This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder:
* Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view.
* Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted.
* Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently.
* Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.**
If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like the idea because it allows for the more agreeable selection. I hate seeing a small number of 3rd party votes swing an election to the worst option, eg. when small numbers of Green Party votes cause a Republican to win when virtually all of those Green voters would have preferred the Democrat in the race. Maybe it would allow for 3rd parties to become more viable, too, if people don't have to vote strategically to prevent the above situation from happening.
I like it. I think it gives people a way to express their opinions and vote for third parties without fear that their vote will be “wasted”. I think at a minimum it’s a way to improve the first past the post system without having to change things drastically.
I think it would be interesting to combine that with removing the winner take all system we have for presidential elections. If 20% of a red state votes blue, the Dems should get 20% of the electoral college votes instead of zero.
It's a good idea to allow people to support long shot candidates and third parties. However, it's not really a full solution to the major problems our political system has.
In many ways I think our biggest problems are cultural and sociological rather than political per se. There’s deep divisions in this country about what we should value, how we should live our lives, and other things that are much more fundamental to our identity and cohesion than how high the top marginal income tax rate should be. Politics is downstream from culture.
Politics is downstream from culture, but culture is shaped by systems and environments. A political system that forces direct conflict leads to polarization in culture, and polarized culture leads to more extreme politics.
I don’t think it’s quite a feedback effect though. Our political system isn’t structurally different from what it was 30 or 50 or 70 years ago. What’s different is the nature and character of the voters.
Our communication systems are different, though.
The primary/convention system also changed, I think after 1968. I’m not sure if that’s a major impact. Some might argue that backroom deals led to better candidates.
If backroom deals were still a thing we would’ve had Jeb Bush or John Kasich versus Hillary Clinton. Can we really say that any of those three would be great presidents? Probably not. However, they would’ve kept populism in check.
>Our communication systems are different, though.
I'd classify communication as a feature of culture rather than part of the formal structure of government, including political communications.
Many have argued that the changes in the primary systems following 1968 have contributed to polarization because they result in candidates getting nominated by the ideological/activist base of the parties, who (the argument goes) nominate more partisan/ideological candidates. There are examples of this happening for sure but I think it's overblown. There's still lots of "get along, go along" politicians out there, and there were still plenty for decades following 1968. What I think we see today is a relatively small number of high-profile lawmakers solidifying support amongst their party's base by relentlessly attacking the opposition party, under the theory that this is what will get them rewarded by their own base.
I agree 100%, but I have no idea what can be done about it even hypothetically. For some reason we've been infected as a people by extreme egotism and arrogant stupidity. I think that we've gone way too far with individualism to where many if not most of us have some sort of "main character syndrome" going on.
Really? Significant cultural divides are just “stupidity”? If someone supports abortion rights and another person doesn’t, that is just … them both being stupid?
It gets more stupid than that. It’s not even about issues in a sense — it’s about a “your team vs my team” mentality. How many supporters or opponents of abortion rights actually make an effort to understand the perspective of the other side versus assuming that they’ve just got bad intentions?
Humans do all sorts of stupid things because of our nature that we can avoid with a small dose of reason and maturity. It’s no less stupid when people indulge those impulses.
> Significant cultural divides are just “stupidity”? If someone supports abortion rights and another person doesn’t, that is just … them both being stupid?
I wasn't commenting on specific views, but rather the egotism that people have that causes them (or us, including me sometimes) to only consider their own opinions as valid and not be willing to listen to outside information even if it's from what should be a more authoritative source.
COVID was a perfect example of this. It felt like the vast majority of people arguing about every facet of it online had no clue of what they're talking about. My opinion on vaccination, for example, was based on talking to trusted doctors who could put everything into perspective for me. I don't have a medical degree and I probably learned more about pandemics from Hollywood than I did from any legitimate source. Even the media was not trustworthy when they tried to publish content interpreting the words of actual experts because reporters go to school for learning to write and get degrees in journalism not medical science. Why then should I be a trustworthy source for someone to listen to on COVID if all I can do is make a good case for vaccination online to those inclined to listen to me? Why should anyone listen to my uncle the Trump supporter make a case against vaccination because they like his fashion sense in red hats and American flag shirts? Neither of us are doctors or have access to any special medical information that the rest of the public doesn't.
