Would be nice if people could offer voices from the opposition. With a little effort though I found that the opposition counters... that if one candidate reaches 50% first then everyone else's vote is defunct or "exhausted', even if the MAJORITY of people funneled their votes into secondary candidates. I think to combat this they would have to have mandatory second or third rounds. This also would be a system which would work best if everyone voted for who they really wanted and not subscribe to the strategy of cancelling someone's else's vote out, which is what the two-party system can come to.
Would be nice if people could offer voices from the opposition. With a little effort though I found that the opposition counters... that if one candidate reaches 50% first then everyone else's vote is defunct or "exhausted', even if the MAJORITY of people funneled their votes into secondary candidates. I think to combat this they would have to have mandatory second or third rounds. This also would be a system which would work best if everyone voted for who they really wanted and not subscribe to the strategy of cancelling someone's else's vote out, which is what the two-party system can come to.
Let make this choice simple is a YES vote going to make it more likely that liberals will continue to be in power or is it going to make it possible that conservatives could gain more power that will determine the vote of this measure.
Using the proposed scenario, what happens to my vote if I only picked green and made no 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choices? Similarly what if I make green my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice?
I've heard that ballots can't be tallied then until they have all arrived and are recorded. This will for sure create a week or more before a candidate is declared a winner. It seems like it would also be more difficult to audit/verify a "winner" if the results are contested. Seemed easier for dishonesty. Seems too confusing for many. A majority of voters from Alaska are NOT fans of rank-choice voting.
Out of one side of her mouth she says "ranked choice voting will give voters a more diverse range of candidates to choose from" and on the other side of her mouth she gives an example of a state that has already done it and the only candidates on the ballot were demoncrates that agree with one another's views. 😂
@@isaac_buckley if you only vote in one candidate (not ranking all), I've heard your vote does not count. Someone may know who they do like but don't know enough about all candidates to rank all. Doesn't make sense their vote wouldn't count then at all.
@@deannareismanYou're right to think that it wouldn't make sense, because it's not true; voting for just one candidate is an option in ranked-choice voting. I'd definitely recommend looking up how ranked-choice voting has already been implemented in other places; Australia has actually been using the system at the national level for their House of Representatives for over a century (it's used at the state level as well over there). What is true is that ranking more candidates gives you a better shot of a candidate you prefer winning-if my first choice doesn't win a majority of the vote, then my vote would be transferred to my second choice, and so on until there's a majority winner. So I could just vote for one candidate, and it would be counted in the race-but, if my one candidate doesn't win a majority of the vote, then the result for my vote would be exactly the same as it would be under the current "winner-takes-all" / plurality voting used for most elections now; my vote wouldn't transfer, since I hadn't specified whom I'd prefer for my second choice. The gist of the idea is making sure the candidate who wins actually has the support of the majority of their constituents, and allowing people to feel they can safely vote for a candidate who is less likely to win without jeopardizing an election in favour of their least preferred choice.
@isaac_buckley This isn't the first time I've heard this, but it's what I have seen today. I am not ready to say "yes" so, in a "no". ua-cam.com/video/XXdmq_pTr8A/v-deo.htmlsi=Tle8qCwaW2julCMo
If you do not fully understand a ballot measure, and choose not to mark a "yes" OR "no" it will likely pass by those that want the change outlined in the measure. It seems to me, at least, that's how it often turns out anyway. So, please, if you know you do not want the described change, or "don't know" if you want the change as outlined in the measure, vote "NO" to keep things "as is".
@@billyyank5807 it makes more sense to you to make voting easier rather than more secure? The demoncrates want voting so easy a dead person could vote!
Where is the other side? Only one side was presented.
Would be nice if people could offer voices from the opposition. With a little effort though I found that the opposition counters... that if one candidate reaches 50% first then everyone else's vote is defunct or "exhausted', even if the MAJORITY of people funneled their votes into secondary candidates. I think to combat this they would have to have mandatory second or third rounds. This also would be a system which would work best if everyone voted for who they really wanted and not subscribe to the strategy of cancelling someone's else's vote out, which is what the two-party system can come to.
Why is there not someone who is against this on the panel??? Great way to help,the public learn, this is kgw showing their liberal bias.
Australia does this
Explains it’s hard turn left
Australia is a nightmare of corruption and despair for the working class.
Excellent interview, Ms.Porter! Thank you very much for bringing attention to this measure in such a respectful and measured way.
