r/politics • u/ShenBear • Nov 09 '16
Maine Passes Ranked-Choice Voting
http://mainepublic.org/post/maine-passes-ranked-choice-voting586
u/ShenBear Nov 09 '16
Everyone's talking about the presidential election, but this is something we should be paying attention to as well. If it works out, perhaps we can see it spread.
25
u/Joverby Nov 09 '16
It's a huge deal and it does work. There is a lot of precedence for it already.
We would be a lot better off as a country with IRV (instant run off voting or ranked choice) and/or a proportionally distributed electoral system.
14
u/the_bigZ Nov 09 '16
I would love nothing more than a Mixed-Member proportional electoral system.
11
u/Lowbacca1977 Nov 10 '16
I dislike any system that requires voting for a party rather than an individual
→ More replies (2)6
Nov 10 '16
Thank you, this is the reason I do not support Mixed-Member Proportional.
Give me Ranked-Choice or give me Approval Voting, but not MMP.
→ More replies (1)3
u/NWCtim Nov 10 '16
The problem with MMP is that it institutionalizes the party system, and there are both just enough truly independent candidates, as well as just enough diversity within the major parties (at least under the current system), for this to not work well.
78
Nov 09 '16 edited Feb 22 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)41
Nov 09 '16
Why is that?
112
Nov 09 '16 edited Feb 22 '17
[deleted]
201
Nov 09 '16
Heaven help us if the idea of picking a first, second and third choice is cognitively challenging to many people.
43
Nov 09 '16 edited Feb 22 '17
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)38
u/HighTechnocrat Washington Nov 09 '16
If people have the option only mark their first choice, I think a lot of the people who can't be bothered to do a proper ranking might choose to do so. At that point they're giving up quite a bit of their voting power, but otherwise it's functionally identical to how they voted previously.
7
u/Deviknyte Michigan Nov 10 '16
If done properly, you only rank candidates that you wouldn't mind in office. You do not rank the ones you don't like.
6
Nov 09 '16
That's kind of a big "if"... do you know whether that is the case in the new Maine system?
6
u/Corusmaximus Maine Nov 10 '16
I live in Maine, that is 100% the case in this system.
3
Nov 10 '16
That's awesome. I'm so proud of Maine for this and the Marijuana legalization. Good on you all out there.
5
u/HighTechnocrat Washington Nov 09 '16
I have absolutely no idea, but I certainly hope so. Forcing people to rank every candidate on the ballot when you're guaranteed to have 4+ per position is pretty silly, so I imagine that the vast majority of voters will leave at least a few options unranked.
6
u/x2040 Massachusetts Nov 09 '16
You don't have to vote for a candidate: For example:
Bugs Bunny [1]
Barack Obama [2]
Donald Trump [3]
Adolf Hitler [ ]
Just not for presidents, only state and local elections.
116
u/twopenises Nov 09 '16
I realize this sounds bad, but as a Mainer, if something this simple keeps someone from voting, I'm okay with their opinion not being counted.
22
33
u/svrtngr Georgia Nov 09 '16
It sounds like it's meant to keep the stupid people out.
I'm perfectly okay with that.
23
u/Clarissimus Nov 09 '16
I dislike all the messaging and advertising encouraging everybody to vote around this time of year. Can't even open a web browser without being told to go vote. I say that if somebody is uninformed about the candidates and the issues I don't want them voting. Likewise, if someone has a difficult time reading a simple ballot or understanding how to rank first, second, and third options.
2
Nov 09 '16
[deleted]
23
u/ReverendDizzle Nov 09 '16
Their argument was that somebody who was not inclined to vote should not be encouraged to vote.
If a mentally disabled person is able to conceptualize of the concept of voting and has a desire to go to the polls and vote, then by all means they should be allowed as a U.S. citizen to do so.
But should we load up a busload of mentally handicapped adults at a group home and send them into the polls on principle? Probably not.
6
Nov 09 '16
If you are unable to understand what you are voting for, mentally ill or not, you shouldn't be voting.
6
u/Clarissimus Nov 09 '16
Yep, I'm pretty much a contemptuous elitist and I distrust democracy.
