4 ms·

Ranked choice voting is a complete scam, obscured by complexity. I would never live anywhere that has it.

by hunterb123 4y ago

ketzo 4y ago
What about it is a scam?
- hunterb123 4y ago
  It makes voting so complex you can't follow it, allowing manipulation. It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate. You shouldn't have to have a degree in stats (and that doesn't help much) to calculate the winner. Voters should be confident in the system and that means being able to verify it yourself with simple addition. Ranked choice voting is like the current tax code, full of exceptions and rules for the elite to manipulate while the common person gets boned.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    > It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate. If there's only two candidates.
    - hunterb123 4y ago
      No, it's simple addition for all candidates. You either got a vote from a person or not, leave it at that. Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened. But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor. -- edit @mikeyouse -- No I'm not mad, as I said I prefer to live in a place that has a simpler voting system where it's easy for everyone verify the vote and be confident in the system. I'm maybe more disappointed in people allowing it and being that naive. Do you feel the same way about the tax code or should just voting be complicated? How do you feel about the EC system? Were you advocating getting rid of it recently? There's a certain group of people wanting to flip the game table up here recently. -- edit @ceejayoz -- So the flipside of your statement would be you "grumping" about the simpler system. Has RCV solved the split vote issue? Hint: no it hasn't. Nor was that ever really a problem, just an excuse to implement RCV. -- edit @esoterica -- That's an extremely partisan take and not at all what I've heard from Alaskan friends. Pelosi is well respected in the party and in the state, no matter what liberals think, they usually mix her up with Tina Fey anyways.
      - tacomonstrous 4y ago
        Do you have any evidence for the claim that RCV was introduced in Alaska for the purpose of bringing a Democrat to the to power?
        hunterb123 4y ago
        No because the system is overly complicated, thus the lack of trust in the system because it can't be validated by a common person. But if a heavy blue state elected a red governor (especially with a popular blue opponent) out of nowhere immediately after switching to a new voting system people here would be suspicious right? But because it happens that blue candidates are winning in areas they weren't before, everyone here is fine looking the other way and even defending it.
        hatsix 4y ago
        https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ranked-Choice_Voting_and_Campaign_Finance_Laws_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ra... It was a ballot initiative that passed by will of the people. Who are you to argue about their decision?
        hunterb123 4y ago
        Yes as I said I choose not to live there and would never live in a place where the voters choose such a system. It's their choice, but it's a stupid choice. Personally it seems they were naive or even lied to about the outcome. I can argue their decision because of the 1A. Same as you can argue against their previous system...
      - mikeyouse 4y ago
        > Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened. .. > But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor. So you're mad that a candidate that had less popular support won the election in Alaska but the system where there's been one Republican popular vote winner and 3 Republican presidents in the past 30 years is sacrosanct?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - KerrickStaley 4y ago
    First past the post (the default in most US elections) is very problematic because it usually fails to elect the candidate that would make the average voter most happy. We need innovation in how we elect our representatives if we want our democracy to continue to thrive. I think IRV is an interesting step towards an alternative to FPTP, but as others have noted, it also has serious flaws. Condorcet methods (of which there are many) and approval voting / score voting much better, and I wish we would see more adoption of these. I would encourage you to look at approval voting, which is as simple as FPTP (the only difference is that you can vote for as many candidates as you want, instead of just one), but produces much better outcomes. https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/ is a good explainer of different voting methods.
    - philjohn 4y ago
      And, barring statewide elections, is vulnerable to gerrymandering.
  - phailhaus 4y ago
    What's so complex? You rank your candidates. If your first didn't win, your vote goes to the second, and so on. No "degree in stats" required. They even explain very plainly how the rounds went. Begich lost, his votes went to Palin and Peltola, Peltola won.
  - gsk22 4y ago
    > Ranked choice voting is like the current tax code, full of exceptions and rules for the elite to manipulate while the common person gets boned. Really? Which rules and exceptions are you referring to?
Mechanical9 4y ago
IMO, we're already doing a worse form of ranked choice everywhere. Primaries, pre-election polling, and candidates dropping out early to prevent a vote-split, are all substitutes for what ranked choice provides. Each substitute exists to solve the problems caused by first-past-the-post voting, where having a high number of candidates all but guarantees that the winner does not have majority support. These substitutes all have issues. Party-segregated primaries promote extremism. Polling is inaccurate. When candidates drop out early, they take away choices from voters. Ranked choice voting combines multiple rounds of voting into a single ballot. The winner is the person with the most support from voters. First past the post: winner has the most first-choice votes. Ranked choice: winner has the most people who would vote for that person if other candidates couldn't win. Ranked choice results in the best outcome. The winner has the most support from voters, and the data from the ballots informs future campaigns better than polling ever could have.
- hunterb123 4y ago
  > IMO, we're already doing a form of ranked choice everywhere. Then why introduce the complicated system if we're already doing it in your opinion? > Primaries promote extremism. Wow what a statement, please elaborate. Personally that's the only time I've seen issues talked about the majority of the time. Otherwise it's just non-answers and pandering. > Polling is inaccurate. That has nothing to do with the voting system and everything to do with the media and pollsters. > When candidates drop out early, they take away choices from voters. Not really and it's not relevant, if they didn't survive the primary, if they drop out of the race they would have been a bad representative anyway. > Ranked choice results in the best outcome. Saying it doesn't make it true. It's overly complicated and you haven't said anything of substance to make it worth switching over from the simple voting system.
  - colinmhayes 4y ago
    > Then why introduce the complicated system if we're already doing it in your opinion? Because the current system promotes extremism. > Wow what a statement, please elaborate. Abortion is an obvious example. The vast majority of Americans are pro-choice, but the majority of R primary voters are pro life. If a Republican votes for a pro choice bill they'll be primaried and lose, even though most of their constituents agree with the vote.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
You should consider approval voting: instead of voting for only one candidate, you can vote for as many as you want in the race. The winner is the person who gets the most votes.
- ClayShentrup 4y ago
  Yep
ClayShentrup 4y ago
https://www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/ https://www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-vers...

