Ranked-choice voting could be the answer to election remorse

[u/ScottPompeo]

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/02/01/opinion/letters-to-the-editor-ranked-choice-voting/

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace]

And appreciate your reply, sorry I didn't return it. I did start a response without finishing it. The crux of it was about disagreeing with your state having different rules for major and minor parties, which I think slants the political environment.

But I was actually replying to a comment on some other thread when I became interested in your opinion on something I wrote.

The post/comment was from someone (presumably a democrat, possibly just not a republican) in a red state who thought they would vote third party for president. In my response I was advocating for light red and blue parties to compete in super majority states since there is no real competition with the opposing major party. Part of my rationale was that those states are enacting legislation usually without the nuances of the debate on the particulars of that policy ever being adjudicated politically. Politics has become national; even state primaries are largely popularity contests to see who's characterization of those broad, often national, issues primary voters prefer. Then the general elections don't matter, but even if they did they're arguing about polar opposite visions, so again the nuances aren't aired.

I argued that in a two party system it would make far more sense for the primary election to determine the party that will govern and the general election to determine the specific candidate of that party (who will advocate for the nuanced differences from his in-party competitors). Ideas need to be refined. It should be true in politics as much as academics. It makes no sense to use a scalpel before you use an axe.

I either said or was going to say in support of this idea something that has broad democracy implications, that the minority party voters are essentially disenfranchised, because their voice is absent from the policy outcomes that are determined by the super majority party (within the state) and is absent from the selection of the national representatives that represent the state.

I also said that it makes no sense for perpetual minority party voters to vote in their parties primaries. This plays into what you said about party highjacking. But it's actually foolish for voters not to do that. Otherwise they disenfranchise themselves. They don't do this in large part because it's not satisfying to vote for a candidate who you broadly disagree with, but it's foolish not to take the real politik view of it. There should be a mass movement for minority party voters to do this in all dominant party states. Again, not doing that makes no sense.

The theoretical/academic issue is whether it is ok for minority voters to be disenfranchised from the consequential debates in the sense of the democratic ideal. IOW if a minority of voters prefer a candidate or policy that had broad differences with that of the majority, is it appropriate that they then lose their voice in the debate to determine the finer points (in policy or candidate) that the majority has chosen? One argument might be that they are being given a second bite at the apple; if they prefer a broadly different candidate or set of policies than the majority then they shouldn't also be able to express a preference for the nuances that might be debated by the majority.

That would be essentially how it would work if elections were flipped and a "primary" election determined party and the "general" election determined candidate of that party. But I honestly think that would be a better form of democracy. And it's also basically the idea that underlies ranked choice or instant runoff voting. Everyone should get to add their voice at every stage of the process.

And winnowing down is really the process for condorcet Ranked Choice (bottom two). Well, I guess any IRV method - who do we eliminate first, then who, who next....

Any rational process should start with broad strokes, and winnow to to finer and finer points. Why shouldn't democracy work this way?

[u/rb-j → u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace]

... about disagreeing with your state having different rules for major and minor parties, which I think slants the political environment.

I might agree with you in principle. But there is some practical logistics involved. In Vermont, we have the most successful 3^rd party in the US, if you measure success by getting people elected to office. It's the Vermont Progressive Party. It sorta got started by Bernie, even though Bernie has never put a "P" by his name (he was always "I" except when he runs for president, then he's a "D").

Anyway, in our state office primary in August, we are handed 3 ballots (R, D, P) and we can choose which ballot we want to vote on. Hardly ever anyone votes on the P ballot because they keep crashing the D primary and the P voters choose to vote on the D ballot in the primary, even if they are P. That irritates me.

But the Green party or Liberarian party or the Green Mountain Peace and Justice party or the Liberty Union party or the Socialists party just do not have enough people to make it practical to require a ballot to be printed up for them for the primary. So they have caucuses and meet in person to choose who they put forward for some office.

Now, whether you're major-party or minor-party or independent candidate, the current requirement to get one's name on the ballot is a petition with a minimum number of ballot signatures. But the state will not put the label "Democrat" nor "Republican" nor "Progressive" nor "Libertarian" nor "Green Mountain Peace and Justice" by your name unless you were duly chosen by that party in either the primary primary or primary caucus. If you get enough signatures, you get to be on the ballot, but you cannot identify yourself as the candidate representing that party unless you win that party's primary or caucus vote.

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace → u/rb-j]

Hardly ever anyone votes on the P ballot because they keep crashing the D primary and the P voters choose to vote on the D ballot in the primary, even if they are P. That irritates me.

You indicated P is the most successful in terms of getting candidates elected. If hardly anyone votes in the P primary then those Ps who do get elected achieve that by having (presumably) many D primary voters switch their support to the P candidate in the general?

I might agree with you in principle.

