I support it; Wylted does not.
This will be the starting thread for it.
Rank Choice Voting
Posts
Total:
121
@Wylted
See above.
I guess if nobody accepts I can do some initial research and put it here. If they do accept it I will copy and paste round 1
I will make my case for rank choice voting.
I don't like the idea of being pressured to pick between only 2 parties since 3rd party votes are deemed, "wasted votes".
Wow, your argument is that rank choice works better for your feelings. Hopefully whoever accepts my debate does not see this and steal your argument. I am not sure how I can overcome it.
I am just messing with you, but you vote forn1 of 2 parties for strategic reasons as opposed to your favorite 3rd party candidate. People will still vote strategically in RCV
People will still vote strategically in RCV
I don't agree with that. People will still rank their best option as #1, their 2nd best as #2, etc because if their #1 gets eliminated, then they have a 2nd place vote to rely on.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I know you disagree with it, because it is a gut impulse to disagree. However, the danger in doing this is that by voting your favorite choice first knowing they are likely to be eliminated in the first round, it may be best to vote your 3rd favorite choice first.
Also I am not sure why you started this thread yet. I haven't written my argument out yet
-->
@WyIted
People will still vote strategically in RCV
sure, but MORE people will vote honestly
@wylted
However, the danger in doing this is that by voting your favorite choice first knowing they are likely to be eliminated in the first round, it may be best to vote your 3rd favorite choice first.
Why? If your 1st and 2nd choice get eliminated, then your 3rd place vote would be the one that gets counted.
Also I am not sure why you started this thread yet. I haven't written my argument out yet
I thought you wanted me to start this thread.
-->
@TheUnderdog
I thought you wanted me to start this thread.
No, because I wanted to start it but wanted to keep my arguments guarded until the debate starts
@Wylted
Fine.
it aint just a wasted vote on third parties. even if third parties had traction, all it does is the spoiler effect... two candidates who are similar get split in two, even if they're more popular, and the third party gets the nomination. if it's two dems and a republican, and the vote is split into thirds, even tho more voted for the dems, the republican might get the vote if they can edge out.
the current form of voting is called plurality voting, cause you have to get the biggest faction, a plurality.
the current form of voting also encourages people who are unpopular into the mainstream, simply cause they had the biggest plurality in primary. think of hillary and trump, both unpopular but they had the biggest plurality in primary. so that is who the election came down to. or you could say the same about trump and biden.
there's also a form of voting called 'approval method' voting, where only those with the highest approval ranking wins. someone like tom hanks would do great in this scheme, but if he started getting into the devilish details, he might not be as popular. i think rank voting is better but approval is at least better than the current plurality voting.
-->
@n8nrgim
there's also a form of voting called 'approval method' voting, where only those with the highest approval ranking wins.
Let’s say it’s Trump vs DeSantis. If you are on the left, then you would rate both of them at 0. But they would obviously have a preference for who gets in the White House. Rank Choice Voting let’s them pick Trump over DeSantis or vice versa.
Ranked choice voting is clearly better in every way. People can make their voices heard without the threat of their vote being wasted, spoiler candidates would no longer be a thing resulting in the most popular candidate actually winning, and it would reduce extremism since candidates would be greater incentivized to reach everyone.
It won’t happen anytime soon though because the MAGA right wouldn’t be able to handle it. Imagine the stolen election conspiracies that would prop up after that…
-->
@Double_R
It won’t happen anytime soon though because the MAGA right wouldn’t be able to handle it.
Why isn't Rank Choice voting available in most blue states? The democrats don't want it either.
-->
@TheUnderdog
It’s a relatively new thing, so as with anything new it’s show to catch on.
Are you seriously denying that the MAGA right would not play their conspiracy games with this? They can’t even handle mail in voting and that’s been around for decades.
-->
@Double_R
It’s a relatively new thing, so as with anything new it’s show to catch on.
For your normie grandparent that spends her time watching Family Fued, this is a good reason. For politicians, this is not. Every politician should have a public stance on Rank Choice Voting and why they believe what they believe in that issue. Grandparents don’t have to be ideologically up to date, politicians should be.
Are you seriously denying that the MAGA right would not play their conspiracy games with this?
They might play conspiracy games, but unless you act brute force with MAGA world, then you will never get what you want. MAGA is in the minority, but they have a majority of the political energy.
-->
@TheUnderdog
For your normie grandparent that spends her time watching Family Fued, this is a good reason. For politicians, this is not.
Irrelevant. This is basic human nature and has nothing to do with your question.
Are you seriously denying that the MAGA right would not play their conspiracy games with this?They might play conspiracy games
No, they will. No reasonable person would pretend otherwise, and it absolutely matters to the question of whether this will happen anytime soon.
-->
@Double_R
Irrelevant. This is basic human nature and has nothing to do with your question.
Politicians have to know more about current issues than people not trusted to make policy decisions. Just like I would expect a pilot to be more up to date with flying rules than non-pilots.
Are you seriously denying that the MAGA right would not play their conspiracy games with this?They might play conspiracy gamesNo, they will. No reasonable person would pretend otherwise, and it absolutely matters to the question of whether this will happen anytime soon.
