Maine Becomes First State To Try Ranked-Choice Voting for President

[ThatRobGuy]

Maine Becomes First State To Try Ranked-Choice Voting for President

This should be fairly interesting I think...

At the very least, it may give a glimpse into where many actually stand when they can vote their conscience instead being afraid of "wasting their vote" or being a "spoiler".

On Monday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld the use of ranked-choice voting for its presidential and congressional races, resisting efforts by the state's Republican Party to force a stop to its use.

In ranked-choice voting, citizens aren't asked to just choose a single candidate. They are permitted to rank the candidates from most to least favorite. In order to win a ranked-choice vote, a candidate is required to earn a majority of the votes (more than 50 percent), not just a plurality. In the event no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is tossed out of the running. Then the votes are tallied again, but for voters whose favorite was just tossed out, their second choice now counts as their vote. This continues until one candidate has earned at least 50 percent of the votes.

Meaning, if someone actually likes the green party more than democrats, they can actually vote that way, and as long as they ranked democrats as their #2 choice, if/when the green party is mathematically eliminated, those votes will roll over to the democratic party.

Same goes for the the libertarian/republican situation.

Or anyone simply running as "independent"...

The fact that the major opposition to this in the state was from republican party was rather telling. To me, that signals that they know their policy platform (at the national level) doesn't represent their party in that particular region all that well. Which isn't surprising given that it's quite common for Northeastern states to elect republican governors, but then go blue when its time for federal level elections.

 

[Hazelelponi]

That's not an election...

In an election you choose who you want to represent you.... not who your vote should roll over to should who you want not get a majority..

That's some left wing B. right there...

I'm shocked any court would uphold that type of a system in America... a game called fun with changing people's votes isn't an election.

I don't want my vote going to a second choice I dont actually agree with or want to represent my interests. If who I vote for doesn't win, I don't want my vote going to anyone. Period.

 

[Speedwell]

That's not an election...

In an election you choose who you want to represent you.... not who your vote should roll over to should who you want not get a majority..

That's some left wing B. right there...

I'm shocked any court would uphold that type of a system in America... a game called fun with changing people's votes isn't an election.

I don't want my vote going to a second choice I dont actually agree with or want to represent my interests. If who I vote for doesn't win, I don't want my vote going to anyone. Period.

In that case you only mark one name--your preferred candidate--and leave the others blank.

 

[Goonie]

That's not an election...

In an election you choose who you want to represent you.... not who your vote should roll over to should who you want not get a majority..

That's some left wing B. right there...

I'm shocked any court would uphold that type of a system in America... a game called fun with changing people's votes isn't an election.

I don't want my vote going to a second choice I dont actually agree with or want to represent my interests. If who I vote for doesn't win, I don't want my vote going to anyone. Period.

Then you don't put another choice on the ballot. I could be wrong but I believe that is an option..

 

[Paulos23]

That's not an election...

In an election you choose who you want to represent you.... not who your vote should roll over to should who you want not get a majority..

That's some left wing B. right there...

I'm shocked any court would uphold that type of a system in America... a game called fun with changing people's votes isn't an election.

I don't want my vote going to a second choice I dont actually agree with or want to represent my interests. If who I vote for doesn't win, I don't want my vote going to anyone. Period.

It gets a better feel of what people want, and lets them have their protest vote.

I would love for it to be in my state and get rid of primaries.

And you don't have to vote for a second choice if you don't want to or if none of the other ones agree with you.

 

[Goonie]

That's not an election...

In an election you choose who you want to represent you.... not who your vote should roll over to should who you want not get a majority..

That's some left wing B. right there...

I'm shocked any court would uphold that type of a system in America... a game called fun with changing people's votes isn't an election.

I don't want my vote going to a second choice I dont actually agree with or want to represent my interests. If who I vote for doesn't win, I don't want my vote going to anyone. Period.

Left wing? It has no wings. As the OP points out it allows those of a libertarian outlook to vote libertarian, with a republican second choice, but not see their vote go waste. The same is true for the 'left' wing of the republican party, the nevertrumpers, Trump could gain votes.

 

[Albion]

Maine Becomes First State To Try Ranked-Choice Voting for President

This should be fairly interesting I think...

At the very least, it may give a glimpse into where many actually stand when they can vote their conscience instead being afraid of "wasting their vote" or being a "spoiler".