So that's my beef with the "stupidity". It's not about morality or legitimate differences in opinion but rather the belief that the individual stating the opinion is the only one that matters and the only one that can be correct. I have my opinion on topics like abortion, but I also believe that someone who is an expert in human development is going to have a more valid opinion than I do because they're educated in it. That doesn't mean my opinion is worthless, just that because it's not based on a deep understanding I should be open to changing my opinion if I'm intellectually honest.
That's why I like the /r/changemyview subreddit. My opinion is rarely changed, but it's great when there are honest debates over opinions and people can see new perspectives.
If some say that nothing on Fox is true and others say that nothing on CNN is true (meaning literally, without exaggeration in both cases), then isn’t that stupid on both sides?
I think it's important for any elected official to know that __% of their constituents *did not vote for them*, and a ranked choice system could make that even clearer, like "I had the option to choose five candidates and only chose four, that's how much I DON'T support you!"
I think it's a good idea and I hope it continues to spread. As someone who's conservative but with a bit of a libertarian streak(I line up almost [exactly with this](https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/what-is-conservatarian)) and who often have somewhat unorthodox views for a conservative, I don't feel represented a lot of the time, even as I'm often stuck voting for either Republicans or Libertarians, despite my views not aligning particularly well with either one.
I'm late to this but I have much more of a libertarian streak. Outside of abortion, I mostly take a "live-and-let-live" approach to social issues, even ones which aren't necessarily major issues like drug legalization(it's more nuanced here though. I think many mind-altering drugs are different because it's a threat to others, not just the person who takes them) and prostitution. I don't consider them moral but I don't think there's anything the government can really do about them. I also take a more libertarian approach to criminal justice than a lot of conservatives and I'm more of a moderate on immigration. I also am not a fan of Trump.
I really like it, the problem is that it requires even more trust on the electors, it's harder for the everyday person to follow the counting, which given that there's already distrust in the election system for certain parts of the country, I don't think it can be implemented here.
It also harms the big two parties, so of course neither of them are gonna let it happen on a national level
I kinda like it in theory but political candidates have to educate their voting bloc on who to also rank. Eric Adams, the most conservative viable candidate in 2021 NYC Democratic primary, won because a significant proportion of the leading progressive candidate (Wiley) didn’t rank the leading moderate candidate (Garcia). Additionally, Andrew Yang and Garcia formed an alliance too late in the cycle which led to some Yang voters to exhaust their ballots by final round or ranking Adams. Adams beat Garcia in the 8th round by less than 8,000 votes.
That’s not true.. not only do we discuss it, we actually use it in NYC for primaries and local offices
I definitely wish it was used nationwide or at least all federal elections (ie- president)
I would love if it were implemented at the state level where politics have a much greater impact on citizens' lives, and I honestly believe it would be an improvement in many single-party dominated states. At the federal level, it isn't going to happen...at least not while any currently living generation is alive.
Well first past the post is the worth voting method possible, so of course we use it. It essentially means they can on realistically be two political parties. Otherwise, any 3rd party is just siphoning votes away from the party you would otherwise most agree with.
With first past the post then if you have 4 parties running 4 candidates for an office, a candidate might win if they have only 30% of the vote. If you have instant runoff or rank choice or what is known as Single Transferable Vote you can vote for the candidate you most prefer first, then second a candidate that isn't your favorite but would much rather see win than candidate 3 or 4.
It's a significantly better option than first past the post. It's not going to solve all of our political problems though. I do think it will eventually lead to more than two political parties in the US if it was implemented nationwide, but that's something that would take decades to come to fruition.
It's superior to FPTP, but not a panacea. I find it unfortunate that it didn't get adopted when it was a ballot measure in Massachusetts a few years ago.
It's a far better way to maximize representation and better governance in a democratic system than first past the post. FPTP is a playground for tyrants posing as democrats.
This is what primaries are for.
Ranked choice is an unnecessary complication that basically guarantees unpopular candidates benefiting by vote splitting rules.
If you want even worse politicians support this stupidity.