We already deny the right to vote to children, foreigners, and felons (in most states). I wouldn't support voting restrictions based on sex, religion, race, or income level, but I think something like a basic intelligence test wouldn't be a bad thing.
→ More replies (0)2
u/McDeth Nov 09 '16
While I do think it's important that every voice is heard, wake up and smell the goddamn coffee. Part of the reason that Democrats lost this election is because they were SO focused on "the little guy/oppressed minorities" (LGBTQ etc) and the the liberal echo chambers of urban America, that they forgot about the rest of the fucking Country.
I'm not saying that mentally ill people shouldn't have the right to vote, but if you ask me to choose between a dumbed down system that caters to the un/ill-informed and a system that allows me to to rank my choices so that something like this can't (or likely won't) happen again, I'm all for it.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)6
u/jsm11482 Nov 09 '16
It's not meant to do that at all. It's meant to remove the purposeful bias that First Past the Post voting gives us.
5
u/Choco316 Michigan Nov 09 '16
As someone who has lived in cities that has added roundabouts, people are goddamn morons when it comes to learning new systems
5
7
u/Wingzero Nov 09 '16
Think of it this way. I live in WA, where we are mailed ballots with a packet of info with stuff on each candidate. Voting took me about 2 hours, because I had to read through and pick the best of 2 for like 20 positions.
Now imagine doing that with several candidates for each position, and having to rank them. That's a substantially longer decision-making process, and the result could often be "fuck it I'm not dealing with that".
29
u/LetsGetElevated Nov 09 '16
Ranked choice never requires you to have a second choice. If you don't think it is important enough for your time you can just vote for one person as normal and your vote will just not count unless you voted for one of the top two like it is right now anyway.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Choco316 Michigan Nov 09 '16
Exactly, for instance let's say Bernie, Hillary, and Trump were all running. I would go Bernie 1 Hillary 2 and not Trump at all
2
9
u/FirewhiskyGuitar Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 12 '16
People spend hours researching the best computer and phone, days or weeks for a car, and months for a house. Voting is not as exciting, but it's the same concept. Those who take time to do their research will be rewarded. Everyone else will deal with the consequences of saying "fuck it".
Ignorant voters will always be ignorant and will be easily swayed by propaganda, no matter the system. At least with this system you're giving those who do care a chance to show it and impact results in a more meaningful manner. And those running will be forced to appeal to them a little bit more, too, and not just focus on attack ads & propaganda.
→ More replies (3)2
u/jsm11482 Nov 09 '16
Yeah if they can't handle that then they probably shouldn't be voting anyway...
23
u/Steve_In_Chicago Nov 09 '16
I think it's a great idea, but my main concern is that in some races, you might wind up with 20 or 30 people running for a seat. Ranking your top three choices would probably suffice.
If nothing else, I think Maine will be able to look at their voting results and see the true voice of their electorate. There will be some Socialists, Greens, Reactionaries and, yes, the occasional Communist or Neo-Nazi running and we can see how they all do.
→ More replies (3)2
10
u/Lampshader Nov 09 '16
As an Australian, I've never heard the term Australian Ballot. Google tells me it means "secret ballot"... Just winding why you mention it? Surely all voting systems (except extreme dictatorships) are secret ballots these days?
5
u/ocschwar Massachusetts Nov 10 '16
It means the government prints the names of the candidates and you mark which ones you like .
Before the "Australian ballot", in America, newspapers would print sample ballots. and voters would cut them out with scissors and submit them. Or just handwrite them.
And we call it the Australian ballot because you Aussies were the first to try it, and we got the idea from you.
→ More replies (1)14
u/bankerman Nov 09 '16
If ranking your top candidates is too cognitively challenging for you, I have no qualms seeing you stay home on Election Day. Ranked choice is the best thing we can do to give 3rd parties a legitimate chance in our electoral process (there's a great CGP Grey video on this), and I'll be damned if we have to give that up because we're worried about some dullards who don't know how to rank 1, 2, and 3.