On Monday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld the use of ranked-choice voting for its presidential and congressional races, resisting efforts by the state's Republican Party to force a stop to its use.

In ranked-choice voting, citizens aren't asked to just choose a single candidate. They are permitted to rank the candidates from most to least favorite. In order to win a ranked-choice vote, a candidate is required to earn a majority of the votes (more than 50 percent), not just a plurality. In the event no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is tossed out of the running. Then the votes are tallied again, but for voters whose favorite was just tossed out, their second choice now counts as their vote. This continues until one candidate has earned at least 50 percent of the votes.

Meaning, if someone actually likes the green party more than democrats, they can actually vote that way, and as long as they ranked democrats as their #2 choice, if/when the green party is mathematically eliminated, those votes will roll over to the democratic party.

Same goes for the the libertarian/republican situation.

Or anyone simply running as "independent"...

The fact that the major opposition to this in the state was from republican party was rather telling. To me, that signals that they know their policy platform (at the national level) doesn't represent their party in that particular region all that well. Which isn't surprising given that it's quite common for Northeastern states to elect republican governors, but then go blue when its time for federal level elections.

As I get it, the primary beneficiary of this system of voting will be the third parties, the minor political parties like the Greens and Libertarians.

But the overall consequence--as Maine learned when the ranked system of voting was used for elections other than for president--is likely to be that the candidate who is the least disliked will come out on top. It's a question whether that is really better than a system in which the greatest number of voters elect the candidate they think is the best one.

 

[Hazelelponi]

It gets a better feel of what people want, and lets them have their protest vote.

I would love for it to be in my state and get rid of primaries.

And you don't have to vote for a second choice if you don't want to or if none of the other ones agree with you.

Whose watching the watchers...

whose making certain they aren't changing votes however they feel lke it to get the results they desire...

I don't trust vote changing, period. It's just an inroad to fraud.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket I swear... no integrity anymore.

 

[Goonie]

Whose watching the watchers...

whose making certain they aren't changing votes however they feel lke it to get the results they desire...

I don't trust vote changing, period. It's just an inroad to fraud.

The same can be said for how you vote now, this is not really any different. You might be voting Trump, but how do you know your votes not been changed to Biden?

 

[Albion]

The fact that the major opposition to this in the state was from republican party was rather telling. To me, that signals that they know their policy platform (at the national level) doesn't represent their party in that particular region all that well.

That's a rather presumptuous way to look at it. As I recall, an incumbent Republican congressman was unseated in the last election in Maine when this system was used, even though he received more first-place votes than any other candidate!

A system that allows the voters to vote against a candidate by putting him last in the line-up (as the opponents of the incumbent apparently did) in addition to casting a vote for the one they prefer above all others--as is what happens in the conventional system of voting--is open to criticism, no matter which party it's coming from.

 

[Speedwell]

But the overall consequence--as Maine learned when the ranked system of voting was used for elections other than for president--is likely to be that the candidate who is the least disliked will come out on top.

LOL! Sounds just like the 2016 Presidential election.

 

[Goonie]

That's a rather presumptuous way to look at it. As I recall, an incumbent Republican congressman was unseated in the last election in Maine when this system was used, even though he received more first-place votes than any other candidate!

So what your saying is that a majority of people did not vote for him.

 

[Albion]

LOL! Sounds just like the 2016 Presidential election.

I know that's a lighthearted comment, but in that case the voters simply chose the candidate they liked least. It's either-or.

Ranked voting encourages the voter to choose their fave and also to hurt the chances of the one they hate the most by voting him or her last behind the minor parties.

This is to build a questionable gimmick into the voting system, since hardly anyone would think that the disliked candidate of the other major party was actually less qualified than some unknown who simply agreed to allow his name to be listed on the ballot by a minor party so that it could have a full slate.

 

[Speedwell]

I know that's a lighthearted comment, but in that case the voters simply chose the candidate they liked least. It's either-or.
Ranked voting encourages the voter to choose their fave and also to hurt the chances of the one they hate the most by voting him or her last behind the minor parties.

Or even better by not voting for that candidate at all, which is how it works now.

 

[super animator]

Maine Becomes First State To Try Ranked-Choice Voting for President

This should be fairly interesting I think...

At the very least, it may give a glimpse into where many actually stand when they can vote their conscience instead being afraid of "wasting their vote" or being a "spoiler".

