Maine voters bought into RCV last year. That in itself was a fustercluck because it was shot down first time around, but reincarnated the next election cycle and squeaked by.

Now the race for 2nd District US Rep (my district) is going to be the test case. The Republican incumbent had 46.2% of the vote, the Democratic challenger 45.7%. Seeing as neither got a simple majority, it now goes to RCV and the 8% of voters that ranked a non-partisan candidate for first will be recounted using their second choice which will have been a D or an R.

The pundits are saying the D has a "clear edge".

Big surprise there. Just another way for whiney-assed Dems to get their way. Exactly as I predicted to Mrs. PHPaul when this stupid fucking process was conceived.

What the hell? That's simply retarded.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
What the hell? That's simply retarded.

Tell me about it.

Whatever happened to "I lost. Congrats to the winner." and just shut the fuck up and try harder next time?

If people don't want the 'hassle' of a runoff election, the person who WON the election in the first place should win.

I've always said, if Democrats don't like the rules, they find a way to change the rules to their advantage.

And you guys laugh about the leftist snowflakes

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
The pundits are saying the D has a "clear edge".

Big surprise there. Just another way for whiney-assed Dems to get their way.

No, it's not. The Democratic Party is as opposed to RCV as is the GOP, because it gives parties other than theirs a fighting chance.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
What the hell? That's simply retarded.

Do you understand what RCV is and how it works?

quote:

Originally posted by PHPaul:
Whatever happened to "I lost. Congrats to the winner." and just shut the fuck up and try harder next time?

Somebody who got less than half the total number of votes cast is merely has a plurality of the votes. That does not reflect the will of the voters as closely as RCV does.

What you're bitching about is the possibility that the majority of 8% of the voters that voted for neither the Repub nor the Dem favoured the Dem as their second choice. Maybe next time the Repub should do a better job of being more appealing to the non-Repubs/-Dems?

Btw: "Partisan" doesn't mean what you think it means. Voting for a candidate in any party is "partisan."

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:
If people don't want the 'hassle' of a runoff election, the person who WON the election in the first place should win.

Or institute IRV. Then there's no "hassle."

quote:

Originally posted by GWbiker:
I've always said, if Democrats don't like the rules, they find a way to change the rules to their advantage.

This has nothing to do with "Democrats" at all. (See above.)

I'd vote for RCV in my state in a NYHB. Hell, I'd fracking campaign for it if somebody got a proposition rolling. I'm tired of the Democrats and Republicans (who are often no more than Democrat Lites) running, and ruining, things.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
What the hell? That's simply retarded.

Do you understand what RCV is and how it works?

Perfectly well, thank you. And it's a retarded concept.

This is how children think, this idea that you get a backup vote. Ridiculous. Make your choice and live with it.

Would RCV have given the '92 election to George H.W.?

Just as concerning is metro Portlands power with referendums or ballots.

"The Maine Signature Distribution Requirement for Initiatives and Referendums Amendment did not qualify for the ballot in Maine as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.
The measure would have created a distribution requirement for signatures for initiatives and veto referendums. The measure would have required that petitioners collect signatures equal to 10 percent of the total votes last cast for governor in each of the state's two congressional districts.
As of 2018, petitioners were required to collect signatures equal to 10 percent of the prior gubernatorial statewide vote from across Maine, without regard to congressional districts. For 2018 initiatives, this signature requirement amounted to 61,123 valid signatures."

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
What the hell? That's simply retarded.

Do you understand what RCV is and how it works?

Perfectly well, thank you. And it's a retarded concept.

Well-argued, sir!

quote:

Originally posted by DC3S:
Would RCV have given the '92 election to George H.W.?

That is literally impossible to say with any certainty.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

Well-argued, sir!

Horrible law.

Ranked Choice Voting is probably our ONLY chance of breaking the strangehold the Reps/Dems have on our country.

Without it, there is almost zero chance of a real third party gaining traction with how they gamed the system.

There's a reason why BOTH parties fought to prevent it from going through. They protect themselves long before they protect their constituents.

