Ranked Choice voting...

quote:

---

If we had ranked choice voting in 1992, we very well may have never had a President Clinton...

---

We wouldn't have had him if HW Bush had just actually adhered to what he ran on and the groundwork established by his predecessor.

Ranked choice makes it easy not to have to hold people like HW's feet to the fire. It is nothing but a gift to the spineless wishy-washy types in Washington.

Look at Alaska

In all of these threads, nobody on this board seems to be able to articulate what's wrong with Ranked Choice Voting other than their preferred candidates have lost in some Ranked Choice Voting election.

Only remotely reasonable argument I've heard is that if someone cheats the election, it's more data and a more complicated process, so it could be easier to obfuscate the cheating.

IMO it would create a situation much more representative to the will of the people. First Past the Post elections aren't. Obviously, this depends on the election being legitimately run.

quote:

---

I disagree. It gives a legitimate third party candidate a chance. Right now, the spineless, wishy-washy types pull the lever for a D or an R because they are afraid to waste their vote and will vote for the lesser of two evils. They aren't wrong.

Ranked choice is good for MAGA, Tea Party, and Bernie Bro candidates.

---

I don't know. It seems to me, it weighs real heavily in favor of candidates for whom lazy casual voters simply 'recognize the name' - hence the Murkowski clan's pushing for it in Alaska.

It's just another way to steal elections

The more complicated a system is makes it more easily manipulated.

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.

quote:

---

This board hates ranked choice voting because it's a system that

---

allows skullduggery.

quote:

---

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'

---

This is dumb.

Also, RCV shouldn't require party voting and should rely on some form of the jungle primary, with a set #/% of the top of that jungle primary moving on to the final round.