Ranked Choice Voting

it really confuses americans and brits

What about ranked choice worries you?
dumb take

Say one candidate is Republican and three are Democrat, Green, Far-Left: How would that work out? Wouldn't that just completely nuke the right-wing candidate? I suppose my concern is that it could be used to benefit one party over the other in our two party system and not truly benefit giving more of a chance to those working outside of the two party structure.

Not sure, but I'm positive the Democrats are pushing it because it's easier for them to cheat

Attached: mfw I think about the world for even a second.jpg (1080x1707, 319.04K)

This has been my concern.

The problem, assuming that we're talking about the same rules, is that you still end up in this situation:
>49% vote Trump, 48% vote Biden, 3% vote Kanye
>The 3% picked Biden second
>now it's 52% Biden, 49% Trump
But what if the Trump voters picked Kanye second? That means that really, 52% of people preferred Kanye over Biden. You only count the second choice of the people who picked "wrong" the first time. I guarantee you if the Trump voters in this case knew that they'd lose to Biden this way, they would have voted Kanye. Basically, some people get two votes, and it's not fair.

Attached: 1602772963047.jpg (750x367, 121.58K)

This ones actually on the Massachusetts ballot.

Anyone can get on the ballot retard. That's why Kanye will be on 3 state's ballots after putting in less than 2 weeks of "campaign" effort. Ranked choice voting is not irrelevant and is what this country fucking needed 40 years ago. The party of Trump and Mitt Romney is not the same. The party of Pelosi and AOC is not the same. Ranked choice voting would absolutely fracture the Democrats especially into pieces.

There it is
/Thread

They want to be able to vote for a communist, then have a safe dem no2 to fuck over the other guy when their fringe belief is rightly derided by the entire population. It only benefits those trying to undermine elections and (((progressives)))

If the threat was a legitimate far right would get a majority of the vote the left would screech this the end of democracy. If it ever ended up on a national or even state level it'd definitely empower fringe candidates. It'd be your civic duty to vote for literal mecha Hitler with no2 being the fallback concervstive every time.

First time an unironic fascist gets 30+% of the vote under ranked choice voting the left will melt down and never allow it again. The irony would be this could be the flip from rhino to real far right and 3rd position centrist candidates; they'd get what they deserve by fucking with the stability of the system, which is why the leftists who thought about for more than a second never want this to come to pass.

Attached: 09CF223657984FF393353446E62AB912.jpg (250x250, 9.42K)

Because you cannot get a deterministic result: see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

Basically because introducing multiple candidates and then distributing votes after ranking would can change people's preferences. For example, "I would have never put candidate A at number Y if I knew candidate B would be at number Z and get eliminated from contention" The system generates mass uncertainty and erodes confidence which is why nowhere has implemented it.

it's not equal representation when situations arise where second and third picks are being tallied against a first.

It wouldn't fracture it though. It'd allow people to vote for commies while being safe with the fallback neolib.

As it sits they get crushed in the primary every time and the sportsball vote neolib keeps on monopartying.

That is preferable to the radicalism they support by trying to crack the vote
26% commie + 25% dem > 49% republican = communist government.

We do it here, done right it allows smaller party representation done wrong it creates back room preference deals. So if you vote below the line here you rank all the running candidates in order of your preference; this is the good way to do it. On the other hand if you vote above the line it becomes party preference and this is where the party you voted for controls your preference. So if party X doesn't get enough votes to be elected that party will pass their votes to their preference; this is where you get back room deals.
Done right it dilutes power, done wrong it concentrates it. Australia has both options available to the voter, most people do it wrong because they aren't politically engaged enough to know who the candidates are and what their positions are so power gets concentrated into our current two party system.

Attached: koala.jpg (416x288, 55.2K)

I suppose it depends on the specific ranked choice model. In instant runoff or condorcet it wouldn't nuke the right-wing guy's chances, in positional/borda it would.

This has already been debunked by snopes!

Also i'll note preference voting would break US presidential elections due to the low number of presidential candidates. If GOP receives 48% first preference, Dems receive 47% and 5% independent, the independent vote if passed on to the Dems would win them the election despite not representing popular opinion.

>Pros
You can vote your conscience without fear of "wasting" your vote on someone with no realistic chance of winning
>Cons
Your vote will ALWAYS count. This is a way to force centrists and moderates to eventually end up voting for one of the two major candidates, even if they hate both of them.

It's basically a system that funnels 3rd party votes upward to the two major parties so that they dont "fuck up" the system already in place (the Uniparty system).

All of those green party, libertarian party, independent votes? They all end up as Rep or Dem votes.

Commies THINK they want this because they think most of the 3rd parties lean left, but as soon as they see Kanye voters put Trump as their second choice, they're gonna freak the fuck out and want to get rid of it.

Once again, leftists dont understand reality and dont spend an appropriate amount of time thinking through the logical outcome of their decisions.

I've been on the fence about this vote, but I think I'm leaning towards no, for now. Thanks for the feedback.