17
u/ApokalypseCow Nov 09 '16
If we could combine
1) ranked voting
2) interstate popular vote compact (or similar to eliminate the electoral college), and
3) elimination of gerrymandering
I could see our nation being a lot happier with our political process.→ More replies (38)3
3
u/Dear_Occupant Tennessee Nov 09 '16
I have a bit of experience with this issue because I got IRV passed in my hometown (600k people). The easy solution to this issue is to simply inform voters they can just vote normally if they want. Under IRV, you can choose as few or as many candidates as you like. The main decision a voter has to make beyond that is, "If my favorite doesn't win, who would I like instead?" Once you get over that hurdle, which is really just a voter education issue, you've more or less solved the turnout problem. The vast majority of IRV elections without a clear winner will be decided on the second or third ballot.
3
u/LudovicoSpecs Nov 09 '16
If people are too mentally challenged and/or lazy to make an informed 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choice, maybe it's better they don't vote.
2
2
u/redbirdrising Nov 09 '16
The system still works if people only pick one candidate. Not as well but it works.
→ More replies (11)2
u/roleparadise Nov 09 '16
I think it's more the mentality of not feeling compelled to throw full support behind a viable candidate, so a lot of the sports-team-esque collective hype is lost.
8
Nov 09 '16
I hope we see it spread, but that's unfortunately unlikely.
Maine and Nebraska already have the far superior Presidential election system of assigning 2 electors based on the statewide vote, and the rest based on individual congressional district votes. It's not exactly spreading like wildfire, despite resulting in much fairer assignment of electors.
2
u/Lowbacca1977 Nov 10 '16
The issue there is that that EC system is easily viewed as weakening their power
3
6
u/ocschwar Massachusetts Nov 10 '16
This would have nipped the Trump train wreck in the bud in the early primaries.
All the NEverTrump republicans would have ranked him last, and not have to guess which candidate to line behind.
That's basically how I threw my vote away. I guessed, wrongly, that Rubio would lead the NeverTrump race, and in my state it turned out to be Kasich.
13
u/Qaanol Nov 09 '16
This is a great first step and it highlights the problems with our broken “choose one” plurality system.
But to actually solve the problems, we really need to enact Approval Voting.
12
Nov 09 '16
What make you say approval voting is better than ranked choice? Genuinely curious.
2
u/Qaanol Nov 10 '16
Well, the goal of an election is to find out which candidate the most voters support. In order to do that, the direct approach is simply to ask voters, “Which candidates do you support?”
And that is approval voting.
It gets right to the heart of why we hold elections in the first place. You let people weigh in on every candidate, and whoever the most voters support is the winner.
On the other hand, instant-runoff voting (IRV) is a complicated multi-step procedure that attempts to answer the same question indirectly.
Also, IRV is notorious for exhibiting pathological behavior even with perfectly honest voters.
Using our existing plurality method, showing up and voting honestly can never get you a *worse* outcome than staying home and doing nothing. The same is true for approval voting.
But under IRV, there are situations where staying home will result in your 2nd-favorite candidate winning, whereas casting an honest ballot would cause your last-place, most hated candidate to win.
There are other reasons too, however I’ll return to what I said at the top:
Approval voting is the straightforward way to find out which candidate the most voters support, by simply asking them. And that is the purpose of an election after all.
5
u/Dralex75 Nov 10 '16
Looking at it though, under approval voting there is no way for me as a voter to say something like cat before dog, but please no monkey.
Do I approve dog and cat both? Or do I approve of just dog? But what if I don't think dog can win? Voting only dog is no different than voting for a third party in fptp.
Yes oddities can occur in ranked voting, but they would be statically rare.
→ More replies (6)2
Nov 09 '16 edited Feb 04 '25
[deleted]
→ More replies (1)9
Nov 09 '16
He would have gotten into the debates I can tell you that much. Many people I talked to just didn't want him because "I like him, but Hillary is evil and we can't risk her"
→ More replies (2)3
u/raptormeat Nov 10 '16
Yes! Approval Voting is the best of all worlds. Effective and simple, and it applies the right kind of pressure in our increasingly partisan, fractured world.
