Rank Choice Voting

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 121
#31
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Finally, I put together a response
Two main critiques, first is that the logical concerns are why I believe it will never happen, but is not an argument as to whether it should happen. Is there are difficulties in implementing this then we should work on solutions. If RCV solves many of our issues as a society then it is clearly worth overcoming.

More importantly though is that you seem to be arguing that this is bad because it means the person who gets the most most votes in the first round doesn't always win. Not only is that not an argument against RCV, it's the entire point. If candidate A has the full support of 40% of the population while 60% of the population do not want candidate A and can't decide between candidates B and C, then whoever is more popular between B and C should take power. It's a far more representative result then letting A take power because neither B or C was willing to step aside.

Btw don't expect me to respond to these videos too often, shouldn't take anyone 16 minutes to know what your points are and for me most of my posts are written on the subway where I have little to no service.

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.
I don't know what political system you've been watching but is certainly not the one in the US. You think Hershel Walker was a compromise candidate? Or how about Kerri Lake?

The parties have gone to their extreme corners, so when the general election comes around any moderate option will lose handedly because people don't want to throw away their vote. If the parties knew they would have to compete with a viable 3rd option who was moderate they would be far less inclined to push people like that forward as their nominee.
#32
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
What about the criticism about how the one election where 53% of the votes did not count towards the final ballot.

How run offs are a better solution?

How it lowers voter turn out and confuses people etc.?

Two main critiques, first is that the logical concerns are why I believe it will never happen, but is not an argument as to whether it should happen. Is there are difficulties in implementing this then we should work on solutions. If RCV solves many of our issues as a society then it is clearly worth overcoming.
AS far as the logistical concerns being a problem but working through them. I see this argument a lot and it's honestly one of the biggest weaknesses of liberalism. Let's use an exaggerated example.

Liberal- we should feed every starving child

Me- here is the real world consequences of doing that and how they do more harm than good

Liberal- it's good you pointed that stuff out because that is all stuff we need to address so we can make it happen. 

It's a pain in the ass to get around because ultimately a Liberal and conservative will be against children starving, it's just that in that particular instanceb(not claiming all) than the conservative is making the pragmatic point. 

It's more of a problem in liberalism where policies are enacted on this basis. 

I don't want to hold you to your previous statements because maybe your opinion has changed a bit, especially after thag video but as a thought expirement I want to bring it up. Don't be defensive.

Earlier in the thread I believe you insinuated or Said there were bad motives for being against RCV. Particularly is that it harms both the democratic and republican party. 

If you acknowledge the logistical concerns, could it actually be that a lot of these people who you have assigned bad motives to, are just trying to protect voters and potentially be willing to change their minds if the logistical concerns were dealt with? 


#33
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
What about the criticism about how the one election where 53% of the votes did not count towards the final ballot.
It's not any different than the current system. They didn't count because there were too many candidates and the viable candidates were too far down on their list. It's effectively the same thing as when a would be partisan voter doesn't like their nominee and votes third party. The person they would have otherwise voted for is not recorded and therefore they lost their vote in that sense.

It's a pain in the ass to get around because ultimately a Liberal and conservative will be against children starving, it's just that in that particular instanceb(not claiming all) than the conservative is making the pragmatic point. 
If you're explaining to a liberal why a problem can't be solved and the response is that we "need to address" the explanation, then by the rules of any logical conversation, the burden is on the liberal to address them. And if they can't, they lose.

The only time this becomes a pain in the ass is if you have no interest in continuing the conversation, which would imply that you don't really care about addressing the issue you are purporting to care about.

Earlier in the thread I believe you insinuated or Said there were bad motives for being against RCV. Particularly is that it harms both the democratic and republican party. 

If you acknowledge the logistical concerns, could it actually be that a lot of these people who you have assigned bad motives to, are just trying to protect voters and potentially be willing to change their minds if the logistical concerns were dealt with? 
I don't know which of my comments you are referring to, but I assume it was the part where I said that you're not going to get people who benefit from a system to change that system. That's not impuning people's motives, it's just following a basic fact of human nature; people are going to act towards their own personal benefit. It would be irrational to expect anything else in any situation where we are pointing towards large groups of people.

Moving on... The claim is not so much that it would harm the political parties, but that it will change the political parties because they would be forced to adapt to the new reality that third parties would have a realistic shot of winning seats if RCV were in place. It essentially places more power back in the hands of the people rather than those at the top of their parties.
#34
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
The only time this becomes a pain in the ass is if you have no interest in continuing the conversation, which would imply that you don't really care about addressing the issue you are purporting to care about.
caring about practical ways to solve a problem means you don't care about the issue?


