and the rank choice part was withheld or vague.
To me, RCV is the true selling point. I actually would have preferred them to do away with the primary entirely and just do RCV across all candidates, but I understand why they didn't. RCV tends to not scale well. Actually, if I could have my wish, I'd choose STAR voting, which is both simple and scalable. But it's not on the ballot.
Do you really think Alaskans would have voted for the Democrat over Sarah Palin in a runoff? I don't think so. Ranked choice voting confuses people and that's a good enough reason to not do it.
Palin and Begich split the vote and told people to only vote for one person. If people ranked Palin and Begich one of them would have won.
Nice job showing both sides Nate. People should hear both sides out loud.
12:07 so he just admitted that it will move the state to the left.
Y’all really didn’t watch the video and it shows
Having watched both interviews, both were persuasive and it’s hard to distinguish which is correct.
Read the actual text of the prop. It clearly gives more control to government and eliminates secure and democratic elections.
Laura, there is no issue. These jokers are making it seem like an issue, which we don’t have. Just look at AK and what happened there after they voted this in!
@ @ I agree and did look at Alaska and am voting no simply because why take the chance of a random winner. Plus, I don’t like that they put a second part into one bill.
@, right on Laura. Were you aware that this bill consist of 16 pages? What I do know is this…we have a beautiful state with far fewer issues than many states in our great country. The last thing we need is for a Dem to get in power that usurps our way of life and livelihood, e.g. Constitutional Carry, Castle Doctrine, Stand Your Ground, etc… I don’t conceal carry all the time, but if I want to I can legally do it. I’ve been pulled over a couple of times over the years. Each time I’ve mentioned to the cop or ID State Trooper that I have a gun in the
Glove box or there’s one in the vehicle. Each time they said okay, like it’s no big deal and carried on with what they were doing.
The Democrats are all for this tells you ALL you need to know. This will also triple the expense of elections. If you're someone who doesn't like the available candidates, go find a good one that people are willing to vote for. Idaho's system is so good that like minded Oregonians want their state to become part of Idaho. This guy claims to be a lifelong Republican, but seems to want nothing to do with any elected Republicans that represent the majority of Idahoan's values.
The Republicans are supporting a similar measure in Nevada…and the Democrats are opposed to it…
He says that far right candidates want you to vote no. None of them are conservative enough already if this moves to more "Moderate" no thank you. A butch otter endorsement doesn't help the case. I have voted in the Primaries my vote hasn't mattered why should a Democrat's vote count in the Primaries
Vote No on prop 1 keep Idaho great
This is a horrible idea it's definitely vote. The signature gatherers weren't completely open and honest. The majority of people who signed the the signatures we're only told part of the story.
This is a two part bill. One is for open primaries and the other part is rank choice voting. Many thought they were only signing a petition for open primary.
Good information. Thank you
Is anyone else finding as many typos in this document as I am? If it has made it this far in its current form, has anyone pushing this even read it all?
pol1 should be poll
aparty should be two words
who.received should have a space instead of a period
Seriously. THIS is what we are voting on? Holy moly. What else in here is mistyped that will end up in a lawsuit because the "spirit of the law" doesn't match "the letter of the law."
You have a typo in the second sentence of your comment. "it's" should be "its".
If you want to open the primaries, open the primaries. Forget the ranked choice voting. It was right to vote it down. It should have been called that, if that is what you want.
The fact that it takes longer than 1 sentence to explain how the ranked choice voting works and even then he didn't tell the whole process, and that it's impossible to audit it, should tell you this is a ridiculous idea.
It's not impossible to audit, though.
@@kbkylebsh except it is. There is no way to look at a ballot and know exactly who got the vote. You can maybe guess. But not know 100% like you do on One Ballot One Vote ballots.
False. Over 60 communities in America use ranked choice voting, and these elections are regularly audited.
One sentence : Voters express their preferences in rank order and the first candidate to receive more than 50% approval is the winner.
@IdahoansforOpenPrimaries-yx6zf false. You cannot look at a ballot and know right away who got the vote and when it was exhausted.
