This was very helpful. I clearly didn't understand how ranked choice voting worked and until I read this post, I was inclined to think it probably was a good idea. I live in NYC and understand it's only used for primaries. Is that right?
Rank Choice Voting threatens election integrity and it's unconstitutional. We vote for representatives, we do not rank US Institutions for public office. This is not the "Best of Show", that Madison Square Garden schedules for events. I oppose RCV and I am very surprised that so many Governors vetoed RSV in the past. However, Cartel Katie Hobbs would probably veto Arizona's Bill because she is corrupt. It's bad enough that voting by mail, which is lazy, but RCV does exhaust, confuses and disfranchises voters. I am tired of these attacks on the process of voting. For example, State Arkansas Senator, Kim Hammer, is pushing a Bill 250 to defund paper, in any county in Arkansas that uses paper ballots and decides to hand count them in their elections. That stinks! There is a petition called "Petition Arkansas" Bill 250 on the Election Crime Bureau https://frankspeech.com. I am glad that you, Bobbie, brought this issue on RCV as a threat to election integrity. Stop this corruption.
.....am AWARE of how it CAN be used as a WEDGE, Bobbie; if you could come up with an ALTERNATIVE method of OPENING up the electoral fields to OTHER, different voices and choices though, that'd be HIGHLY desirable.....
People, for a remarkable glimpse into how our (your) elections are rigged and stolen, check out this interview of Dr. Andy Paquette on the "Skeptico" podcast recently. Paquette investigated the New York State voter registration rolls full time (county by county aggregated into a state-wide official data base) using his very unusual talents and an apparently obsessive focus/work ethic to uncover an extremely well hidden systematic alteration of the data (only possible at a very high/deep level) that easily renders complete, hidden control over election outcomes. His research also included the NJ data, I believe. The system is likely deployed to all states as it appears to be the "property" of the intelligence community. What you will get a glimpse of from the interview will blow your mind, guaranteed. At the website you can choose a video, an audio-only file, as well as read a machine transcribed text. Don't get put off when Paquette delves into the intricate technical details for several minutes --just listen for the big picture. https://skeptiko.com/andy-paquette-total-election-control-582/
Here in Eugene, Oregon, there is an effort to use the STAR voting method. My understanding is that it is better than the Ranked Choice, not throwing out the "exhausted voter ballot", and according to the description keeping the one voter one vote of out constitution. I would love your analysis on this. I do think the current system is very problematic.
I could not disagree more. If the voter is allowed to rank all the candidates, no ballot will ever be exhausted. I defy the author to explain how cumbersome runoff races offer any advantage to ranked choice voting.
A big advantage of ranked choice is that one's first choice can be a third-party candidate, and second choice one of the major parties. That way one can vote one's conscience but not risk having the vote rendered worthless.
There is a bigger problem with our present voting system.
The vast majority of people don't vote for whom they want to win, they vote for the lesser of two evils. With PAC and Super PAC advertising, all 3rd party candidates - and the millions who want to vote for them - are virtually disenfranchised. Candidates who don't win the Primary election don't stand a chance in hell of being elected (or a chance in heaven, more aptly 🙂) - for the Mainstream News promoted Primary candidates are bought, paid for, and advertised by PAC moneys .
I want a Libertarian candidate to win, but I don't vote for one. There are 10's of 100's of 1,000's (or more) people like me. On both sides of the aisle.
Sure it will be more complicated, people will actually have to think about someone other than what their favorite TV News channel screams at them to vote for. Screams at them using fear tactics if the other singular candidate wins. Like the fear the TV screamed resulting in Covid lock-downs and $100,000,000,000 worth of taxpayer purchased "vaccines" that are harming more people than saving.
So, in the present system, who is actually deciding the winner? ANSWER: Whoever owns the TV News and/or has enough money to buy TV Ad time.
That, my friend, is the true reality. And Ranked-choice voting is the best solution.
We have ranked choice voting (RCV), or preferential voting as we call it here in Australia, and we have had it since 1918 federally.
RCV allows for voting in minor parties instead of forcing everyone to vote only for majors. If you have only one vote to count, most people won’t ‘waste’ it on a minor candidate/ independent/ party, they will simply vote for a major instead. It whittles down the field to become a two party system which is not good in my view, as there isn’t enough accountability.
In regards to your vote being tossed through RCV, I disagree. If you have a single vote that went to a losing candidate you would have to call that a lost or tossed vote too. It’s no different, it’s just that you had a chance to vote for multiple candidates before being considered the lost vote.
Another scenario to consider.
If you have two candidates it’s pretty easy, vote for one and not the other. Single vote works fine.
Let’s say candidate one got 60% of the vote and candidate two got 40%.
If you have a third candidate however, similar to candidate one, with a single vote, then the vote will get split between candidates one and three.
Now you could have 35% for candidate one, still 40% for candidate two and 25% for candidate three.
Candidate two has won instead.