Ranked choice voting is a complete scam, obscured by complexity. I would never live anywhere that has it.

ketzo 4y ago

What about it is a scam?

hunterb123 4y ago
It makes voting so complex you can't follow it, allowing manipulation. It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate. You shouldn't have to have a degree in stats (and that doesn't help much) to calculate the winner. Voters should be confident in the system and that means being able to verify it yourself with simple addition. Ranked choice voting is like the current tax code, full of exceptions and rules for the elite to manipulate while the common person gets boned.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > It's much simpler to have one vote from one person for one candidate. If there's only two candidates.
  - hunterb123 4y ago
    No, it's simple addition for all candidates. You either got a vote from a person or not, leave it at that. Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened. But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor. -- edit @mikeyouse -- No I'm not mad, as I said I prefer to live in a place that has a simpler voting system where it's easy for everyone verify the vote and be confident in the system. I'm maybe more disappointed in people allowing it and being that naive. Do you feel the same way about the tax code or should just voting be complicated? How do you feel about the EC system? Were you advocating getting rid of it recently? There's a certain group of people wanting to flip the game table up here recently. -- edit @ceejayoz -- So the flipside of your statement would be you "grumping" about the simpler system. Has RCV solved the split vote issue? Hint: no it hasn't. Nor was that ever really a problem, just an excuse to implement RCV. -- edit @esoterica -- That's an extremely partisan take and not at all what I've heard from Alaskan friends. Pelosi is well respected in the party and in the state, no matter what liberals think, they usually mix her up with Tina Fey anyways.
    - tacomonstrous 4y ago
      Do you have any evidence for the claim that RCV was introduced in Alaska for the purpose of bringing a Democrat to the to power?
      - hunterb123 4y ago
        No because the system is overly complicated, thus the lack of trust in the system because it can't be validated by a common person. But if a heavy blue state elected a red governor (especially with a popular blue opponent) out of nowhere immediately after switching to a new voting system people here would be suspicious right? But because it happens that blue candidates are winning in areas they weren't before, everyone here is fine looking the other way and even defending it.
        hatsix 4y ago
        https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ranked-Choice_Voting_and_Campaign_Finance_Laws_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/Alaska_Ballot_Measure_2,_Top-Four_Ra... It was a ballot initiative that passed by will of the people. Who are you to argue about their decision?
        hunterb123 4y ago
        Yes as I said I choose not to live there and would never live in a place where the voters choose such a system. It's their choice, but it's a stupid choice. Personally it seems they were naive or even lied to about the outcome. I can argue their decision because of the 1A. Same as you can argue against their previous system...
    - mikeyouse 4y ago
      > Currently you have Alaska being majority red but Pelosi losing to a Democrat, I wonder how that happened. .. > But certain people when they lose want to change things, whether it's advocating abolishing the Electoral College or implementing a complex RCV system to create arbitrary rules to tip the scales to candidates they favor. So you're mad that a candidate that had less popular support won the election in Alaska but the system where there's been one Republican popular vote winner and 3 Republican presidents in the past 30 years is sacrosanct?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- KerrickStaley 4y ago
  First past the post (the default in most US elections) is very problematic because it usually fails to elect the candidate that would make the average voter most happy. We need innovation in how we elect our representatives if we want our democracy to continue to thrive. I think IRV is an interesting step towards an alternative to FPTP, but as others have noted, it also has serious flaws. Condorcet methods (of which there are many) and approval voting / score voting much better, and I wish we would see more adoption of these. I would encourage you to look at approval voting, which is as simple as FPTP (the only difference is that you can vote for as many candidates as you want, instead of just one), but produces much better outcomes. https://ncase.me/ballot/ https://ncase.me/ballot/ is a good explainer of different voting methods.
  - philjohn 4y ago
    And, barring statewide elections, is vulnerable to gerrymandering.
- phailhaus 4y ago
  What's so complex? You rank your candidates. If your first didn't win, your vote goes to the second, and so on. No "degree in stats" required. They even explain very plainly how the rounds went. Begich lost, his votes went to Palin and Peltola, Peltola won.
- gsk22 4y ago
  > Ranked choice voting is like the current tax code, full of exceptions and rules for the elite to manipulate while the common person gets boned. Really? Which rules and exceptions are you referring to?