Moving on... The claim is not so much that it would harm the political parties, but that it will change the political parties because they would be forced to adapt to the new reality that third parties would have a realistic shot of winning seats if RCV were in place. It essentially places more power back in the hands of the people rather than those at the top of their parties.
already disproven. If it scares 20% of people away from voting and throws 53% of votes in the trash then no no that is by definition a less democratic way to function.


It's not any different than the current system. They didn't count because there were too many candidates and the viable candidates were too far down on their list. It's effectively the same thing as when a would be partisan voter doesn't like their nominee and votes third party. The person they would have otherwise voted for is not recorded and therefore they lost their vote in that sense.
It takes about 100 hours of research on every candidate to get to know them. It's much easier to choose between which 2 people are better, but the average person doesn't have 1000 hours to vet 10 candidates and place them in order by preference.


#35
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
caring about practical ways to solve a problem means you don't care about the issue?
No, if you cared about finding a practical way to solve the problem then you wouldn't call it a pain in the ass when your assertion that there is no practical solution is challenged, in fact you would welcome that challenge. That's all I said.

Read the full exchange.

If it scares 20% of people away from voting and throws 53% of votes in the trash then no no that is by definition a less democratic way to function.
I see no evidence that this "scares people away" from voting, and if it does then the antidote is to educate them. People are always intimidated by something new, that is not a reason to disregard it.

It doesn't throw 53% of ballots in the trash, that's just nonsense. You're talking about people's fourth, fifth, sixed, etc. choices not being counted, which the current system doesn't even consider in the first place so I don't see what your issue is.

As with any new system, there will be bugs when it is first implemented but if it is a good thing we will learn and improve as we do with anything else. There is nothing inherent to RCV  in this example that couldn't be easily fixed.

It takes about 100 hours of research on every candidate to get to know them. It's much easier to choose between which 2 people are better, but the average person doesn't have 1000 hours to vet 10 candidates and place them in order by preference.
So now your issue is that we would have to many choices?


#36
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
It doesn't throw 53% of ballots in the trash, that's just nonsense. You're talking about people's fourth, fifth, sixed, etc. choices not being counted, which the current system doesn't even consider in the first place so I don't see what your issue is.
No, I am telling you most people just make 2 or 3 selections and their votes being exhausted when there are 6 or 7 candidates.

This is likely due to actually not having the time to thoroughly research a shitload of candidates.

As with any new system, there will be bugs when it is first implemented but if it is a good thing we will learn and improve as we do with anything else. There is nothing inherent to RCV in this example that couldn't be easily fixed.
Most of my citations were from Minneaopolis and St. PAUL Minnesota who have had RCV for over 10 years. 

No, if you cared about finding a practical way to solve the problem then you wouldn't call it a pain in the ass when your assertion that there is no practical solution is challenged, in fact you would welcome that challenge. That's all I said.
It iisn't challenged though. It's just normally a bare assertion that it can have practical solutions without offering them. 


#37
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
So now your issue is that we would have to many choices?
Correct. More choices lead to less informed voters and outside of the political realm has been shown to cause worse decision making and there is no reason to think the political realm is some magical place where things work differently than with everything else
#38
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
No, I am telling you most people just make 2 or 3 selections and their votes being exhausted when there are 6 or 7 candidates.
If you only made 2 or 3 choices and none of them made it past those rounds it's because your preferred candidates were not popular enough to win. That's the exact same thing that happens now, except now you only get one chance to pick a candidate that might win. You have yet to explain what the issue is.

Most of my citations were from Minneaopolis and St. PAUL Minnesota who have had RCV for over 10 years. 
Doesn't appear to be any citations in this thread.

It iisn't challenged though. It's just normally a bare assertion that it can have practical solutions without offering them. 
Read the full exchange. I already addressed that in the paragraph immediately before the one you quoted and responded to.
#39
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
If you only made 2 or 3 choices and none of them made it past those rounds it's because your preferred candidates were not popular enough to win. That's the exact same thing that happens now, except now you only get one chance to pick a candidate that might win. You have yet to explain what the issue is.
Not really because most areas have a run off election between the top 2, if nobody gets a majority. This means that if their candidate isn't chosen they have a chance to reanalyze the top 2 candidates to see who is better. 

Doesn't appear to be any citations in this thread.
I will give then in my next post to you


#40
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
In the comment section of the video it posts to the debate with the citations 

citations from the video

1. https://thefga.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/National-Ranked-Choice-Voting-Message-Test-one-pager-9-22-22.pdf2. https://vote.minne apolismn.gov/ranked-choice-voting/history/3. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2016/12/13/jason-mcdaniel/ranked-choice-voting-likely-means-lower-turnout-more-errors/4. https://sfelections.org/results/20101102/data/d10.html5. https://freedomfoundationofminnesota.com/ranked-choice-voting/6. https://apnews.com/article/eric-adams-wins-nyc-democratic-mayoral-primary-9c564828a29831747f9c2e6f%2052daf55e7. https://www.fairvote.org/where_is_ranked%20_choice_voting_used
Topic's author
#41
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
Wylted is going to be against RCV because it would benefit democrats.  Look at what happened in Alaska with Mary Pelota.  You aren't changing his mind.
#42
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
You can actually just watch the video I provided which already debunked all his points before he even made them
#43
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
I also I could also claim you only support it because it benefits democrats. 