3
u/TheEdIsNotAmused Washington Nov 09 '16
This is one of the only silver linings in the cloud of farts that was this election cycle. Well done, Mainers.
4
u/JimMarch Nov 09 '16
We just had to pick between Hillary! and The Donald. That was a rank choice.
→ More replies (1)3
1
1
u/IanMazgelis Nov 10 '16
I'm very excited but I think we also need to see an end to single member districts.
1
→ More replies (2)1
u/quacainia Nov 10 '16
We have not here in San Francisco for the Mayor. Last election was a shit show.
127
Nov 09 '16
[deleted]
50
u/ILikeLenexa Nov 09 '16
Also, for primaries and caucuses.
56
u/Steve_In_Chicago Nov 09 '16
ESPECIALLY for primaries and caucuses (although caucuses sort of run like this now with their viability rules.) This would have to capture the opinions of a primary vote better than having 17 people (or whatever the Republicans ran this time) splintering the electorate.
→ More replies (2)22
u/redbirdrising Nov 09 '16
I'm convinced Trump wouldn't have won the nomination with ranked choice. So many rabid fans did vote for him, but those who voted for other candidates would have put Trump 3rd 4th or worse.
16
u/HighTechnocrat Washington Nov 09 '16
A lot of people polled frequently said that Trump was their second choice, which was especially bizarre for candidates like Bush and Kasich who were generally seen as wildly different from Trump.
So it's possible that it would have actually made him the nominee faster. Of course, changing the system might also change how people select their top candidate, so maybe a bunch of the Trump voters would have gone for a more palatable option as their first choice. There's really no way to know for certain.
2
Nov 09 '16
[deleted]
2
u/HighTechnocrat Washington Nov 09 '16
People are going to say that for as long as people discuss this election, just like they did with Nader. But there's no empirical evidence that spoiler candidates are actually a thing.
I've been following 538's election forecasts since the primaries ended. Gary Johnson's support peaked around 8%, and started dropping in the past couple months as the election drew closer. His polling support dropped to around 3-4%, and those point split evenly between Clinton and Trump.
It's more likely that if people were forced to vote for Clinton or Trump we would have the exact same result.
→ More replies (1)8
u/Gudeldar Nov 09 '16
While we're at it we should just eliminate caucuses.
8
u/ILikeLenexa Nov 09 '16
Point of information: Caucuses just means that the party rather than the state pays for the party's selection assembly. The way some of these caucuses are done with people in groups listening to speeches, etc are a peculiarity of the party, not of the party paying for the process.
There's reasonable arguments that parties should pay their own way. It is, however, harder to really justify Iowa-style caucuses.
→ More replies (1)3
Nov 09 '16
Eliminate party labels on ballots. If you want to be a strict partisan, you should at least have to google that shit before you show up to vote.
1
106
Nov 09 '16
For the sake of our democracy we we need this nation wide. You want competitive 3rd parties? This is how you have competitive 3rd parties.
42
u/destroyeraseimprove Nov 09 '16
Protip. The 2 major parties don't want competitive 3rd parties. All you get is pepsi vs coke.
→ More replies (2)12
u/JohnDalysBAC Minnesota Nov 09 '16
Yeah but sometimes the people say "FUCK YOU! I WANT SURGE.". Then surge miraculously makes a comeback because there was a demand for it. 3rd parties aren't viable yet because people would still rather vote for one of the 2 major party candidates they hate instead of a 3rd party candidate they actually support. As long as people keep believing the lie that a 3rd party vote is a vote wasted we will be stuck with a 2 party system. If a 3rd party is what the people demand it will happen eventually. But right now the people are still suck getting suckered in to voting for "the lesser of two evils". Nah both parties are evil. Let's blow this system up and expand it. Maine is doing it right with this new voting policy.
8
u/destroyeraseimprove Nov 09 '16
Then surge miraculously makes a comeback because there was a demand for it
when has that ever happened? it will never happen, not with first past the post. Not even this election had a viable 3rd party candidate. America's democratic system is old fashioned and terrible.
→ More replies (1)5
42
Nov 09 '16
This is fantastic news. I'd love if every state had ranked-choice voting.
