'Ranked Voting'.

Dutch Uncle said:
Ranking would have knocked out Nader and seen Gore as the clear winner just like ranking would have knocked out Perot and seen GHW Bush as the clear winner in 1992.

Disagreed that a popular vote loss by the Republicans will see a huge swing in Red States ratifying eliminating the EC. Most know the population increases are mainly in the cities.

Hillary's infamous "3 million votes" were on the West Coast, one or two states. Eliminating the EC means the most populous states dictate the leadership of the USA to all smaller states.
Click to expand...

All you know about the EC is what rightwing media personalities have ordered you to believe.
 
Hello Jack,

Jack said:
"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?
Click to expand...

Y
 
Jack said:
"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?
Click to expand...

No. Ranked voting assumes that you would make the same choices as the number of names on the ballot dwindle.

That is, let's say there are 6 names on the ballot. You have to pick choices from first to sixth.

The first problem comes when people only pick say a first and second choice leaving the rest blank. This weights the resulting ranking in favor of those that rank all six. That skews the results.
Then comes the problem of how someone might rank the ballot if one or more of the choices were removed. That is, we don't know how someone might rank the choices if these were more limited.
Since reallocation of votes is done on a proportionate scale, as the ranking continues it is possible for a second or third place contender to end up being the winner over the original leader in votes.
Because you have to rank each candidate, many voters will worry about how their rankings will alter the outcome when the rounds of re-ranking occur and not vote for their best choice but to either help a particular outcome occur, or to avoid the worst outcomes.

It's all very much like a Vegas crap table. You roll the dice and get your point. The next roll is either craps or not. What's the odds you get the outcome you are looking for?
 
Nordberg said:
Of course, but we do not go by popular vote, They are not stripping people of their rights. What is un-American is gerrymandering giving the reds seats that they do not deserve. The Dems are almost 55 percent in Mich and they never get the house majority due to gerrymandering. That Is not Democracy in action.
Click to expand...

Not true. As with most states, the distribution of voters by party isn't even within districts even if there is zero gerrymandering going on. Democrats tend toward urban and Black population districts. Republicans towards more affluent, suburban, and rural districts.

Thus, you might have in Michigan districts that are overwhelmingly Democrat or Republican. If you have some that are dense urban Democrat districts, while the majority of the state is rural / suburban Republican dominated, you end up with a legislature that is Republican dominated on the number of districts were they have a majority while the Democrats only have a solid lock on a smaller number of very high percentage Democrat voter urban districts.

Your statement assumes even distribution of voters by district, and that isn't going to happen without massive amounts of gerrymandering to distribute voters evenly throughout them.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Yes. I fully support it.

Had ranked voting existed in 1993, GW Bush would have won reelection. If it existed in 2000, Al Gore would have been elected. In 2016, I suspect Hillary would have won but that one turned more on the states versus total votes.
Click to expand...

I totally oppose ranked voting.
If a candidate doesn't reach majority, he has no mandate.
I don't like sending the election to the House, either.
Have a runoff of the top two, just as if you were electing a president of your chess or garden club.

How Papa Bush is any better than Bubba, Oom, I'll never know.

I supported Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown in '92. He was the most progressive candidate in the Primaries.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Ranking would have knocked out Nader and seen Gore as the clear winner just like ranking would have knocked out Perot and seen GHW Bush as the clear winner in 1992.

Disagreed that a popular vote loss by the Republicans will see a huge swing in Red States ratifying eliminating the EC. Most know the population increases are mainly in the cities.

Hillary's infamous "3 million votes" were on the West Coast, one or two states. Eliminating the EC means the most populous states dictate the leadership of the USA to all smaller states.
Click to expand...
So, instead the minority rules, I don’t understand how that is better?
 
Jack said:
"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?
Click to expand...