Would be nice if people could offer voices from the opposition. With a little effort though I found that the opposition counters... that if one candidate reaches 50% first then everyone else's vote is defunct or "exhausted', even if the MAJORITY of people funneled their votes into secondary candidates. I think to combat this they would have to have mandatory second or third rounds. This also would be a system which would work best if everyone voted for who they really wanted and not subscribe to the strategy of cancelling someone's else's vote out, which is what the two-party system can come to.
Alaska to Maine!! Really, how about tell the truth, only alaska and maine and they are trying to repeal it in alaska!!
Let make this choice simple is a YES vote going to make it more likely that liberals will continue to be in power or is it going to make it possible that conservatives could gain more power that will determine the vote of this measure.
It always seems like it’s only one side that wants it.
Using the proposed scenario, what happens to my vote if I only picked green and made no 2nd, 3rd, or 4th choices? Similarly what if I make green my 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th choice?
"Everyone loves it" but there are ten states that have tried it and banned it....
I really wonder how this impacts the minority party
I've heard that ballots can't be tallied then until they have all arrived and are recorded. This will for sure create a week or more before a candidate is declared a winner. It seems like it would also be more difficult to audit/verify a "winner" if the results are contested. Seemed easier for dishonesty. Seems too confusing for many. A majority of voters from Alaska are NOT fans of rank-choice voting.
All I know about rank choice voting is that it kept Sarah Palin out of Congress. Any system that keeps maga out of power is a major improvement.
There the left goes again using lawfair to increase their dictatorial power on Americans.
People are fine with Soros money in Portland?
Hahaha, "defending muh demoocracy" much?
Thank you for explaining why conservatives should be against it.
Liberal Oregon has done so well the last few years.
sounds sketchy
Out of one side of her mouth she says "ranked choice voting will give voters a more diverse range of candidates to choose from" and on the other side of her mouth she gives an example of a state that has already done it and the only candidates on the ballot were demoncrates that agree with one another's views. 😂
no opposition!
So two people in support of the ballot measure. Find anyone that doesn't support it?
Great Idea! Hopefully this will apply this November !
Are you serious it have to pass before it can apply and it's being voted on in November I hope you don't vote with that kind of logic
Ranked choice voting is dumb. One person one vote.
It's still one person, one vote; it's simply ordering your preference for where your one vote ultimately goes to.
@@isaac_buckley if you only vote in one candidate (not ranking all), I've heard your vote does not count. Someone may know who they do like but don't know enough about all candidates to rank all. Doesn't make sense their vote wouldn't count then at all.
@@deannareismanYou're right to think that it wouldn't make sense, because it's not true; voting for just one candidate is an option in ranked-choice voting. I'd definitely recommend looking up how ranked-choice voting has already been implemented in other places; Australia has actually been using the system at the national level for their House of Representatives for over a century (it's used at the state level as well over there). What is true is that ranking more candidates gives you a better shot of a candidate you prefer winning-if my first choice doesn't win a majority of the vote, then my vote would be transferred to my second choice, and so on until there's a majority winner. So I could just vote for one candidate, and it would be counted in the race-but, if my one candidate doesn't win a majority of the vote, then the result for my vote would be exactly the same as it would be under the current "winner-takes-all" / plurality voting used for most elections now; my vote wouldn't transfer, since I hadn't specified whom I'd prefer for my second choice. The gist of the idea is making sure the candidate who wins actually has the support of the majority of their constituents, and allowing people to feel they can safely vote for a candidate who is less likely to win without jeopardizing an election in favour of their least preferred choice.
@isaac_buckley This isn't the first time I've heard this, but it's what I have seen today. I am not ready to say "yes" so, in a "no".
ua-cam.com/video/XXdmq_pTr8A/v-deo.htmlsi=Tle8qCwaW2julCMo
No, on ranked-choice voting.
It doesn’t matter Oregon is all vote by mail.its just a way to justify someone that isn’t popular.
Bad idea!
Would you rather want approval voting instead
@@Wulfstrex yes
If you do not fully understand a ballot measure, and choose not to mark a "yes" OR "no" it will likely pass by those that want the change outlined in the measure. It seems to me, at least, that's how it often turns out anyway. So, please, if you know you do not want the described change, or "don't know" if you want the change as outlined in the measure, vote "NO" to keep things "as is".
👎🏾
In person voting with a government issued ID on the federal declared holiday of Voting Day now!
No, I prefer my mail in ballots. Not enough voting locations to handle everyone on the same day.
Make voting easier, not more difficult.
@@billyyank5807 it makes more sense to you to make voting easier rather than more secure? The demoncrates want voting so easy a dead person could vote!
@billyyank5807 then talk to your county and city about setting up more voting stations. I wish I could go to the polls.