Ranked Choice Voting

**bandc** · 07-18-2020, 09:57 AM

I've always thought ranked choice voting should be a bi partisan effort. Does anyone know what would be the conservative argument for being against it? Or is this story just a one off?

https://www.newscentermaine.com/arti...6-3a40ee37ac50

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

**owknows** · 07-18-2020, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by bandc

I've always thought ranked choice voting should be a bi partisan effort. Does anyone know what would be the conservative argument for being against it? Or is this story just a one off?

https://www.newscentermaine.com/arti...6-3a40ee37ac50

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Just another subversion of established process in an attempt to steal elections.

**Ortizer** · 07-18-2020, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by bandc

I've always thought ranked choice voting should be a bi partisan effort. Does anyone know what would be the conservative argument for being against it? Or is this story just a one off?

https://www.newscentermaine.com/arti...6-3a40ee37ac50

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Neither major party is going to want ranked choice voting because it reduces the disincentive to vote the lesser of two evils. The ones who works benefit from it are third party candidates because now you're not "wasting your vote" as you can still put the less crappy major party candidate second.

That said, as someone who would love to see the libertarian candidates qualify for public funding, I would be alright with this.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**Greg** · 07-18-2020, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by owknows

Just another subversion of established process in an attempt to steal elections.

Disagree.

I just saw you are a libertarian. As one you should be for this. A large number of people vote for one of the two parties because they don't want to throw their vote away.

Ranked choice voting eliminates that.

I assume you understand the process. I think it is an outstanding way to encourage third party voting.

**owknows** · 07-18-2020, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

Disagree.

I just saw you are a libertarian. As one you should be for this. A large number of people vote for one of the two parties because they don't want to throw their vote away.

Ranked choice voting eliminates that.

I assume you understand the process. I think it is an outstanding way to encourage third party voting.

I understand the process.

I think removing the two-party barriers to ballot appearance would be something I'd have greater support for.

This just seems like an embrace of lesser of evils to me.

**Ortizer** · 07-18-2020, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by owknows

I understand the process.

I think removing the two-party barriers to ballot appearance would be something I'd have greater support for.

This just seems like an embrace of lesser of evils to me.

I think debate access is a bigger barrier honestly. It would make more sense to tie entry to ballot access than polling numbers, since the point of the debates is for people to get to know the candidates and their positions.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**owknows** · 07-18-2020, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

I think debate access is a bigger barrier honestly. It would make more sense to tie entry to ballot access than polling numbers, since the point of the debates is for people to get to know the candidates and their positions.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

I would agree with the sentiment, but ask the more fundamental question... why is it considered reasonable for any group to decide who is or is not a viable candidate for president.

I think the internet still holds great promise at breaking that stranglehold, if candidates could be imaginative enough to exploit it.

**bandc** · 07-18-2020, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Greg

Disagree.

I just saw you are a libertarian. As one you should be for this. A large number of people vote for one of the two parties because they don't want to throw their vote away.

Ranked choice voting eliminates that.

I assume you understand the process. I think it is an outstanding way to encourage third party voting.

I absolutely agree with this. I think a huge step towards actually draining the swamp would be ranked choice voting.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

**bandc** · 07-18-2020, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by Ortizer

I think debate access is a bigger barrier honestly. It would make more sense to tie entry to ballot access than polling numbers, since the point of the debates is for people to get to know the candidates and their positions.

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

Another thing is that there HAS to be a better way to do these debates. What we have right now is just so horrible.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

**Ortizer** · 07-18-2020, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by bandc

Another thing is that there HAS to be a better way to do these debates. What we have right now is just so horrible.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

What we have right now is run by an organization with the stated purpose of supporting the two major parties, so are you surprised?

Sent from my LM-G820 using Tapatalk

**LittleG** · 07-18-2020, 08:15 PM

Australia uses RCV. They also pay money per vote to the party that gets the first preference.
There are 6 parties that contest the election. 3 on each side (although in reality it’s a choice between only the two majors).
This system also has a senate that is a proportion of each state’s voting. This means that smaller parties are represented in their senate.
The system has assisted Conservative parties more than Socialists. BUT the government generally has to negotiate with a smaller party to pass any legislation through the senate. Sometimes even the smaller conservative parties stop the conservative government passing legislation.

The system actual promotes voting against the party you hate.

Interestingly, both major parties support universal healthcare.

They also have an independent Electoral Commission that moves electorate boundaries based on population growth.

**Blovius_Maximus** · 07-20-2020, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by bandc

I've always thought ranked choice voting should be a bi partisan effort. Does anyone know what would be the conservative argument for being against it? Or is this story just a one off?

https://www.newscentermaine.com/arti...6-3a40ee37ac50

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

I don't know if it qualifies as a conservative argument but in the 1950s an economist named Kenneth Arrow had something notable to say about the matter. “Arrow's Impossibility Theorem” offers a clue as to his conclusion.

If you like math and game theory than you might like this wiki
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arro...bility_theorem