Originally we did that; the President was the one with the most votes and the Vice-President was the one that got the second most votes.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
I totally oppose ranked voting.
If a candidate doesn't reach majority, he has no mandate.
I don't like sending the election to the House, either.
Have a runoff of the top two, just as if you were electing a president of your chess or garden club.

How Papa Bush is any better than Bubba, Oom, I'll never know.

I supported Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown in '92. He was the most progressive candidate in the Primaries.
Click to expand...

A runoff if a person doesn't reach over 50% of the vote, as Hillary did not in 2016, is fine with me.

Personally, I'd like to see a study of which is most fair and least costly to We, the People: Ranked or Runoff.
 
Phantasmal said:
So, instead the minority rules, I don’t understand how that is better?
Click to expand...

The point is the current system is flawed but works. The Republicans have bitched about Obamacare for over 10 years, but as Trump proved, they have nothing bette as an alternative.

The question shouldn't be why Hillary, where more Americans voted against her than for her, lost to Trump. The question should be "Why is the vote so close it matters?"
 
Dutch Uncle said:
The point is the current system is flawed but works. The Republicans have bitched about Obamacare for over 10 years, but as Trump proved, they have nothing bette as an alternative.

The question shouldn't be why Hillary, where more Americans voted against her than for her, lost to Trump. The question should be "Why is the vote so close it matters?"
Click to expand...
You’re wrong, Hillary won the popular vote. More people voted for her than Trump.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Yes. I fully support it.

Had ranked voting existed in 1993, GW Bush would have won reelection. If it existed in 2000, Al Gore would have been elected. In 2016, I suspect Hillary would have won but that one turned more on the states versus total votes.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be used in presidential elections since there are only two major candidates.

How do you know GW Bush would have been re-elected or Gore?
 
Bill said:
Why is it bad??

Mitt was everyone in the gop 4th choice..

There have been many times when a compromise candidate was put to the top of the tix because the big boys could not agree on their boy/girls not getting it.....

Difference here seems to be on who is making the call, the voters or the power brokers in the "smoke filled back rooms"......................??
Click to expand...

Maybe when all the dust settles we'll get a consensus?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No. Ranked voting assumes that you would make the same choices as the number of names on the ballot dwindle.

That is, let's say there are 6 names on the ballot. You have to pick choices from first to sixth.

The first problem comes when people only pick say a first and second choice leaving the rest blank. This weights the resulting ranking in favor of those that rank all six. That skews the results.
Then comes the problem of how someone might rank the ballot if one or more of the choices were removed. That is, we don't know how someone might rank the choices if these were more limited.
Since reallocation of votes is done on a proportionate scale, as the ranking continues it is possible for a second or third place contender to end up being the winner over the original leader in votes.
Because you have to rank each candidate, many voters will worry about how their rankings will alter the outcome when the rounds of re-ranking occur and not vote for their best choice but to either help a particular outcome occur, or to avoid the worst outcomes.

It's all very much like a Vegas crap table. You roll the dice and get your point. The next roll is either craps or not. What's the odds you get the outcome you are looking for?
Click to expand...


Thanks for the counter-view. Last I heard, there were 4 Contenders, and then the rest were 'Long Shots'. I'll wait to hear what the 4 Contenders have to say about it before making a decision.
 
Certified results in all 50 states and the District of Columbia show Clinton winning nearly 65,844,610 million votes — 48 percent __ to Trump’s 62,979,636 million votes __ 46 percent — according to an analysis by The Associated Press.
 
Jack said:
"Ranked voting
Ranked voting, also known as ranked-choice voting or preferential voting, is any election voting system in which voters use a ranked ballot to select more than one candidate and to rank these choices in a sequence on the ordinal scale of 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.Wikipedia"

Is this a good idea?
Click to expand...

I was hoping it would lead to that retarded Maya Wiley getting elected, just so I could watch NYC go up in flames. Instead, hypocritical Dems appear to have nominated a cop to unfuck their own stupid theories about policing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top