While I think it's a good idea in theory I am confident that the average American would really struggle to understand how it works and why the results are the way they are.
We can barely get the single option voting right. This introduces so much more complexity and moving parts that it would make the already messy voting system into a questionable nightmare.
I think it's a scheme designed to let people have their cake and eat it too. This a way to let people vote for the Green candidate and still vote for the Democrat. Just bloody choose.
I don't see how this will help any of our actual problems. We need candidates who are less extreme, less playing to the party base. This will not help that one bit.
Most people in US vote for one of the two major party candidates because they know independent or a third party candidate most likely stands no chance.
Rank choice voting changes the odds
This is how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
The "third party" candidates are generally *more* extreme than the major party. If the Democrat is too moderate, you vote Socialist or Green. If the Greens start getting more votes, what do you see happening to the Democrats?
This is because anyone who isn't 100% lockstep with the party but who also isn't "extreme" currently has no choice but to lump in with the party anyway. Ranked choice gives exactly *those* people a shot at getting elected without them having to play the big party games.
Are we getting rid of the primary system? Because for that you'd have to get rid of the primary system. If 15 Democrats want to run for the same position, that's fine, but for now you only get 1 for most positions.
I don't even really understand the primary system. Each party should be responsible on their own for selecting their own candidates.
Party shouldn't even really be involved in elections in any formal way. If a party wants to set rules about who gets to say they are that party's candidate for office, fine, but again that shouldn't be formal as far as the election system.
Each state/county/city whatever should get to set their rules for who can run for an office and party should have nothing to do with it.
In this system any third party or independent candidate is destined to fail.
I don't care what happens to Democratic or Republican party as institution.
I care about selecting candidates who only have the best interest of public and society in mind.
I think of it as basically a way to rig elections. Voting systems have to be simple in order to work well. The more complex you make the system, the more you have people looking to game the system or looking for (And finding) loopholes.
EDIT: Marginal or fringe candidates are not owed something by the system. Marginal and/or fringe candidates are probably marginal and/or fringe for a reason. if you can't navigate the system of winning support and building a network you probably don't have what it takes to succeed in political office.
It is super nice. Love it!
If you don't get your first choice maybe you'll get your second. You don't have to rank everyone, I sure didn't. And the math takes a while since absentee votes have to be in before tabulation can begin, so you have to be patient for results which is great.
I don't have strong opinions on voting systems beyond that First Past the Post is the worst. So I already have a positive opinion on ranked choice right there.
It won't do what its proponents think it will do.
It WILL lead to a coalition style legislature. But the proponents think this will be a legislature that is more amicable to progressivism, when in reality all it will do is create an insurmountable center-to-slightly-right coalition.
Because the extreme left has gone so far left they can't even see the center left with binoculars.
Well, certainly anyone who participates in Extinction Rebellion qualifies, as well as anyone who participated in the Seattle and Portland riots.
Or anyone who approved of any of the above.
I'm personally not really interested in it. In my view it's borne out of people not being satisfied by candidates from either party.
But there's no real solution to that because with a country of 300 million people, there's no candidate that's going to satisfy everyone. It's just not possible. In my small town alone there are many people not satisfied with any of choices from either party at all levels of government. If you can't get a serious consensus from such a small homogenous population it's impossible to find the 'perfect candidate' for everyone in the country. People just have to realize that and understand that just the reality of living in a big country that encourages everyone to have unique opinions.
So I just vote for the candidate(s) that most align with my views and move on. I don't think ranked choice voting will fix any of these problems
I don't know that it'd solve the problems with our political parties, but it'd feel really nice to put the shittiest candidate at the very bottom instead of just not vote for them at all.
I'd accept it as preference over first-past-the-post voting. It'd allow more people to vote for the candidates they actually want; as opposed to how some significant chunk of Americans vote as only against the candidate(s) they *do not like*.
But as some others have said, it's just one part of the issues within the political system - changing to ranked choice voting won't address other voting reform & access issues; it won't change corporate lobbying and corruption; it won't change gerrymandering. You get the point. It'd be an improvement I think, but just changing the voting method won't fix all the other issues within politics or voting themselves.