I’m in Madison and remind me not to vote for him later. No to prop one. For me mostly because of ranked voting. How about just open it up for people to vote instead of ranked voting.
Beware of wolf in sheep's clothing.
This guy has mastered the art of telling lies out of the corner of his mouth
Why are most people moving to Idaho? Because they love our ultra conservative values OR because they want to change Idaho to the Left?
This assumes the premise that RCV is driven by liberal views. The only argument to support that premise is the nebulous claim that someone (probably liberal! and out of state!) is financing this proposition. Frank Vandersloot says follow the money, but doesn't point us to any particular pile of cash.
I am a lifelong Idahoan. I vote conservative every election. And I'm absolutely in favor of breaking away from single-vote ballots that unavoidably drive us to a two-party system and preserve incumbents for years in office. Evidence - count up the number of elected officials from the White House on down who are neither Democrat nor Republican. You'll find one or two here and there, but that's it. Count how many years each has been in office. It is a career for most. This is the direct result of how our single-vote ballot elections work, not how voters actually feel. I just wish more people were interested enough to research and understand why this is the case.
If the document doesn't say candidates can list whatever party they want regardless of their affiliation, please elaborate and actually show me. You said you could but you didn't. When I read it, it literally states they can.
"CANDIDATES COULD LIST ANY AFFILIATION ON THE BALLOT, BUT WOULD
NOT REPRESENT POLITICAL PARTIES, AND NEED NOT BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARTY
THEY NAME."
Section 22 and 24 are convoluted and make it difficult to understand party affiliation vs. party endorsement.
Who pays for this garbage and what is the cost to taxpayers? 20 million? 40?, 60?
This guy is spot on. Vote YES on Prop 1! It's wrong that our closed primary elections block 270,000 Idahoans from voting just because they don't belong to a political party. These are taxpaying citizens and they deserve the right to vote in every Idaho election. Yes on 1!
Open primaries are worth a discussion. Rank choice is a wolf in sheep's skin.
@@heidiwasden4909 how is it a wolf in sheep's clothing? It seems pretty honest on what it is.
It will hurt up state to much garbage added to the proposition and very poor for upstate county’s
Sounds fishy, why is it when I see a sign to vote yes on prop 1 in someone's yard, I also see a Harris sign?
Saying that the winner gets 50% support is false though. Thats like saying I can’t have my main choice so I’ll take this other sucky option because you have to. And that qualifies as “support”? Doesn’t sound like support to me. Sounds like a way for the establishment to get what they want and leave the populace confused.
For prop 1
Don’t listen to this Covoluted lie. He’s a Rino!
13:09 and from what types of groups is that money flowing? Right wing groups? No. Left wing groups. Admit it.
I call out BS on proposition one go home Californians
So 270000 Idahoans are too ashamed of even claiming to be a Republican. Why should they be able to pick republicans candidates?
This makes no sense, plus it violates the Idaho Constitution in two respects: one person one vote and one item per proposal
"one person one vote" is violated: I don't think this is so but feel free to explain how.
"One Person One Vote" is neither a law nor a principle. It is a slogan that succinctly sums up the actual principle that each voter has an equal voice with all other voters in electing our representatives. RCV preserves this. Each voter has an equal voice, but the mechanics of voting mean that each voter can express relative preference among all candidates instead of only one. Each voter still gets one vote, but that vote happens every round in an election instead of just once. Whether you vote for the same candidate each round while I vote for a different doesn't change the equality of our voice.
Legal challenges to RCV have all met the same result: it does not violate the US constitution's election protections. I haven't seen any challenges to Idaho's constitution, but I'd be interested to see one made. I'm doubtful such a challenge would be any more successful against Idaho than it was against the US.
Hyrum, who’s supporting you on this prop? How much are you being funded to jam this through?
That'd be nice, but no funding involved.
This guy is a rhino, a weak man. Voting yes, will destroy the state. Vote no
Is he an idaho native? Has he always been republican?🤔
Sounds like a Rino.
Yes, he is.
That Gen-Xer is not based.
Go Trump!!