|
|
Post by monklady123 on Jun 13, 2024 22:08:00 GMT
If so, can you explain it to me like I'm three years old? To my mind it looks like some people get to vote twice and others not at all. If someone's first choice is not chosen then their second choice vote counts? or something. Why should they be allowed to basically vote again when their first choice person didn't win? Honestly, I know I'm not stupid but I can't wrap my brain around this. We've never used it here until our last county board election, when suddenly it was implemented. The candidate who would have been a THORN in the side of the current members, in a good way because some of the current members are ridiculous, didn't get elected despite having a large percent of the vote. But apparently not enough to win. Then after that election they went back to regular voting for subsequent elections. Now here we are again, voting for county board members, and the thorn-in-the-side woman is running again. And boom, ranked choice voting is back.  I rarely ever buy into conspiracy theories but this time I'm with the many people who think it was done just to keep this woman off the board. Anyway, yes I've googled and my eyes glaze over when I read some of the stuff that's out there.  |
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Jun 13, 2024 22:26:26 GMT
I do.. it is basically a way for your second choice to count.. so it should be a clearer way to have the people speak.. we have had it for 5-8 yrs.. sometmes, candidates coordinate with vote for me first, but vote for x for second. but if no none is popular, some minor candidate can win..
I would google it.. better than me trying to explain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Jun 13, 2024 22:41:10 GMT
I do and I wish we had it. It's an opportunity for more diversity of candidates and gives people a bit more choice.
If there are 4 people running and you get to vote your 1st and 2nd choice
so candidates A B C D
You really prefer candidate B so you vote for B for 1st choice but if you can't have B, C seems better than the other candidates. So you vote C for your second choice.
how those votes are counted depends on how the ranked choice is set up.
|
|
|
|
Post by pepperwood on Jun 14, 2024 0:30:27 GMT
It is a misconception to say only some people get to vote twice. Think of it as two rounds of voting. If no candidate gets a majority (ie more than 50%) then the lowest ranking candidate(s) are eliminated. If a voter's first choice is eliminated, their second choice is counted in the second round. If someone's first choice was not eliminated, their vote for their first choice is counted again. In this way, everyone's vote is counted in each round.
Many scholars feel that this is a more balanced way to hold an election. If ranked choice voting was used in the 2016 primaries with so many Republican candidates splitting up the votes, it is likely that that a candidate with a low percentage of the votes (like Trump for example) would have won.
|
|
|
|
Post by ToniW on Jun 14, 2024 0:42:41 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Jun 14, 2024 11:24:58 GMT
It is a misconception to say only some people get to vote twice. Think of it as two rounds of voting. If no candidate gets a majority (ie more than 50%) then the lowest ranking candidate(s) are eliminated. If a voter's first choice is eliminated, their second choice is counted in the second round. If someone's first choice was not eliminated, their vote for their first choice is counted again. In this way, everyone's vote is counted in each round. Many scholars feel that this is a more balanced way to hold an election. If ranked choice voting was used in the 2016 primaries with so many Republican candidates splitting up the votes, it is likely that that a candidate with a low percentage of the votes (like Trump for example) would have won. Did you mean to say that Trump "wouldn't" have won? It seems to me though that with ranked choice voting a lesser candidate might eventually win. Rather than the person who got the most first choice votes...? Is there any advantage to just writing down one name? I want my person to win, and I don't like any of the other candidates. So why would I write their name down? I'd rather not have any of them on our county board. If my gal loses then she loses, and I'll put up with whoever gets in, as we always do with democratically elected officials (well, unless you're an insurrectionist Republican rock dweller of course...). |
|
|
|
Post by littlemama on Jun 14, 2024 14:09:39 GMT
It is a misconception to say only some people get to vote twice. Think of it as two rounds of voting. If no candidate gets a majority (ie more than 50%) then the lowest ranking candidate(s) are eliminated. If a voter's first choice is eliminated, their second choice is counted in the second round. If someone's first choice was not eliminated, their vote for their first choice is counted again. In this way, everyone's vote is counted in each round. Many scholars feel that this is a more balanced way to hold an election. If ranked choice voting was used in the 2016 primaries with so many Republican candidates splitting up the votes, it is likely that that a candidate with a low percentage of the votes (like Trump for example) would have won. Did you mean to say that Trump "wouldn't" have won? It seems to me though that with ranked choice voting a lesser candidate might eventually win. Rather than the person who got the most first choice votes...? Is there any advantage to just writing down one name? I want my person to win, and I don't like any of the other candidates. So why would I write their name down? I'd rather not have any of them on our county board. If my gal loses then she loses, and I'll put up with whoever gets in, as we always do with democratically elected officials (well, unless you're an insurrectionist Republican rock dweller of course...). My thought is that I have the person who I would like to win. If that person does not win, I would like a say in who does end up winning. Often, particularly in primaries, I would be happy with multiple candidates and I would like my vote to reflect that. Of course, I would also like to go to a one person-one direct vote for President and do away with the Electoral College. |
|
mich5481
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,645 
|
Post by mich5481 on Jun 14, 2024 14:51:06 GMT
Alright so here is an extremely simplified example:
2016 Republican Primary, let's narrow it down to 3 Republican candidates:
Jeb Bush
Marco Rubio
Donald Trump
In the initial round of voting, here are the results:
Jeb - 26%
Marco - 36%
Donald - 38%
No one has received 50% +1 vote to "win" the primary.
JEB is removed from the ballot, so the 26% of the voters who selected him as their top pick now have their second choice picks tallied.
More people who selected Jeb as their primary choice went with Rubio as their secondary choice, so the results look like this:
Marco - 36% (his share of #1 picks) + 20% (Jeb's voters who selected Rubio as their 2nd choice) = 56% of the voters
Donald - 38% (his share of #1 picks) + 6% (Jeb's voters who selected Trump as their 2nd choice) = 44% of the voters
In this very simplified scenario, Trump would have lost the primary, which makes sense since people who picked an establishment type choice would have preferred another establishment choice over Trump.
Hope that helps!
It gets more complicated the more people there are on the ballot, which is why I only went with 3 candidates for this example. :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by mrsp on Jun 14, 2024 16:41:35 GMT
Thank you for posting this video! I was pretty close in my understanding but not precisely correct. That video was short, sweet and clear as a bell 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by Merge on Jun 14, 2024 16:54:22 GMT
Also not about politics, just our system of voting. God I am so sick of people labeling anything they don't want to think about like we're lepers.
|
|
|
|
Post by monklady123 on Jun 15, 2024 10:35:07 GMT
Thanks for the video.  And thanks everyone for trying to explain it. lol. I do understand *how* it works, it's just the math part that eludes me. We can end up with someone winning who did not get the largest percent of 1st place votes...? That makes no sense to me. So is it a problem to vote for just one person? I want my gal to win, I don't like any of the others, and if she doesn't win I'll think to myself "oh well, I tried" and I'll go on with my life. And I still think that the way they brought back ranked choice voting, after trying it the last time she ran and then ditching it for the next local election (that did not involve this woman), was done just to try to keep her off the board.  |
|