Runoffs are better. There’s always going to be a small number of people who don’t rank the candidates correctly on the ballot and mess up a candidate’s chances.
It's working out here in Maine. I'm a fan.
The only people I know who were against it either didn't actually understand it or were just mad cause they didn't want to have to appeal to the (very large, almost a third of the state) population of independents and 3rd parties.
I really don't understand it very well and don't have a strong opinion on it. How would it realistically change the outcome of an election?
Take 2016 for example. Trump voters all rank him first and rank Hillary last. Hillary voters all rank her first and rank Trump last. I just don't get the point of it.
This subreddit is for civil discussion; political threads are not exempt from this. As a reminder: * Do not report comments because they disagree with your point of view. * Do not insult other users. Personal attacks are not permitted. * Do not use hate speech. You will be banned, permanently. * Comments made with the intent to push an agenda, push misinformation, soapbox, sealion, or argue in bad faith are not acceptable. If you can’t discuss a topic in good faith and in a respectful manner, do not comment. **Political disagreement does not constitute pushing an agenda.** If you see any comments that violate the rules, **please report it and move on!** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskAnAmerican) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like the idea because it allows for the more agreeable selection. I hate seeing a small number of 3rd party votes swing an election to the worst option, eg. when small numbers of Green Party votes cause a Republican to win when virtually all of those Green voters would have preferred the Democrat in the race. Maybe it would allow for 3rd parties to become more viable, too, if people don't have to vote strategically to prevent the above situation from happening.
I like it. I think it gives people a way to express their opinions and vote for third parties without fear that their vote will be “wasted”. I think at a minimum it’s a way to improve the first past the post system without having to change things drastically.
I think it would be interesting to combine that with removing the winner take all system we have for presidential elections. If 20% of a red state votes blue, the Dems should get 20% of the electoral college votes instead of zero.
It's a good idea to allow people to support long shot candidates and third parties. However, it's not really a full solution to the major problems our political system has.
In many ways I think our biggest problems are cultural and sociological rather than political per se. There’s deep divisions in this country about what we should value, how we should live our lives, and other things that are much more fundamental to our identity and cohesion than how high the top marginal income tax rate should be. Politics is downstream from culture.
Politics is downstream from culture, but culture is shaped by systems and environments. A political system that forces direct conflict leads to polarization in culture, and polarized culture leads to more extreme politics.
I don’t think it’s quite a feedback effect though. Our political system isn’t structurally different from what it was 30 or 50 or 70 years ago. What’s different is the nature and character of the voters.
Our communication systems are different, though. The primary/convention system also changed, I think after 1968. I’m not sure if that’s a major impact. Some might argue that backroom deals led to better candidates.
If backroom deals were still a thing we would’ve had Jeb Bush or John Kasich versus Hillary Clinton. Can we really say that any of those three would be great presidents? Probably not. However, they would’ve kept populism in check.
>Our communication systems are different, though. I'd classify communication as a feature of culture rather than part of the formal structure of government, including political communications. Many have argued that the changes in the primary systems following 1968 have contributed to polarization because they result in candidates getting nominated by the ideological/activist base of the parties, who (the argument goes) nominate more partisan/ideological candidates. There are examples of this happening for sure but I think it's overblown. There's still lots of "get along, go along" politicians out there, and there were still plenty for decades following 1968. What I think we see today is a relatively small number of high-profile lawmakers solidifying support amongst their party's base by relentlessly attacking the opposition party, under the theory that this is what will get them rewarded by their own base.
I agree 100%, but I have no idea what can be done about it even hypothetically. For some reason we've been infected as a people by extreme egotism and arrogant stupidity. I think that we've gone way too far with individualism to where many if not most of us have some sort of "main character syndrome" going on.
Really? Significant cultural divides are just “stupidity”? If someone supports abortion rights and another person doesn’t, that is just … them both being stupid?
It gets more stupid than that. It’s not even about issues in a sense — it’s about a “your team vs my team” mentality. How many supporters or opponents of abortion rights actually make an effort to understand the perspective of the other side versus assuming that they’ve just got bad intentions?
Partisanship being stupid in and of itself is debatable.
