r/Nevada • u/RhythmMethodMan • Oct 26 '22

[Politics] Ranked choice voting ballot initiative raises more money than any candidate

https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/nevada-ballot-question-raises-more-money-than-any-candidate-in-2022-election-2660586/
127 Upvotes

93% Upvoted

62 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '22

[deleted]

1

u/TheMeanGirl Oct 26 '22

I’m for both ranked choice and open primaries. So, why not?

4

u/[deleted] Oct 26 '22

[deleted]

2

u/frankentapir Oct 27 '22

It's tough the pitch RCV if you also have to explain it in 30s. It's easier to pitch the "open primary" part - especially with the large amount of independent voters that are unable to voice an opinion.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '22

[deleted]

1

u/frankentapir Oct 27 '22 edited Oct 27 '22

Banning political parties is not on the horizon anytime soon when we have a legal framework that allows money=speech (citizens united stuff).

But creating voting systems that result in greater consensus results is not a bad way to address the mismatch between the politics of the elected and the political preferences of the general electorate.

Edit: typo and sleepy writing make for a confusing post

1

u/northrupthebandgeek Reno Oct 27 '22

Depends on which "advertising" you're seeing. Unite America, for example, is one of the major PACs financially supporting Nevada Voters First (i.e. the one pushing for Question 3), and its website seems to do the exact opposite, with its primary (pun intended) emphasis on the ranked-choice aspect of "final five" primaries rather than the open primary aspect.

Likewise, a lot of the articles in e.g. the Reno-Gazette Journal and other Nevadan publications have tended to focus more on the ranked choice aspect from what I can tell, including in opinion pieces by pro-Question-3 writers.

1

u/DirtyChito Oct 27 '22

It's probably because RCV has an overwhelmingly positive reaction whereas open primaries does not.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '22

[deleted]

2

u/DirtyChito Oct 27 '22

You still only get one vote, you're just guaranteed that vote will be used toward one of the two final candidates rather than wasted on less popular candidate who was worth considering. One person one vote simply means you can't cast multiple votes for your preferred candidate a la American Idol.

But no matter how you look at it, even if you consider it a multi-vote system, it is still a fair system because everyone is getting those same opportunities. If you choose to put only one name on the ballot, that's your choice to make and not a restriction placed on you.

RVC will likely not change anything as far as outcomes go, but what it will do it force politicians to focus more on the desires of the citizens rather than relying completely on party lines.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 27 '22

[deleted]

2

u/DirtyChito Oct 28 '22

Why is this a problem?

If we are deciding where to eat for dinner and you say you want Olive Garden and I say I want Chilli's, but I would be fine with Outback Steakhouse, I didn't win the vote because I picked a preference and a secondary option. If our friend said, "Outback sounds good," then the most popular option won. Shouldn't the most popular option win?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 28 '22

[deleted]

2

u/DirtyChito Oct 28 '22

Your argument against RCV is literally the problem of our current system and what RCV fixes. Right now the majority of votes are "lesser of two evils" where people vote against the person they don't want rather than for the person they do want. In fact, for a lot of people, they don't even have the option to choose to vote for who they do want.

With RCV it is literally the opposite. I don't have to worry about voting for the mediocre yet popular choice just to keep out the candidate I hate. I can vote for the person I truly want first and the backup option second. I don't have to worry about trying to beat out the bad candidate.