re: Ranked Choice voting...

quote:

---

Only if your #1 was the lowest vote-getter in the first round. How is that different than your candidate not being in the top two for a traditional runoff?

---

Because even if you vote for a loser in the current system, your vote still counts.

quote:

---

Again, only if your candidate is eliminated.

---

You don't see a problem with having your vote simply not count? Having your ballot discarded entirely?

quote:

---

If your candidate was eliminated, the only reason you don’t get a runoff vote is because you chose not to vote in the runoff. That is not any different than a traditional runoff election.

---

A key difference is that your ballot doesn't get thrown out in the first election just because it goes to a runoff. Your vote counted for the candidate you wanted to win. If you vote in RCV for only one candidate, it's possible that your vote doesn't count at all in any way, shape, or form, since your ballot could be thrown out entirely.

quote:

---

That bolden scenario just makes you a total dumbass. Besides, how is that any different from a regular runoff?

---

Your ballot counts in the first election, and you can choose to participate in a runoff. In the RCV paradigm, it's possible that your attempt at voting literally doesn't count.

quote:

---

If I supported the Libertarian loser in this years GA senate election, my candidate wasn’t in the runoff. Do I get to whine that it’s un-Democratic that I was forced to choose between Warnock and Walker?

---

Of course not, but your vote for the Libertarian loser wouldn't be discarded, either. In this system, votes cast may literally not be counted in the election.

quote:

---

Your criticism of RCV comes down to “voters are too stupid to actually inform themselves and think"

---

Not at all. I think my biggest grievance is how it can disenfranchise voters who want their votes to count, even if it's not for the candidate(s) with the widest support.

In terms of lazy voters: that is already the case for most of the electorate, but with RCV, more is expected from voters who already show themselves unwilling to learn about candidates or issues. Like I said: this is worse than what we have now.

quote:

---

Huh? Say I voted for the Libertarian in Georgia’s senate race. How does my vote count in the runoff election?

---

It doesn't, but you're missing my point here. When there are two different elections, you can choose to participate in both, one, or neither. If you choose to participate in one but not the other, your vote counts in the one you participated in.

When you vote for only one candidate in the RCV paradigm, it's possible that your vote doesn't count at all, as your ballot can possibly be thrown out for the single election you voted in.

quote:

---

See my comment above. Nothing is discarded, at all. The second round of an RCV election is the same thing as a traditional runoff election. If you chose not to list a second choice and your first choice is eliminated, it is no different than choosing not to show up for a traditional runoff.

---

Nothing is discarded? Your ballot is discarded if you don't have candidates ranked in the final tabulation. Your ballot is thrown out and not counted even though you voted because your votes were only for candidates who were eliminated. The winner of the election is therefore decided without you, even if you voted.

And like I've said repeatedly, it is different than a traditional run off because your vote counted in the first election even if you chose not to vote in the runoff, whereas in RCV, your first vote ultimately doesn't even count towards the winner if you've exhausted your ballot.

quote:

---

Yes it does. They unequivocally do not take your first ballot from the initial election and apply it to the runoff. It is quite literally thrown away.

---

I don't think you're understanding what I'm saying here.

When you vote in a traditional election, your vote is tabulated and applied towards a singular candidate. It counts in the results of that election. If there is a runoff due to numbers, that is a separate election that can be participated in or not by the voter who voted the first time. In RCV, the one election that is held may result in your ballot being discarded for the outcome of that one election. In that one election, your ballot (and vote) ultimately may not count at all. There is a difference.

quote:

---

Which would be entirely your choice, as you didn’t list second, third, fourth choices.

---

That's disenfranchisement when your ballot doesn't count towards the result of the election.

quote:

---

This makes no sense. In both instances, you have a clear choice on whether to participate in the runoff.

---

You keep focusing on the "runoff" without acknowledging the that general election (the first vote) doesn't ultimately happen for some people with RCV, even though they voted. That's voter disenfranchisement.