Mechanical9 4y ago

IMO, we're already doing a worse form of ranked choice everywhere. Primaries, pre-election polling, and candidates dropping out early to prevent a vote-split, are all substitutes for what ranked choice provides. Each substitute exists to solve the problems caused by first-past-the-post voting, where having a high number of candidates all but guarantees that the winner does not have majority support. These substitutes all have issues. Party-segregated primaries promote extremism. Polling is inaccurate. When candidates drop out early, they take away choices from voters. Ranked choice voting combines multiple rounds of voting into a single ballot. The winner is the person with the most support from voters. First past the post: winner has the most first-choice votes. Ranked choice: winner has the most people who would vote for that person if other candidates couldn't win. Ranked choice results in the best outcome. The winner has the most support from voters, and the data from the ballots informs future campaigns better than polling ever could have.

hunterb123 4y ago
> IMO, we're already doing a form of ranked choice everywhere. Then why introduce the complicated system if we're already doing it in your opinion? > Primaries promote extremism. Wow what a statement, please elaborate. Personally that's the only time I've seen issues talked about the majority of the time. Otherwise it's just non-answers and pandering. > Polling is inaccurate. That has nothing to do with the voting system and everything to do with the media and pollsters. > When candidates drop out early, they take away choices from voters. Not really and it's not relevant, if they didn't survive the primary, if they drop out of the race they would have been a bad representative anyway. > Ranked choice results in the best outcome. Saying it doesn't make it true. It's overly complicated and you haven't said anything of substance to make it worth switching over from the simple voting system.
- colinmhayes 4y ago
  > Then why introduce the complicated system if we're already doing it in your opinion? Because the current system promotes extremism. > Wow what a statement, please elaborate. Abortion is an obvious example. The vast majority of Americans are pro-choice, but the majority of R primary voters are pro life. If a Republican votes for a pro choice bill they'll be primaried and lose, even though most of their constituents agree with the vote.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

You should consider approval voting: instead of voting for only one candidate, you can vote for as many as you want in the race. The winner is the person who gets the most votes.

ClayShentrup 4y ago
Yep

ClayShentrup 4y ago

https://www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-versus-irv/ https://www.electionscience.org/library/approval-voting-vers...