Ranked Choice voting...

It really is the only way to break the uniparty but the "left" and the "right" don't like it because it might actually bring some change.

Look at Alaska

quote:

---

Ranked Choice voting...
What is the problem with this?

---

Easy answer is

If the left is in favor of it then it's terrible for the country. Whatever they are saying about it it will do exactly the opposite.

It dilutes votes.

In principle I like it.

HOWEVER - I could not support it unless there were provisions made to prevent "gaming" the system.

For instance - IF you run in the GOP primary and lose - then you SHALL NOT run as something else in the General Election.

Also - you must have declared your 'party' preference and been actively involved in that party's activities for some significant time PRIOR to filing to run as 'that party'

I can think of several other scenarios too difficult to put into a few words.

Bottom Line:
= IF we had honorable participants, no rules would be necessary.
= if we do NOT have honorable participants, we should be careful with 'new' procedures.

Some voters votes are counted more than once. If their fist choice candidate is not in the top two then their second or third place candidate gets their vote.

I think RCV is actually worse than what we have now.

As uninformed as voters are today, imagine having to rank candidates that you wouldn't normally care about. Not only does an informed voter consider his or her own preferred candidate and potentially that of their opponent, but now they have to look into the views and positions of all others on the ballot in order to make an informed choice. Good luck getting informed votes from that when so many are too lazy to even look into anything beyond the R or D next to someone's name.

And what happens if you decide to only rank one or two candidates? Well in the end, your ballot can be completely thrown out if who you voted for didn't make the cut for the final count. You can have ballot exhaustion (where people don't vote for every possible candidate), and that could result in the winner not even having a majority support of the voters. What RCV can do is result in winners of elections that don't actually have any real support.

No thanks.

I see what you did there. Clinton was not ever popular and needed 3rd party candidates so you use him as the example.

I am all for ranked choice voting

If states allocated their electoral votes based on Congressional districts (as opposed to winner-take-all for 48/50 states) we could never have another Democrat president.