Every single benefit brought up by you in the op has been dismantled and this is why you refuse to debate, because it would harm your ego. 

Most debaters just learn from losing a debate and adjust their arguments and views, but you are seeking to brow beat people into agreeing with you rather than engaging in something that would mutually help you and an opponent to learn and grow as people.
Topic's author
#44
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10

I watched the video and I believe I debunked the points.

I also I could also claim you only support it because it benefits democrats. 
If you actually believed RCV harmed democrats, then you would support RCV as a right winger.  But I don't really care who wins; the generic democrat or generic republican.  If you raise the voting age to 21 and do RCV, then I would be alright with that and I honestly don't know who benefits overall.

Every single benefit brought up by you in the op has been dismantled and this is why you refuse to debate, because it would harm your ego. 
My main reason for refusing to do formal debates is I've learned with debates, both sides try super hard to prove their points and it is less likely people are willing to change their mind.

I believe I addressed all of your points.
#45
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@WyIted
Not really because most areas have a run off election between the top 2, if nobody gets a majority. This means that if their candidate isn't chosen they have a chance to reanalyze the top 2 candidates to see who is better. 
Why would you favor a system that requires the state to organize (and pay for) two separate elections and for voters to have to come out and vote twice to pick one candidate as opposed to one where it can all be settled in one shot?

citations from the video
You provided like 6 of them and none worked. Regardless, your claim is that turnout drops when RCV is implemented, a quick Google search seems to refute that so your claim is probably unresolved at best.


#46
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@TheUnderdog
Wylted is going to be against RCV because it would benefit democrats.  Look at what happened in Alaska with Mary Pelota.  You aren't changing his mind.
Not really about changing anyone's mind. I just like the exercise, it helps me to learn more about the subject and test my own position.
#47
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Ranked choice voting is clearly better in every way.
100% THIS
#48
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
If you only made 2 or 3 choices and none of them made it past those rounds it's because your preferred candidates were not popular enough to win. That's the exact same thing that happens now
bingo
#49
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
So now your issue is that we would have to many choices?
Correct. More choices lead to less informed voters

single choice voting does not make people "more informed"
#50
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
explain how having to research 20 candidates is easier than researching just a few?
#51
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
You didn't watch my video I clearly already proved my case
#52
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
the links work. I will make it easier though



I literally refer to the citation I am using in the video to support the facts.
#53
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
okay a few of the links are broken. Let me swap them out

#54
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
here is a single source that has rounded up a lot of citations and essentially the one I referred to in my initial research.


You guys haven't come up with a single rebuttal than a single biased source that somehow claims ranked choice voting does not reduce voter turn out despite multiple sanfransisco based studies proving it does and despite minneapolis and st. Paul minnesota having lower voter turn out than surrounding areas
#55
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
More importantly though is that you seem to be arguing that this is bad because it means the person who gets the most most votes in the first round doesn't always win. Not only is that not an argument against RCV, it's the entire point. If candidate A has the full support of 40% of the population while 60% of the population do not want candidate A and can't decide between candidates B and C, then whoever is more popular between B and C should take power. It's a far more representative result then letting A take power because neither B or C was willing to step aside.
well stated
#56
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
You didn't watch my video I clearly already proved my case
i watched it twice
#57
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
explain how having to research 20 candidates is easier than researching just a few?
99% of voters do zero research

they just vote for the guy they'd like to have a beer with
#58
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
thank you, like and subscribe for more content.
#59
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@WyIted
riddle me this

#60
WyIted
WyIted's avatar
Debates: 31
Posts: 5,455
3
4
9
WyIted's avatar
WyIted
3
4
9
-->
@3RU7AL
That's interesting but exactly what I expect. I think this means the democrats should swap him for BIden but not that we should replace the current system with RCV.

First there is no evidence that he would win with RCV.

There is no evidence that if he did win that it was the best outcome.

Right now what you guys are doing is spending most of your energy on proving the current system sucks. That's not good enough however. Saying the current system sucks and replacing it with the most intuitive system is not a solution. Especially with changes that big, we often don't know what the impacts will be, so we should always proceed cautiously. However in this case we do know for a fact the results because it has been done for over a decade in Minneapolis and St.Paul with lower voter turnout, less votes counting towards the final vote count and with delayed election results and a significant drop of trust with the system once implemented.