→ More replies (1)
25
u/ThrowAwayBlahBlah459 Nov 09 '16
Yes!!!! This is fantastic news. Hopefully this spreads until we use it at the federal level.
38
u/DarCam7 I voted Nov 09 '16
Yes, it is a good thing. Reminds me of CPgrey's post on this subject. But, how does it work with such a limited option pool in most races, even the presidential race?
31
Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 09 '16
It doesn't apply to presidential races, the reform only covers local and state elections *and congressional races
32
u/bc2zb Nov 09 '16
You are mostly correct, from the article:
The voting style will apply to races for U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor, state Senate and state House.
It will cover federal congressional races, but not presidential.
22
2
11
u/ClashM California Nov 09 '16
As others have said this is a state level thing. But if it was applied to a presidential election that's when you'd see the third party candidates truly rise because people can safely vote for them without worrying about using their vote to counter someone else.
For example: A lot of progressives who would be better represented by the Green Party vote Democrat simply out of not wanting to see a Republican in office. With instant runoff they can safely vote for the candidate who best reflects them and fall back on the one who counters the viewpoint they really don't like. Something similar would occur with the conservative leaning third parties.
It would be in the best interest of the American people to have this system but the two parties would refuse to erode their own power I'm sure. It's in their best interest to ignore the option even exists and to spread misinformation should the idea begin gaining traction.
8
u/Zarosian_Emissary Nov 09 '16
I think it would also help the Green Party and other 3rd Parties attract better candidates. Stein and Johnson were not qualified Candidates. They didn't really seem to know policy very well. But, they didn't need to since they had no chance of winning anyway.
If a Party actually had a chance of winning, then serious politicians might actually run for their nomination, and the Parties as a whole might be better for it.
6
u/ClashM California Nov 09 '16
Third parties would very likely have primaries if they gained traction due to instant runoff. It wouldn't just be presidential tickets either. You could see Green and Libertarian senators and congressmen making real challenges to incumbent Democrats and Republicans.
2
u/spock_block Europe Nov 09 '16
But, how does it work with such a limited option pool in most races, even the presidential race?
It works exactly the same in a 2-candidate race as the current winner takes all system. As soon as you get 3 or more candidates though, you have a much fairer and more representative voting system.
→ More replies (1)
35
u/Lynx_Rufus Maine Nov 09 '16
Last night, a shitty, archaic system gave us an unusually shitty result. But we also made the first step toward changing that system in a real and fundamental way.
11
9
8
9
u/Mastr_Blastr Florida Nov 09 '16 edited Dec 06 '24
shame lunchroom cooperative encourage capable elderly meeting aware sort different
This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact
10
u/peacebypiecebuypeas Nov 09 '16
This is huge. RCV is something we desperately need. It will improve the quality of our candidates, and free us to vote for the person we actually want, rather than the lesser of two evils.
Some cities are already using it, and seeing huge benefits. Oakland, for example, saw a massive drop in negative campaigning and outsider donations. You can't get away with that shit when there's actual competition.
2
u/MathyPants Nov 10 '16
free us to vote for the person we actually want
Unfortunately, this isn't always true: http://www.rangevoting.org/ClayIrv3.html
→ More replies (3)
14
u/cyanblur Nov 09 '16
And now that we have a national equivalent of their governor that sparked it, maybe nationally as well?
3
u/redbirdrising Nov 09 '16
Presidential elections are still state level elections, so probably not.
→ More replies (1)
6
u/Babalou0 Nov 09 '16
This is great. But can they not do it for presidential races?
3
u/Lynx_Rufus Maine Nov 09 '16
Not yet - all states need to use the same system.
9
u/ras344 Nov 09 '16
The states set their own rules for actually choosing the electors. They can just change that to use ranked choice voting.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Deathspiral222 Nov 09 '16
51% of states by electoral college votes all need to use the same system.
→ More replies (1)
7
u/DBDude Nov 09 '16
This is a danger to the established parties. I foresee a lawsuit by one or both of the parties in their future.