When you vote in an election and your ballot is discarded and doesn't count towards the winner in a single election, that's disenfranchisement. You vote, but it doesn't count.

quote:

---

Yes it would. Absolutely it would. My vote for the loser is not entered into the runoff election in any form whatsoever. It’s literally thrown away.

---

Read above. You aren't understanding what I'm saying.

quote:

---

No ballot that is fully filled out, I.e, listing all available alternate choices, is ever thrown out in an RCV election

---

And yes ballots that have a candidate selected may not be counted. That's disenfranchisement.

quote:

---

Let’s say you supported the libertarian loser in the Georgia election. How would your initial, first general election vote “count” in the runoff election?

---

It wouldn't count in the runoff because they are two separate elections with separate ballots. In RCV, there is one election with one ballot, and people who participate in that election and select a candidate that they want may not even have their ballots counted because of the way the ballots are tallied. If I vote for someone in an election, I want my vote to count even if my candidate doesn't win. I don't want my ballot to be discarded when counting votes for the winner.

I may have a legitimate reason not to rank every choice, too. I might have religious convictions for not voting for a particular candidate, and if that candidate makes it to the last tabulation while my other choices don't, my ballot simply doesn't count towards the winner of that election.

quote:

---

Yea, lowering the competency bar is the right way to go. That’s worked out great over the past few decades. God forbid we expect people to think.

---

I didn't say anything about wanting to lower the bar. I'm saying that RCV attempts to raise the bar without doing anything to make sure people can actually get over it, and that it will actually make things worse because people aren't going to make it over that bar. Yes, RCV is more complicated. It results in screwed up ballots in significant numbers. It results in ballot exhaustion in significant numbers. It results in weak candidates getting elected because voters are ignorant.

I'm not saying the current system is perfect (it's not), but I think RCV will make things worse, especially in how it disenfranchises voters who actually do cast votes for candidates rather than refusing to vote at all.

quote:

---

That is also completely true in RCV.

---

It's not. RCV provides one election, not two. It's possible for you to participate in the election and still not have your vote count. That's disenfranchisement.

quote:

---

So we’re back to “people can’t be expected to not be stupid”? Yes, you have to not be stupid and make your selections at one time instead of a pointless elections several weeks later.

---

It's not about stupidity. It's about having your vote count in the results of the election. There are multiple reasons why only a single choice may be made that have nothing to do with intelligence.

quote:

---

In the exact same way your vote is discarded when you don’t vote in the runoff. There is no difference.

---

I don't understand how you aren't getting this.

In the standard model, if you vote in an election, your ballot is counted. In the RCV model, it's possible for your ballot in an election to not actually be counted.

quote:

---

This is just you not knowing the rules. The first round records are kept and recorded same as the general election in a traditional format.

---

One election, one vote towards the winner. That's how it works in traditional majority-vote elections. In RCV, your one vote may not actually be counted towards the winner, as your ballot may be thrown away before the election you voted in is over.

quote:

---

Exactly the same in RCV.

---

It's not. The one election is ongoing until a winner is decided, and the vote you cast in that one election may not even be counted in the results of that one election you voted in.

quote:

---

Exactly the same in RCV.

---

No, it doesn't. The results of the election are determined with the final tabulation. If your ballot isn't included in the final tabulation, your vote didn't count towards the winner. If the rules were changed so that the governor of the state could pick his favorite two candidates in an election and only votes for those two candidates would count, then everyone who voted for a different candidate who had their ballots thrown away and not counted towards the final tally would be disenfranchised. RCV is just another way of doing the same thing. At the end of the (election) day, there are people who participate in an election and who voted for a candidate who will not have their ballots counted in the final tally for who wins that election.

quote:

---

Exactly the same as RCV.

---

No, it's not. RCV applies to a singular election. It follows a more complicated process to get to the end result of that one election, but it's still only one election, not two. A true runoff is a separate election with separate ballots that people can choose to participate in.

quote:

---

Pure semantics. You’re choosing to call it “one election” because you’re doing RCV runoffs all at one time instead of showing back up.