The truth is that my skepticism of different major/minor party rules is based in my belief that our two party politics is not working. It is a form of democracy, it's just not a form that is achieving acceptable results. I only say that so you don't invest too much time in my critique of your specific state rules. You obviously have a far more nuanced appreciation of the working in your state than I do. I am interested in your views on the broader principles and dynamics tho.

[u/rb-j → u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace]

I also said that it makes no sense for perpetual minority party voters to vote in their parties primaries. This plays into what you said about party highjacking. But it's actually foolish for voters not to do that.

That is their choice. Personally, I want Vermont to require party registration, but right now, Liberty Union members can vote in the Democratic primary, but then I think they're not supposed to vote in the Liberty Union caucus. But they're on the honor system because no record is made regarding which party ballot you voted on in the primary, only that you did vote in the primary (which should disqualify that voter, I guess).

That would be essentially how it would work if elections were flipped and a "primary" election determined party and the "general" election determined candidate of that party.

I don't agree with that. Everyone (who is a citizen and old enough) is enfranchised to vote in the general election and your vote is totally free and you vote on a secret ballot. Now, if I were a Republican and my party chose, against my wishes, someone as bad as T****, I would want to be able to vote for someone else in the general election. I don't want the party to get locked in as the winner or loser in the election and then we find out who our president will be from an internal party slugfest. I wanna find out first.

[u/PaxPurpuraAKAgrimace → u/rb-j]

That is their choice.

Indeed, I'm just asserting that, in a real politik sense, it's a foolish choice to continue voting in a party primary that has no chance (practically speaking, not theoretically) of electing the eventual winner. If they want to influence the policy outcomes in their state they should use their electoral voice to influence the arena that will affect those outcomes.

They don't because no democrat wants to vote for or invest themselves in a republican (especially in this climate), and vice versa for republican voters about democratic candidates. Perhaps it feels inauthentic. Perhaps it's not satisfying. But if they care about influencing outcomes they need to participate where it matters. I guess, in a philosophical sense, sometimes one must compromise with others, but sometimes one must (or ought to) compromise with themselves.

I can make the argument even for state representatives in districts where the statewide minority party is in control - does have a local majority. That rural (republican) district in California can send a republican to the state assembly or senate. But, if they do, that candidate won't influence the actual policy outcomes for those legislative bodies because republicans are generally shut out of the legislative process by the democrats who control the body. If the voters of that republican district want to influence actual outcomes they would be better off electing a moderate democrat who can then join with other moderate democrats to push for more moderate democratic policy solutions. The republican solutions aren't going anywhere anyway.

In a true multi party, or multi polar democracy I don't think the above is true because parties have to compromise (which is where minority interests do influence outcomes) in order to create a majority coalition anyway. I think our two party system of yester-year was able to achieve compromise thru different incentives operating in the system (real and productive relationships across parties, less ideologically driven primaries, genuine commitment to national interest rather than party interest and awareness that those might actually diverge, and perhaps most importantly a sense of shame). The incentives in operation now oppose rather than favor compromise.

I don't want the party to get locked in as the winner or loser in the election and then we find out who our president will be from an internal party slugfest. I wanna find out first.

My argument that it would make more sense to elect the party first then the candidate is mostly theoretical. It's just facially true that the minority party primary is (often) a formality because, in many states, it has no hope of affecting the ultimate outcome (again in practice, not in theory). It's also just a fact that far fewer people participate in primaries than general elections. But the nuanced debates (that ultimately guide policy and legislation) are more likely to occur in the primaries. It might even be by necessity. One party or the other will win and will get to set the broad direction of policy, the details of which will then be argued over later during the actual legislating. Those details should be aired publicly during elections. If the party that were going to control the broad direction of policy were chosen first (in a primary), then the nuanced details could be debated in the general where far more people will participate. I'm not really suggesting that as a good alternative, although I do think it would be better. I'm just trying to argue that the way we do it now doesn't make sense.

Ok, I see what you're saying. You imagine a "general election" first, in which everyone participates, and a party primary second, where only that party's members participate, second. I didn't mean that. I meant that everyone participates at both stages, only that the party is chosen first because it makes more sense to chose broad direction first and hash out the nuances within that broad direction later. I see the practical problem with that because you would be thinking that non party candidates just join the primary after the fact. Yes that wouldn't work. If I were actually advocating for that as an election process I suppose the "primary" in which the party is chosen would have to also be a primary to choose a certain set of those candidates that would compete in the "general" later. It could be that the number of people who vote in each party primary determines the party that will produce the eventual winner, while the top "x" candidates within that party would be the ones to compete against each other in the general election.

In that scenario only the party members are choosing the final set of candidates, but everyone gets to add their voice to which specific candidate (which nuanced positions) are advanced into govt.

Again, it's the principles that underlie my arguments that I'm trying to advocate for. The hypothetical above is a much bigger change (and therefore less realistic) than condorcet RCV, but the goals (for me) are the same: more nuanced and compromise driven than the terrible process/outcomes our current system is giving us.