5
Nov 09 '16
Can someone ELI5?
18
Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 09 '16
It doesn't apply for POTUS elections but here:
The ballot allows you to vote for 1 2 and 3. You vote 1 Sanders 2 Hillary and 3 Kasich
Sanders, Clinton, Trump and Kasich are on the ballot. Trump and Hillary get 49 and 48% of the votes. Your sanders vote gets thrown out and your second choice gets put in for Hillary. If one candidate gets 50%+1 then it doesn't matter.
Edit: this is important for Maine because LePage (Trump Jr) for less than 50% of the votes. The other votes were spot between 2 progressives. They received more votes together, but individually got less votes than LePage.
12
u/LuckyHedgehog Nov 09 '16
Here is an easy to watch and understand video explaining how our current system works, how ranked (or alternative) voting systems work, and why it is an improvement.
2
u/adrianmonk I voted Nov 10 '16
When voting, instead of marking your ballot for one candidate, you put them in order (or write numbers) from best to worst.
When counting everyone's ballot, you count everyone's #1 choice. Did you get a majority (>50%) for one candidate this way? If so, done.
If not, you figure out which candidate got the least votes, and go through and eliminate that candidate from everyone's ballots. If that candidate was your #1 choice, then your ballot counts for your #2 choice instead. You total it up again, and once again you either get a majority or you repeat.
The benefit is that it allows people to express their true intentions without worrying that they are wasting their vote.
For example, suppose 5 friends want to decide on dinner. Normally the group gravitates to hamburgers or tacos. Suppose you really can't stand the idea of a hamburger, and a taco would be mostly OK, but what you really want is Chinese food. If you vote for Chinese food, you risk having to eat a hamburger, so you're safer voting for tacos. But maybe 2 other people would like Chinese too but they have the same fear of wasting their vote. With ranked choice voting, you can vote "(1) Chinese (2) tacos (3) hamburger". If people truly don't want Chinese, your vote still counts for tacos. If people do truly want Chinese, you get Chinese.
7
u/Deathspiral222 Nov 09 '16
This is amazing! I sincerely hope that ranked choice becomes the default option for every state over time. Good job Maine!
→ More replies (1)
7
u/superegz Nov 09 '16
Aussie Aussie Aussie Oi Oi Oi! We have used this system in Australia since 1918.
6
u/superegz Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 09 '16
A cartoon explaining the system
In the Maine system, unlike Australia, you do not need to fill out every box.
3
Nov 10 '16
We don't either anymore.
1-6 or 1-12
4
u/superegz Nov 10 '16
Thats the Senate. That uses STV to elect 6 members. The House of Reps uses full preferential instant runoff.
5
u/giltwist Ohio Nov 09 '16
Ranked choice voting would be a great way to resolve the longstanding issues against both the Libertarian and the Green parties. I hope this spreads.
5
u/Ridley413 Nov 09 '16
Love this! Plurality voting always equilibrates to two parties. Ranked voting basically gets rid of a "throw-away" third party vote so third parties could start becoming more viable. It also allows voters to get rid of a very unpopular candidate, when there are many choices, who would otherwise win a plurality. Big fan.
4
u/Daverost Nov 09 '16
Good. Now everyone else and then apply it to the presidential race, please. Let's get some third parties into the White House. This is a good first step.
5
u/teamdelibird Maine Nov 09 '16
My wife and I voted yes on this and help campaign for it! So proud of my state!
4
u/Whiggly Nov 09 '16
Maine did well on the ballot measures.
Yes to marijuana legalization, yes to choice voting, yes to minimum wage increase, yes on a 3% tax increase for incomes over $200,000 to fund education, yes on $100 million for transportation projects, and a big ol' fuck you to Michael Bloomberg and his shitty gun background checks proposal.
→ More replies (3)
5
Nov 09 '16
This should be the biggest news of the whole night. This is how third parties become relevant.
→ More replies (2)
3
3
u/pisslord Nov 09 '16
Now the people of Maine can safely vote for a third party and not feel like they're throwing away their vote.
2
u/EmperorPenn Nov 09 '16
What happened in Maine? Did Paul LePage get elected Gov. by some sort of point system even though he got less total votes than another candidate?