If they will play conspiracy games, then they will, but unless you act brute force with MAGA world, then you will never get what you want. MAGA is in the minority, but they have a majority of the political energy.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Politicians have to know more about current issues than people not trusted to make policy decisions. Just like I would expect a pilot to be more up to date with flying rules than non-pilots.
I’m talking about what is, not what it should be. You’re having a different conversation.
If they will play conspiracy games, then they will, but unless you act brute force with MAGA world, then you will never get what you want. MAGA is in the minority, but they have a majority of the political energy.
They are a minority but they have enough representation to ensure RCV never happens.
-->
@Double_R
I’m talking about what is, not what it should be. You’re having a different conversation.
I would assume over 90% of politicians know what rank choice voting is and they don't agree to it (from both parties).
-->
@TheUnderdog
I don’t think it’s that they don’t agree with it, it’s that they don’t benefit from it. RCV would make it more so that candidates have to appeal to moderate voters, which is not how most of them got elected. It’s not realistic to expect that the people who benefit from a system will advocate to change that system.
-->
@Double_R
I don’t think it’s that they don’t agree with it, it’s that they don’t benefit from it. RCV would make it more so that candidates have to appeal to moderate voters, which is not how most of them got elected.
This applies to both parties equally.
11 days later
-->
@TheUnderdog
Finally, I put together a response
https://youtu.be/I6LAQGjZGSg
https://youtu.be/I6LAQGjZGSg
-->
@Double_R
Respond to the arguments I posted in the video above
-->
@Double_R
I don’t think it’s that they don’t agree with it, it’s that they don’t benefit from it. RCV would make it more so that candidates have to appeal to moderate voters, which is not how most of them got elected. It’s not realistic to expect that the people who benefit from a system will advocate to change that system.
I didn't get into it in my video but this is wrong, it would actually reward extremists. We mostly have moderates that win elections now, but this sort of voting is better for extremists.
Right now an outright communist needs to vote for a moderate if he wants a chance to win and for his vote to count. Under a different system we would all vote for those who are ideologically similar first and o ly as a 3rd 4th or 5th choice then elect the compromise candidate. We already have primaries for the 2 major parties which forces voters and the various factions to compromise, which normally results in putting a moderate on the ticket.
@wylted
1: Where you reference 4 games to play.
Games and presidents are not the same. Lets say 3 people want to play tag and 7 people want to play hide and seek. The 3 people that want to play tag can play tag and the 7 people that want to play hide and seek. The political equivalent to this would be if all the Trump supporters selected Trump as their president and Trump was president of the Trump supporters, Biden was president of all the Biden supporters, RFK was POTUS of all the RFK supporters, etc. You need one president to unify the country whether you voted for him or not. The stakes are much lower with what game you play vs the leader of your country. If you really hate tag and most people want to play tag, then you don't have to play tag. If you really hate a POTUS and most people want that POTUS, then too bad; he's your POTUS. It's not a fair comparison.
You didn't provide the 71% citation. But lets say you are correct. So what? That 71% should fall under 50% by persuasion unless there is a good reason to not do that.
2: The claim they look confusing.
Rank choice voting is arguably confusing. So is building a bridge. This is why normies don't have to do the complicated stuff; just bridge makers or election workers. All the normie has to do is list off their favorite to least favorite candidates.
3: The argument that ranking votes is confusing.
This is why you study the candidates beforehand and you need to know in advance who is on the ballot. And it's fine to not rank all of the candidates. If you like Sanders, then Warren, and nobody else, then you rank Sanders, then Warren, and you leave everything else blank. If Sanders and Warren get eliminated, then it would be like you didn't vote, but this can be applied to all 3rd party voters without rank choice voting and it would merely encourage informed voting, where a democrat voter would have to decide who they like more out of Beto O Rouke vs Pete Buttigeig (which is easy to do, if you are bigger on gun control, then you rank O Rouke higher; if you are bigger on LGBT representation, then you go with Pete Buttigeig).
4: Tens of thousands of votes being thrown out
You can request a new ballot if you make a mistake. But ballots should have pencil instead of pen because pencil is easier to erase if you make a mistake.
5: 20-30 candidates competing for a single spot
I would max it out at 5-7 candidates for a single primary spot and the Party national convention approve of the list (kindof like now, but with more options). 30 is too many; but 2 is too few.
6: The Voter turnout Saint Paul vs rest of Minnisota
Source needed. But I would prefer it if the only people willing to vote are those willing to do a good amount of research on politicians before they vote. You wouldn't want someone voting for Obama just because Obama is black if Obama disagrees with that voter 70% of the time. I believe voting should be a choice and the voter turnout rate is irrelevent.
7: Coting the government money
Elections cost a nominal amount of money for the government vs other expenses.
Machienes should be counting the votes, not human beings.
8: RCV helps the left
This is irrelevent; if an election is between Biden, DeSantis, and Trump and Biden gets 40% of the vote (Trump 31% and DeSantis 29%), then he would win that election with our current elections, but RCV would have Trump or DeSantis win if every DeSantis vote was transferred to Trump.