Chances are (and I'm guessing you can go back through the election history of the district to prove this) that the third party has never gotten close to 8% before. The only reason most people voted for them is because they knew their second choice was most likely to go through.

When Susan Collins comes up for reelection in 2020, wouldn't you like to have a strong conservative third party person you can make your first choice and still have Collins as the backup because she's marginally better than whomever the Dems nominate.

Ranked Choice Voting should be nationwide. While you might not agree, most Americans are tired of having to hold their nose and vote for the lesser of two evils.

It's not unrealistic to think that RCV could have greatly benefited the Republicans in almost every race involving a large Libertarian turnout.

It's common opinion here in Va that Mark Warner would have lost to Ed Gillespie in 2014 had it not been for the libertarian. RCV could have made that a reality.

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
Ranked Choice Voting is probably our ONLY chance of breaking the strangehold the Reps/Dems have on our country.

This ^^^^^

quote:

Originally posted by Scurvy:
It's not unrealistic to think that RCV could have greatly benefited the Republicans in almost every race involving a large Libertarian turnout.

It's not unrealistic, but it's not a certainty, either. Plus the same could be said of, say, the Democratic Party and Greens.

Here's where PHPaul's and the others' thinking regarding RCV is in error: Odds are many of those who might have voted otherwise, if RCV was employed, would instead vote for an R or D. Thus, in the case about which PHPaul's complaining: If the D stands to benefit most in the automatic runoff, odds are the D would've won straight up, anyway.

Or consider one of the recent races where it was found the D's were throwing funds at the Libertarian candidate in hopes of drawing votes away from the R. If RCV was employed such behaviour would be fruitless, because anybody they swung from the R's would probably list the R as selection #2. Thus the R would end up with those votes in any runoff, anyway.

Well, much as it pains me to admit it, you've given me plenty to think about.

I'll still be pissed if the Dem gets in but this is a Blue state and I shouldn't be surprised.

Realistically I don't see this country getting away from the 2 party system in my lifetime.

I knew my political science degree would come in handy eventually!...

And then ensigmatic stole my thunder.

He is absolutely correct, so +1 to everything he said.

RCV is just one of the voting models that make third party candidates relevant. It’s not a bad thing, just a little different than what you’re used to. There are also different ways to determine the winner under a RCV system.

-Rob

I am sorry it is crap.

Any method that introduces more layers of complexity to the vote vounting process favors the populous mass and lowest common denomenator.


How this will work. Dems will edit the results like they are doing in az and fl. They may not take the seat for their party, but denying the republicans a seat is just as benificial. Specifically in the senate.


As for 3rd party candidates. Name me one national 3rd party candidate that is not off his/her rocker.

Even ron paul has a variety of views that are very detrimental to americas world presence.

Third party candidates are not the answer, grooming constructive and consientious republicans is.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

Well-argued, sir!

https://66.media.tumblr.com/3f...Tfi1wzypxlo1_400.gif

I'm fairly certain his compliment was meant as sarcasm, as you have not really explained your position.

quote:

Originally posted by DSgrouse:
I am sorry it is crap.

Any method that introduces more layers of complexity to the vote vounting process favors the populous mass and lowest common denomenator.


How this will work. Dems will edit the results like they are doing in az and fl. They may not take the seat for their party, but denying the republicans a seat is just as benificial. Specifically in the senate.


As for 3rd party candidates. Name me one national 3rd party candidate that is not off his/her rocker.

Even ron paul has a variety of views that are very detrimental to americas world presence.

Third party candidates are not the answer, grooming constructive and consientious republicans is.

How does added complexity favor the lowest common denominator. Those don't jibe. People who vote 3rd party are typically better informed than your average democrat voters...

And if you are a hardcore Republican who aligns 100% with the party platform, then yeah, RCV isn't the greatest.

But the vast majority of people are unhappy with what the two parties usually give us.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

Well-argued, sir!

https://66.media.tumblr.com/3f...Tfi1wzypxlo1_400.gif

I'm fairly certain his compliment was meant as sarcasm, as you have not really explained your position.

Do you honestly think I didn't know that?