On Monday, the state's Supreme Judicial Court upheld the use of ranked-choice voting for its presidential and congressional races, resisting efforts by the state's Republican Party to force a stop to its use.

In ranked-choice voting, citizens aren't asked to just choose a single candidate. They are permitted to rank the candidates from most to least favorite. In order to win a ranked-choice vote, a candidate is required to earn a majority of the votes (more than 50 percent), not just a plurality. In the event no candidate gets a majority of the votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is tossed out of the running. Then the votes are tallied again, but for voters whose favorite was just tossed out, their second choice now counts as their vote. This continues until one candidate has earned at least 50 percent of the votes.

Meaning, if someone actually likes the green party more than democrats, they can actually vote that way, and as long as they ranked democrats as their #2 choice, if/when the green party is mathematically eliminated, those votes will roll over to the democratic party.

Same goes for the the libertarian/republican situation.

Or anyone simply running as "independent"...

The fact that the major opposition to this in the state was from republican party was rather telling. To me, that signals that they know their policy platform (at the national level) doesn't represent their party in that particular region all that well. Which isn't surprising given that it's quite common for Northeastern states to elect republican governors, but then go blue when its time for federal level elections.

This is important as it give 3rd party a chance to have a real go at it.

 

[durangodawood]

Good for Maine!

Nothing left/right wing about it. I know plenty of R voters who'd love to vote Libertarian but dont because in the current system that advances the Ds.

 

[Pommer]

That's not an election...

In an election you choose who you want to represent you.... not who your vote should roll over to should who you want not get a majority..

That's some left wing B. right there...

I'm shocked any court would uphold that type of a system in America... a game called fun with changing people's votes isn't an election.

I don't want my vote going to a second choice I dont actually agree with or want to represent my interests. If who I vote for doesn't win, I don't want my vote going to anyone. Period.

Left wing? It has no wings. As the OP points out it allows those of a libertarian outlook to vote libertarian, with a republican second choice, but not see their vote go waste. The same is true for the 'left' wing of the republican party, the nevertrumpers, Trump could gain votes.

This “objection” is more akin to “political inertia” than actual “conservatism”, aye.

 

[Paulos23]

Whose watching the watchers...

whose making certain they aren't changing votes however they feel lke it to get the results they desire...

I don't trust vote changing, period. It's just an inroad to fraud.

This country is going to hell in a handbasket I swear... no integrity anymore.

How do you know your vote is being counted now? Can you see it counted on line?

 

[JSRG]

That's not an election...

In an election you choose who you want to represent you.... not who your vote should roll over to should who you want not get a majority..

The current system of voting actually incentivizes you to not vote for who you most want to represent you due to the dangers of vote splitting. This is removed entirely through ranked choice voting.

I'm shocked any court would uphold that type of a system in America... a game called fun with changing people's votes isn't an election.

Why wouldn't a court uphold it? Exactly what part of the constitution does it violate?

And don't tell me it violates "one person, one vote." The whole "one person, one vote" was a ruling by the Supreme Court that representative districts within a state need to have about the same population as the other districts in the state. It has no application to Ranked Choice Voting.

I don't want my vote going to a second choice I dont actually agree with or want to represent my interests. If who I vote for doesn't win, I don't want my vote going to anyone. Period.

Then just vote for one person. You aren't required to rank them; that's simply an option.

 

[JSRG]

As I get it, the primary beneficiary of this system of voting will be the third parties, the minor political parties like the Greens and Libertarians.

Possibly, but possibly not. Australia has Ranked Choice Voting and it, like the United States, is a strong two-party system (though not quite as severe as that of the US). However, even if third parties don't benefit, RCV has one major advantage: It removes worries of spoiler candidates or vote splitting.

But the overall consequence--as Maine learned when the ranked system of voting was used for elections other than for president--is likely to be that the candidate who is the least disliked will come out on top. It's a question whether that is really better than a system in which the greatest number of voters elect the candidate they think is the best one.

The problem is, we don't have a system in which "the greatest number of voters elect the candidate they think is the best one." In our voting system, people frequently vote not for who they think is the best candidate, but who they think is best of the major two candidates. That's what plurality voting, or first past the post, encourages, to not vote for who you think is best, but who you think is best of the two candidates that are most likely to win.