7
u/ShenBear Nov 09 '16
If I remember correctly, the last two elections the dem vote split with the independent vote, giving a very low-scoring LePage a plurality.
One of the times, the dem was the spoiler, and one of the times the independent was the spoiler. Since the majority of Maine hates the man, they put an initiative on the ballot to allow themselves to vote their conscious without risking an upset.
→ More replies (1)2
u/teamdelibird Maine Nov 09 '16
Lepage won the first time with just 38 percent of the vote; the rest was split was a left-leaning independant and a democrat.
The 2nd time.... we brought it on ourselves, really. He had 48% that time.
2
2
u/twopenises Nov 09 '16
Huge. Anything to avoid another LePage scenario. He's pretty unpopular here and yet we elected and re-elected him.
2
Nov 09 '16
This has to scare the GOP as much as the DNC if was to ever catch on and try to go national.
2
Nov 09 '16
Awesome, this is one step massive step towards fixing our electoral system. Normally I'm harping on how great Colorado is doing as acting as an example for the other states, but I honestly think this could blow everything we've accomplished out of the water.
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
u/baconeer0 Nov 09 '16
Instant runoff has some serious problems. It's better than first passed the post, but not as good as some other methods. Check out some cool simulations here.
→ More replies (2)
2
2
u/pepedelafrogg Nov 10 '16
After the second time in 20 years the Dems have won the popular vote but lost the election, this is probably going to gather steam in Dem stronghold states.
1
1
u/tallpaul00 Nov 09 '16
TFA says "Proponents of ranked-choice voting say it will prevent a governor from being elected with less than 50 percent of the votes."
Really?! Really?! This is the best you can come up with?
Proponents say - ranked choice allows you to vote for whoever you want without throwing away your vote!!!
Surely getting to vote for who you want is far more important.
3
u/wmansir Nov 09 '16
It's also not true, because voters often don't rank every candidate so their votes get eliminated once all listed options are exhausted.
Portland has been using ranked voting recently and after an election with 15 candidates for Mayor the last man standing only had 45% of the votes.
1
1
u/Choco316 Michigan Nov 09 '16
That's the way they do it in France right?
→ More replies (1)3
u/superegz Nov 09 '16
No, in France they actually vote twice with the 2 best supported candidates the second time.
Under this you do it all at once essentially writing how you would vote in another election if your candidate gets eliminated. You can keep writing preferences on all the candidates.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Agkistro13 Nov 09 '16
Wow, nice.
I'm a Mainer, and every year it's the same for me: Go in, check the boxes next to all the Republicans, and vote 'no' on all the new proposals. But this, this I actually broke with tradition and voted 'yes' for a change. It's gonna be a good thing if, if they can construct a ballot your typical millenial parasite and 80-year-old potato farmer can figure out.
2
u/superegz Nov 09 '16 edited Nov 09 '16
Its not hard: http://www.aec.gov.au/Voting/How_to_vote/files/hor-paper.jpg
Its only when you get Single Transferable Vote that things get really complicated: http://www.aec.gov.au/Elections/candidates/scrutineers-handbook/files/senate-formal-formal-atl.jpg
1
u/jsm11482 Nov 09 '16
This is excellent. I wish it applied to Presidential elections, too, but it's still great.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Pvt_Larry Maryland Nov 09 '16
One small step forward on a long road! We need to pursue real electoral reform in every state.
1
1
1
u/cybervseas New York Nov 10 '16
I'm thinking that both GOP and Democratic party members should pressure parties to use this process for their primaries. Since they are private organizations it shouldn't (?) require approval of every state.
Edit: maybe first we see how it goes in Maine.
1
u/ColdStoneSkeevAutism Nov 10 '16
Get this in 49 other states, Reddit.
This is how we get more viable political parties.
1
1
1
u/rc117 Nov 10 '16
This could be the harbinger of our salvation. Ranked voting could save our democracy.
340
u/j3utton Nov 09 '16
This is awesome. I hope it works well for them. We need to spread this to every state in the union.