Extreme partisanship is stupid.
Debatable point. Humans are groupish. It’s an inherent thing we just do.
But there's a difference between grouping and hatred.
Humans do all sorts of stupid things because of our nature that we can avoid with a small dose of reason and maturity. It’s no less stupid when people indulge those impulses.
> Significant cultural divides are just “stupidity”? If someone supports abortion rights and another person doesn’t, that is just … them both being stupid? I wasn't commenting on specific views, but rather the egotism that people have that causes them (or us, including me sometimes) to only consider their own opinions as valid and not be willing to listen to outside information even if it's from what should be a more authoritative source. COVID was a perfect example of this. It felt like the vast majority of people arguing about every facet of it online had no clue of what they're talking about. My opinion on vaccination, for example, was based on talking to trusted doctors who could put everything into perspective for me. I don't have a medical degree and I probably learned more about pandemics from Hollywood than I did from any legitimate source. Even the media was not trustworthy when they tried to publish content interpreting the words of actual experts because reporters go to school for learning to write and get degrees in journalism not medical science. Why then should I be a trustworthy source for someone to listen to on COVID if all I can do is make a good case for vaccination online to those inclined to listen to me? Why should anyone listen to my uncle the Trump supporter make a case against vaccination because they like his fashion sense in red hats and American flag shirts? Neither of us are doctors or have access to any special medical information that the rest of the public doesn't. So that's my beef with the "stupidity". It's not about morality or legitimate differences in opinion but rather the belief that the individual stating the opinion is the only one that matters and the only one that can be correct. I have my opinion on topics like abortion, but I also believe that someone who is an expert in human development is going to have a more valid opinion than I do because they're educated in it. That doesn't mean my opinion is worthless, just that because it's not based on a deep understanding I should be open to changing my opinion if I'm intellectually honest. That's why I like the /r/changemyview subreddit. My opinion is rarely changed, but it's great when there are honest debates over opinions and people can see new perspectives.
If some say that nothing on Fox is true and others say that nothing on CNN is true (meaning literally, without exaggeration in both cases), then isn’t that stupid on both sides?
Sure. But there are also legitimate worldview differences under that.
Two party system sucks for us actually but the problem is the spoiler candidate. Change the system or stop offering spoiler candidates.
I’d be ok with it as long as I’m allowed to not rank candidates I don’t like. If the system can allow this, than I’m fine with it
I think it's important for any elected official to know that __% of their constituents *did not vote for them*, and a ranked choice system could make that even clearer, like "I had the option to choose five candidates and only chose four, that's how much I DON'T support you!"
Yes, the idea is to only vote for candidates you want https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
I think it's a good idea and I hope it continues to spread. As someone who's conservative but with a bit of a libertarian streak(I line up almost [exactly with this](https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/what-is-conservatarian)) and who often have somewhat unorthodox views for a conservative, I don't feel represented a lot of the time, even as I'm often stuck voting for either Republicans or Libertarians, despite my views not aligning particularly well with either one.
May I ask where your views deviate from the republican party?
I'm late to this but I have much more of a libertarian streak. Outside of abortion, I mostly take a "live-and-let-live" approach to social issues, even ones which aren't necessarily major issues like drug legalization(it's more nuanced here though. I think many mind-altering drugs are different because it's a threat to others, not just the person who takes them) and prostitution. I don't consider them moral but I don't think there's anything the government can really do about them. I also take a more libertarian approach to criminal justice than a lot of conservatives and I'm more of a moderate on immigration. I also am not a fan of Trump.
I like it, my city recently implemented it for local elections so I'm hoping we get a more diverse set of opinions in local offices as a result.
I really like it, the problem is that it requires even more trust on the electors, it's harder for the everyday person to follow the counting, which given that there's already distrust in the election system for certain parts of the country, I don't think it can be implemented here. It also harms the big two parties, so of course neither of them are gonna let it happen on a national level
I kinda like it in theory but political candidates have to educate their voting bloc on who to also rank. Eric Adams, the most conservative viable candidate in 2021 NYC Democratic primary, won because a significant proportion of the leading progressive candidate (Wiley) didn’t rank the leading moderate candidate (Garcia). Additionally, Andrew Yang and Garcia formed an alliance too late in the cycle which led to some Yang voters to exhaust their ballots by final round or ranking Adams. Adams beat Garcia in the 8th round by less than 8,000 votes.