As much as I would like to break up the two party paradigm I'm not sure this would be the best way to go about it. Perhaps it would be better for a third party candidate to just get majority share of the vote.

And as an above poster pointed out, it isnt really "fair," despite appearing so at first glance: the independent or radical parties STILL get no representation in the government, and if you voted for a Commie like Sanders 1st choice, you wont get a commie in office, you'll get the mainstream Dem, so you may as well have voted for the Dem anyway.

Ranked choice would work fine in a proper parliamentary system where independent parties had representation proportional to their votes, but in the US system, it doesnt increase proportional representation, it DECREASES it. There's only one slot for president; ranking your choices isnt going to make the president lean toward your preferred ideology.

A workaround could be to allow ranked choice but ALSO allow a voter to NOT rank every candidate, such as, say, putting the same Libertarian candidate for all 5 rank slot choices, or filling in two or three slots but not all of them, but we know they wont allow that, they'll just consider your vote as invalid.

They just want to force 3rd parties to lean one way or the other, since they control both ends of the spectrum.

>All of those green party, libertarian party, independent votes? They all end up as Rep or Dem votes.
Right now the outcome of elections are the same as if every third-party vote got divided in two and half given to both Duopoly candidates. With ranked choice you can at least say which mainstream candidate should get your backup. I don't see how that's worse.

I like it a lot because in most democratic countries there are a lot of choices. You like 1 party the most but still quite like another and it's a shame they get as much of a vote as the party you dislike the most.

I thought about a plus minus vote. So you vote your preference but if the preference ends up below the halfway mark on the ballot it deducts votes instead of adding them. This way you'd end up with the least objectionable candidate. It's never been done so feel free to tear the idea a new arse hole.

Attached: aboriginal congress.jpg (1500x1000, 842.12K)

The most immediate thing would happen is the viability of fringe candidates at the local level. And this could cause some wild shit

>Hitler2 on the ballot
>Choice 2 for most of the center right and centrists
>Gets plurality within camp via ranked voting
>Wouldn't have gotten even 1% otherwise
>Was able to get 26% under ranked voting to get 51% by running on his opponents being literal communists
Left would be literally screeching about how it wasn't supposed to work like this, despite working exactly as intended.

It'd lead to instability/balkanization which is pretty contrary to the scope and goal of the representative government as outlayed by the founding documents and federalist papers. The people who want it think it will benefit them, not realizing it similarly empowers their idealogic enemies and could disenfranchise them of their own vote to the majority.

Realistically a Berniebro gibs candidate would never get the plurality necessary to flip the center party, but all the vote for the le radical would still go towards the "lesser of two evils" party regardless. It'd mean an AOC would never happen again for one. You won't be able to just slide into the ballot under (D) instead of communist and get centerleft votes backing you.

The fringe would always vote for the centrists by default while the center left would support the center right over the far left.

>I'm not sure this would be the best way to go about it.

It is not, and you are wise to see that. The US system doesnt properly allow proportional representation, so ranked choice does nothing here but funnel 3rd party votes to either (controlled) side.

If you hate both Dems and Reps, you're still better off just not voting at all.

It's better than FPTP imo, but it wont fix the two party system, it will at best accelerate the evolution of what the two dominant parties represent. The two party system isn't a consequence of voting system, it's just the game theory optimal way of handling multi-faction disputes. The same "two party" system emerged in WW1 and WW2 as well, and this wasn't decided by votes. Politics is downstream from culture, and culture also has a "two party" dynamic, hence why the:
>Nationalists
>Fascists
>Libertarians
>Ancaps
>Georgists
>Geolibertarians
>Etc
on the internet all have a common "internet right" culture, and generally occupy shared communities. Despite the fact that there is no equivalent to "strategic voting" with regards to online community formation, there is still largely two cultures - the "internet left" and the "internet right", and online disputes tend to be between these two cultural factions, rather than between specific ideologies.

>I don't see how that's worse.
Because both mainstream parties are controlled. Also, because the current situation (as you correctly describe it: essentially each candidate gets half of those 3rd party votes) works as a moderating force: neither side gets an advantage, so it prevents big swings.

With a ranked choice, you get the illusion that the main parties are more popular than they are, but it's just that: an illusion. The moderating effect of centrist or 3rd party votes is gone, and the main parties take it as a mandate from the people that they are permitted to go to whatever extremes they like, despite the fact that there are literally millions of people that DONT want them to do that: "Oh, Dems got 65% popular vote, better force people to bake the gay cake!" but they DIDNT get 65% popular votes, they got 45%, and the other 20% wanted a completely different direction for the country, but their votes got funneled to the extremes.

In the current situation you also have the illusion that the main parties are more popular than they are, people think the US is 50/50 dem/republican when it's really 20/20/don't care. Otherwise I do see your point, but I think the benefits of allowing people to vote non-mainstream without feeling the lesser-of-two-evils pressure outweighs the drawbacks of parties with overinflated egos.