Like I said previously, your true criticism is that voters are too stupid to properly think and fill out a RCV ballot.

---

It's not semantics at all. The end result is that there is one election that a person can vote in and yet not have their vote counted.

quote:

---

This is NO DIFFERENT than choosing not to vote in a traditional runoff.

---

It is different, because a person has chosen to vote in an RCV election and still their vote may be thrown away.

quote:

---

No it isn’t. You chose not to vote. Zero difference in choosing not to participate in a traditional runoff.

---

False. In this scenario, a person has chosen to vote, and their ballot is thrown away and not counted towards the winner in the final tally in the one election that the voter chose to vote in.

quote:

---

No it isn’t. They chose not to participate in the runoff rounds. By choice, freely.

---

Again, I'm not talking about the runoff. You are conflating the first election with the second (runoff), when ultimately, in this scenario, only the runoff "counts", because that is ultimately where the votes are applied in this one election.

quote:

---

Here comes the “single election” semantics bull shite again You very clearly just don’t know or understand the rules of how RCV operates in practice.

---

It's not semantics. I know exactly how the rules work in RCV. At the end of the day, you have real voters whose votes are not counted in the final tabulation of the election. That's disenfranchisement.

quote:

---

No, i understand. Your point is just pedantic and intellectually dishonest. If a traditional runoff is a “separate election”, so is an instant runoff. The only difference is when you select your candidate for that separate election.

---

That's not true at all. There are several differences in an "instant runoff" compared to a traditional runoff which I've already mentioned. But the primary issue that you don't seem to care about is that you have a single election where a voter casts a vote that ultimately isn't counted.

quote:

---

Whoo! More semantics.

Pretending to care about whether a general election and a runoff are “separate” elections vs an RCV/instant runoff being “separate elections” is peak stupidity.

---

Who is pretending? I actually didn't vote for a Republican candidate in my state because of their views on certain issues. In a RCV election, it's possible that my ballot would not have counted at all towards the winner of that race. I voted, but it wouldn't have counted. That's disenfranchisement.

quote:

---

Just say it, you prefer lower turnout traditional runoffs That, or you think the average person is too fricking stupid to figure out what “rank your choices” means.

---

You have shown a complete ignorance of this issue in this discussion, which is surprising since you seem to be one of the biggest proponents of this form of voting. Instead of addressing the issue, you keep saying "semantics" and then accusing me of something I'm not doing.

The bottom line is that RCV allows for an election to take place where the votes that are tabulated to determine the winner do not include ballots of voters who made the effort to vote in that election. That's disenfranchisement.

quote:

---

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.

---

Did their first choice candidate "get" their vote? No.

We would have had Ross Perot. LMAO bigger joke

I am all for ranked choice voting

quote:

---

Unless you choose not to rank all four candidates, there is no scenario by which your vote will not be counted in every round of the election. Tell me what am I missing here. Because as I see it, the only way your vote is not counted is if you choose not to fill out your ballot. That’s on the voter for choosing not to participate.

---

Bingo

quote:

---

Why couldn’t/shouldn’t states implement a system similar to the electoral college within their state to similarly level the playing field across the state instead of densely populated cities deciding elections for the whole state.

---

The Electoral College works because it's still population-based (using a state's number of House reps) with a Senate "control" not based on population. States don't have that same luxury because their state senates are also population-based just like their state houses (sans Nebraska, which is unicameral).

quote:

---

Why couldn’t/shouldn’t states implement a system similar to the electoral college within their state to similarly level the playing field across the state instead of densely populated cities deciding elections for the whole state.

---

a. This is actual disenfranchisement (you're making the votes in the urban areas worth less for partisan reasons)

b. The courts have ruled this is illegal (for the reasons stated above).

The reasoning for the EC is that the states themselves are also sovereign entities that need to be represented (though the 17th amendment ruined that) in the federal government. That is not the case with state subdivisions. Counties are just administrative lines drawn on a map.