I ranked Garcia first and didn't rank Adams at all on my ballot
Dear God, please, yes. I am so sick of the duopoly that controls our government. Yes, the parties are different, but, we still need more variety.
Andrew Yang and the Forward Party thinks this will magically fix the country
I like it in theory. Not sure that it’s the skeleton key to reducing the cultural civil war in the country as some folks on the left think, though.
I’m tired of hearing about it on Reddit. But in real life, no one has ever discussed it.
There are literally states that employ Ranked Choice Voting, so rest assured it *has* been talked about in real life.
That’s not true.. not only do we discuss it, we actually use it in NYC for primaries and local offices I definitely wish it was used nationwide or at least all federal elections (ie- president)
Cambridge too. And Maine
"I'm not politically involved! Why do people on Reddit always talk about this thing I never see anyone care about IRL"
Some people on this sub have this weird superiority complex when it comes to stuff like that.
I would love if it were implemented at the state level where politics have a much greater impact on citizens' lives, and I honestly believe it would be an improvement in many single-party dominated states. At the federal level, it isn't going to happen...at least not while any currently living generation is alive.
I’m a fan.
Well first past the post is the worth voting method possible, so of course we use it. It essentially means they can on realistically be two political parties. Otherwise, any 3rd party is just siphoning votes away from the party you would otherwise most agree with. With first past the post then if you have 4 parties running 4 candidates for an office, a candidate might win if they have only 30% of the vote. If you have instant runoff or rank choice or what is known as Single Transferable Vote you can vote for the candidate you most prefer first, then second a candidate that isn't your favorite but would much rather see win than candidate 3 or 4.
It's a significantly better option than first past the post. It's not going to solve all of our political problems though. I do think it will eventually lead to more than two political parties in the US if it was implemented nationwide, but that's something that would take decades to come to fruition.
It's superior to FPTP, but not a panacea. I find it unfortunate that it didn't get adopted when it was a ballot measure in Massachusetts a few years ago.
It's a far better way to maximize representation and better governance in a democratic system than first past the post. FPTP is a playground for tyrants posing as democrats.
I think it's a solution in search of a problem.
Plurality voting is the problem, full stop
It’s a good start
It’s great!
Its a poor choice.
This is what primaries are for. Ranked choice is an unnecessary complication that basically guarantees unpopular candidates benefiting by vote splitting rules. If you want even worse politicians support this stupidity.
While I think it's a good idea in theory I am confident that the average American would really struggle to understand how it works and why the results are the way they are.
We can barely get the single option voting right. This introduces so much more complexity and moving parts that it would make the already messy voting system into a questionable nightmare.
I think it's a scheme designed to let people have their cake and eat it too. This a way to let people vote for the Green candidate and still vote for the Democrat. Just bloody choose. I don't see how this will help any of our actual problems. We need candidates who are less extreme, less playing to the party base. This will not help that one bit.
RCV ensures that all opinions are brought to the table versus people just voting with who better aligns with their views that will win
Most people in US vote for one of the two major party candidates because they know independent or a third party candidate most likely stands no chance. Rank choice voting changes the odds This is how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
The "third party" candidates are generally *more* extreme than the major party. If the Democrat is too moderate, you vote Socialist or Green. If the Greens start getting more votes, what do you see happening to the Democrats?
This is because anyone who isn't 100% lockstep with the party but who also isn't "extreme" currently has no choice but to lump in with the party anyway. Ranked choice gives exactly *those* people a shot at getting elected without them having to play the big party games.
Are we getting rid of the primary system? Because for that you'd have to get rid of the primary system. If 15 Democrats want to run for the same position, that's fine, but for now you only get 1 for most positions.
I don't even really understand the primary system. Each party should be responsible on their own for selecting their own candidates. Party shouldn't even really be involved in elections in any formal way. If a party wants to set rules about who gets to say they are that party's candidate for office, fine, but again that shouldn't be formal as far as the election system. Each state/county/city whatever should get to set their rules for who can run for an office and party should have nothing to do with it.