Anyone voting for candidates one and three would have preferred the other candidate to get voted in over candidate two.
If there was RCV in place however, then those voting for candidates one and three would most likely preference the other. Some voters may of course preference candidate two.
So if we replay that, candidate three had the least votes at 25%. Their second preferences are now redistributed. Even if some of them vote for the second candidate it’s likely most of their second preferences go to candidate one, and they would win.
As you increase the field of candidates, single votes means you have a higher chance of your vote being ‘wasted’ as only one in four (25%) or one in five (20%) or one in eight (12.5%) will win - the rest lose. The primary vote across 8 candidates could potentially be as low as 20% for the winner anyway - so that isn’t any different to preferential voting where primary vote % may be low.
At least with preferential voting you can vote for one or two or even three minor parties or independents before voting for a major.
Even if your first preference minor candidate didn’t win, it sends a HUGE message to major parties that the voters are not happy with what they are doing.
We have recently seen more independents being voted in here in Australia thanks to our RCV process. If we had just a single vote, we would have a very very small field of independents and minor parties and most people would be voting for the majors. We already struggle to get good accountability from them, if we had a single voting option only I would hate to think how much they would blindside us and change laws to essentially stop any other independents or minor parties ever being able to be voted in again - they would have an even bigger monopoly than they already do.
Why on earth would anyone think that everybody's 2nd choice is a better candidate than the most-frequent first choice? Imagine if we used this system anywhere else. Honey, you weren't my first choice as a spouse, but you were my family's 2nd choice out of all my boyfriends - the Hallmark cards write themselves! Or, as I like to note, imagine a race between Jesus, Satan, and Hitler. Who would be your 2nd choice? I'm pretty confident Jesus would win a plurality, but if he needs a majority of 2nd choices, would he get it? Isn't it likely that Hitler/Satan vote would each pick the other as 2nd choice? There's literally NO explanation of how or why this system is good - it's just that it seems to favor Democrats & that's all Ds need to hear. Ironically, it's likely racist as white candidates can unite against Black candidates in the 2nd round. Ugh - it's just so terrible!
I voted in a ranked choice voting race and it is an awful method. Do not let this style become method of choice.
Another great point. Thanks
You nail it Bobbie Ann! Very didactic explain of this new intent to rig elections.
Good to know about it. Thanks again!
Very interesting article, thanks! A new type of voting, I wonder what will happen in the upcoming elections.
This was very helpful. I clearly didn't understand how ranked choice voting worked and until I read this post, I was inclined to think it probably was a good idea. I live in NYC and understand it's only used for primaries. Is that right?
Rank Choice Voting threatens election integrity and it's unconstitutional. We vote for representatives, we do not rank US Institutions for public office. This is not the "Best of Show", that Madison Square Garden schedules for events. I oppose RCV and I am very surprised that so many Governors vetoed RSV in the past. However, Cartel Katie Hobbs would probably veto Arizona's Bill because she is corrupt. It's bad enough that voting by mail, which is lazy, but RCV does exhaust, confuses and disfranchises voters. I am tired of these attacks on the process of voting. For example, State Arkansas Senator, Kim Hammer, is pushing a Bill 250 to defund paper, in any county in Arkansas that uses paper ballots and decides to hand count them in their elections. That stinks! There is a petition called "Petition Arkansas" Bill 250 on the Election Crime Bureau https://frankspeech.com. I am glad that you, Bobbie, brought this issue on RCV as a threat to election integrity. Stop this corruption.
Instead of ranked choice voting which is confusing, there is an alternative that I've seen in Spain.
You have voting like a tourney.
First round let's say 8 candidates each head to head.
Then 4 head to head.
At the end 2 against each other for the position.
But honestly, as long as the voting machines are closed source propietary, it doesn't matter.
What bugs me is that both the right and left ignore this issue and instead focus on relatively miniscule issues.
Hmm, why would they not challenge elections on the privately owned machines?
.....am AWARE of how it CAN be used as a WEDGE, Bobbie; if you could come up with an ALTERNATIVE method of OPENING up the electoral fields to OTHER, different voices and choices though, that'd be HIGHLY desirable.....
People, for a remarkable glimpse into how our (your) elections are rigged and stolen, check out this interview of Dr. Andy Paquette on the "Skeptico" podcast recently. Paquette investigated the New York State voter registration rolls full time (county by county aggregated into a state-wide official data base) using his very unusual talents and an apparently obsessive focus/work ethic to uncover an extremely well hidden systematic alteration of the data (only possible at a very high/deep level) that easily renders complete, hidden control over election outcomes. His research also included the NJ data, I believe. The system is likely deployed to all states as it appears to be the "property" of the intelligence community. What you will get a glimpse of from the interview will blow your mind, guaranteed. At the website you can choose a video, an audio-only file, as well as read a machine transcribed text. Don't get put off when Paquette delves into the intricate technical details for several minutes --just listen for the big picture. https://skeptiko.com/andy-paquette-total-election-control-582/
Here in Eugene, Oregon, there is an effort to use the STAR voting method. My understanding is that it is better than the Ranked Choice, not throwing out the "exhausted voter ballot", and according to the description keeping the one voter one vote of out constitution. I would love your analysis on this. I do think the current system is very problematic.