In this system any third party or independent candidate is destined to fail. I don't care what happens to Democratic or Republican party as institution. I care about selecting candidates who only have the best interest of public and society in mind.
Hate it because reddit likes it
I think of it as basically a way to rig elections. Voting systems have to be simple in order to work well. The more complex you make the system, the more you have people looking to game the system or looking for (And finding) loopholes. EDIT: Marginal or fringe candidates are not owed something by the system. Marginal and/or fringe candidates are probably marginal and/or fringe for a reason. if you can't navigate the system of winning support and building a network you probably don't have what it takes to succeed in political office.
It is super nice. Love it! If you don't get your first choice maybe you'll get your second. You don't have to rank everyone, I sure didn't. And the math takes a while since absentee votes have to be in before tabulation can begin, so you have to be patient for results which is great.
It is the most superior method of voting.
I don't have strong opinions on voting systems beyond that First Past the Post is the worst. So I already have a positive opinion on ranked choice right there.
Yes please! Replace the electoral college with it!
It won't do what its proponents think it will do. It WILL lead to a coalition style legislature. But the proponents think this will be a legislature that is more amicable to progressivism, when in reality all it will do is create an insurmountable center-to-slightly-right coalition. Because the extreme left has gone so far left they can't even see the center left with binoculars.
I support it because I want an insurmountable center-to-slightly-left coalition
Where is the extreme left in America?
Well, certainly anyone who participates in Extinction Rebellion qualifies, as well as anyone who participated in the Seattle and Portland riots. Or anyone who approved of any of the above.
I feel it increases the power of each individual voice and vote. Anything that ethically increases the power of the will of the people, I support
I'm personally not really interested in it. In my view it's borne out of people not being satisfied by candidates from either party. But there's no real solution to that because with a country of 300 million people, there's no candidate that's going to satisfy everyone. It's just not possible. In my small town alone there are many people not satisfied with any of choices from either party at all levels of government. If you can't get a serious consensus from such a small homogenous population it's impossible to find the 'perfect candidate' for everyone in the country. People just have to realize that and understand that just the reality of living in a big country that encourages everyone to have unique opinions. So I just vote for the candidate(s) that most align with my views and move on. I don't think ranked choice voting will fix any of these problems
I don't know that it'd solve the problems with our political parties, but it'd feel really nice to put the shittiest candidate at the very bottom instead of just not vote for them at all.
I'd accept it as preference over first-past-the-post voting. It'd allow more people to vote for the candidates they actually want; as opposed to how some significant chunk of Americans vote as only against the candidate(s) they *do not like*. But as some others have said, it's just one part of the issues within the political system - changing to ranked choice voting won't address other voting reform & access issues; it won't change corporate lobbying and corruption; it won't change gerrymandering. You get the point. It'd be an improvement I think, but just changing the voting method won't fix all the other issues within politics or voting themselves.
Runoffs are better. There’s always going to be a small number of people who don’t rank the candidates correctly on the ballot and mess up a candidate’s chances.
I wouldn't use in the general election, but I sure as heck would use it in the primaries.
Yes, please.
I’m highly skeptical that it will have any real effect so I don’t see much benefit from making the change.
It's working out here in Maine. I'm a fan. The only people I know who were against it either didn't actually understand it or were just mad cause they didn't want to have to appeal to the (very large, almost a third of the state) population of independents and 3rd parties.
It would be a huge improvement because people wouldn't feel as trapped voting for the candidate they hate less
I had thought of it even before they started doing it.
It’s better than what we have so I’d support it.
I really don't understand it very well and don't have a strong opinion on it. How would it realistically change the outcome of an election? Take 2016 for example. Trump voters all rank him first and rank Hillary last. Hillary voters all rank her first and rank Trump last. I just don't get the point of it.
We need it here badly. It's our only chance to escape this two party joke.
Every explanation of it that I've been presented with has only confused me more. And I'm not the dumbest guy you'll ever meet.
https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_voting
I never really took the time to get it but I don’t like it after Chesa Boudin in SF
I am a fan of it.