I could not disagree more. If the voter is allowed to rank all the candidates, no ballot will ever be exhausted. I defy the author to explain how cumbersome runoff races offer any advantage to ranked choice voting.
A big advantage of ranked choice is that one's first choice can be a third-party candidate, and second choice one of the major parties. That way one can vote one's conscience but not risk having the vote rendered worthless.
There is a bigger problem with our present voting system.
The vast majority of people don't vote for whom they want to win, they vote for the lesser of two evils. With PAC and Super PAC advertising, all 3rd party candidates - and the millions who want to vote for them - are virtually disenfranchised. Candidates who don't win the Primary election don't stand a chance in hell of being elected (or a chance in heaven, more aptly 🙂) - for the Mainstream News promoted Primary candidates are bought, paid for, and advertised by PAC moneys .
I want a Libertarian candidate to win, but I don't vote for one. There are 10's of 100's of 1,000's (or more) people like me. On both sides of the aisle.
Sure it will be more complicated, people will actually have to think about someone other than what their favorite TV News channel screams at them to vote for. Screams at them using fear tactics if the other singular candidate wins. Like the fear the TV screamed resulting in Covid lock-downs and $100,000,000,000 worth of taxpayer purchased "vaccines" that are harming more people than saving.
So, in the present system, who is actually deciding the winner? ANSWER: Whoever owns the TV News and/or has enough money to buy TV Ad time.
That, my friend, is the true reality. And Ranked-choice voting is the best solution.
Tony Maresco
I have to respectfully disagree with you.
We have ranked choice voting (RCV), or preferential voting as we call it here in Australia, and we have had it since 1918 federally.
RCV allows for voting in minor parties instead of forcing everyone to vote only for majors. If you have only one vote to count, most people won’t ‘waste’ it on a minor candidate/ independent/ party, they will simply vote for a major instead. It whittles down the field to become a two party system which is not good in my view, as there isn’t enough accountability.
In regards to your vote being tossed through RCV, I disagree. If you have a single vote that went to a losing candidate you would have to call that a lost or tossed vote too. It’s no different, it’s just that you had a chance to vote for multiple candidates before being considered the lost vote.
Another scenario to consider.
If you have two candidates it’s pretty easy, vote for one and not the other. Single vote works fine.
Let’s say candidate one got 60% of the vote and candidate two got 40%.
If you have a third candidate however, similar to candidate one, with a single vote, then the vote will get split between candidates one and three.
Now you could have 35% for candidate one, still 40% for candidate two and 25% for candidate three.
Candidate two has won instead.
Anyone voting for candidates one and three would have preferred the other candidate to get voted in over candidate two.
If there was RCV in place however, then those voting for candidates one and three would most likely preference the other. Some voters may of course preference candidate two.
So if we replay that, candidate three had the least votes at 25%. Their second preferences are now redistributed. Even if some of them vote for the second candidate it’s likely most of their second preferences go to candidate one, and they would win.
As you increase the field of candidates, single votes means you have a higher chance of your vote being ‘wasted’ as only one in four (25%) or one in five (20%) or one in eight (12.5%) will win - the rest lose. The primary vote across 8 candidates could potentially be as low as 20% for the winner anyway - so that isn’t any different to preferential voting where primary vote % may be low.
At least with preferential voting you can vote for one or two or even three minor parties or independents before voting for a major.
Even if your first preference minor candidate didn’t win, it sends a HUGE message to major parties that the voters are not happy with what they are doing.
We have recently seen more independents being voted in here in Australia thanks to our RCV process. If we had just a single vote, we would have a very very small field of independents and minor parties and most people would be voting for the majors. We already struggle to get good accountability from them, if we had a single voting option only I would hate to think how much they would blindside us and change laws to essentially stop any other independents or minor parties ever being able to be voted in again - they would have an even bigger monopoly than they already do.
Why on earth would anyone think that everybody's 2nd choice is a better candidate than the most-frequent first choice? Imagine if we used this system anywhere else. Honey, you weren't my first choice as a spouse, but you were my family's 2nd choice out of all my boyfriends - the Hallmark cards write themselves! Or, as I like to note, imagine a race between Jesus, Satan, and Hitler. Who would be your 2nd choice? I'm pretty confident Jesus would win a plurality, but if he needs a majority of 2nd choices, would he get it? Isn't it likely that Hitler/Satan vote would each pick the other as 2nd choice? There's literally NO explanation of how or why this system is good - it's just that it seems to favor Democrats & that's all Ds need to hear. Ironically, it's likely racist as white candidates can unite against Black candidates in the 2nd round. Ugh - it's just so terrible!