Oh, just cheese and crackers, America! Palin loses.

[Binger]

Yes. You said this. "My first pick is A, but if I can’t have A, my second pick is B."
That is not the same as "My first pick is A, but if A comes in last place, I have another vote for B, and if B comes in last place after A is eliminated, my other vote is C."

If you like that, great. I think it is an absolute comical joke. Hell no no no no no. That is some nonsense. Have fun Alaska. I will watch this, with popcorn.

There fact that you can’t explain any substantive difference between the two is a pretty good indication that you don’t understand. Without ranked choice voting, there would be a runoff after dropping the lowest candidate or candidates. Ranked choice does the same thing without taxpayers having to pay for another election. With the added benefit that the voter doesn’t have to worry about “wasting” her vote on a third-party candidate.

No. The fact that you can't understand the difference between what you think happens and what CNN described as happening says a lot about your ability to do math or understand the algorithm.

The rest of your comment is just a sidetrack or distraction.

[Res Ipsa]

There fact that you can’t explain any substantive difference between the two is a pretty good indication that you don’t understand. Without ranked choice voting, there would be a runoff after dropping the lowest candidate or candidates. Ranked choice does the same thing without taxpayers having to pay for another election. With the added benefit that the voter doesn’t have to worry about “wasting” her vote on a third-party candidate.

No. The fact that you can't understand the difference between what you think happens and what CNN described as happening says a lot about your ability to do math or understand the algorithm.

The rest of your comment is just a sidetrack or distraction.

You’re simply conflating the effect of what is done with a description of the mechanics used to get to the effect. The detailed mechanics described by CNN result in exactly the effect that I described. If there were a substantive difference, as you claim, you’d be able to explain the difference. All you keep doing is repeating words and saying that the words are different. That doesn’t mean that there is a substantive difference.

Not only that, the fact that you completely ignore the fact that the dropping the lowest candidate or candidates is exactly what happens in a “normal” is another sign that you don’t understand what you are talking about.

You flung a bunch of BS, got called on it, and can’t back it up. It happens.

[Binger]

No. The fact that you can't understand the difference between what you think happens and what CNN described as happening says a lot about your ability to do math or understand the algorithm.

The rest of your comment is just a sidetrack or distraction.

You’re simply conflating the effect of what is done with a description of the mechanics used to get to the effect. The detailed mechanics described by CNN result in exactly the effect that I described. If there were a substantive difference, as you claim, you’d be able to explain the difference. All you keep doing is repeating words and saying that the words are different. That doesn’t mean that there is a substantive difference.

Not only that, the fact that you completely ignore the fact that the dropping the lowest candidate or candidates is exactly what happens in a “normal” is another sign that you don’t understand what you are talking about.

You flung a bunch of BS, got called on it, and can’t back it up. It happens.

I did not fling BS. I have not been called on it.

I backed up the difference.

You completely ignore the net effect of the actual algorithm compared to what you said was the algorithm.

[canpakes]

Can you explain how the CNN article you quoted differs from what I said? Can you construct an example that shows the difference?

Yes. You said this. "My first pick is A, but if I can’t have A, my second pick is B."
That is not the same as "My first pick is A, but if A comes in last place, I have another vote for B, and if B comes in last place after A is eliminated, my other vote is C."

If you like that, great. I think it is an absolute comical joke. Hell no no no no no. That is some nonsense. Have fun Alaska. I will watch this, with popcorn.

Put another way:

"My first pick is Chocolate , but if I can’t have Chocolate, my second pick is Vanilla."
That is not the same as "My first pick is Chocolate, but if Chocolate comes in last place, I have another vote for Vanilla, and if Vanilla comes in last place after Chocolate is eliminated, my next vote is Strawberry."

Besides a next step, tell us the difference that makes the second part comically different than the first part.

You completely ignore the net effect of the actual algorithm compared to what you said was the algorithm.

And, how would you describe that difference in the ‘net effect’?

[Binger]

This explains it again. Res, there is an example here where the ranked choice process required NINE iterations.

Complete and total garbage. Absolute trash. It is just another manipulation to discredit elections. Oh well. Sad for Alaska. Ain’t my problem.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integ ... bad-choice

[canpakes]

This explains it again. Res, there is an example here where the ranked choice process required NINE iterations.

Complete and total garbage. Absolute trash. It is just another manipulation to discredit elections. Oh well. Sad for Alaska. Ain’t my problem.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integ ... bad-choice

Heritage misleads its readers by failing to point out that voters are under no requirement to include or rank any other choices aside from their first and only choice. This reality contrasts against the picture that Heritage tries to paint about folks supposedly being forced to vote for candidates that they don’t like.

“The more you know …”

[Res Ipsa]

You’re simply conflating the effect of what is done with a description of the mechanics used to get to the effect. The detailed mechanics described by CNN result in exactly the effect that I described. If there were a substantive difference, as you claim, you’d be able to explain the difference. All you keep doing is repeating words and saying that the words are different. That doesn’t mean that there is a substantive difference.

Not only that, the fact that you completely ignore the fact that the dropping the lowest candidate or candidates is exactly what happens in a “normal” is another sign that you don’t understand what you are talking about.

You flung a bunch of BS, got called on it, and can’t back it up. It happens.

I did not fling BS. I have not been called on it.

I backed up the difference.

You completely ignore the net effect of the actual algorithm compared to what you said was the algorithm.

What is the difference in net effect? You say there’s a difference, but that difference is what you’ve been unable to show.

Let’s say in a three way race among A, B, and C, I rank them C, B, A. C comes in third, but no one gets 50%. Under the “normal” system you prefer, C is dropped, and there is a runoff election between A & B. I couldn’t have my first choice, but I got to vote for my second choice in the runoff. And what’s the algorithm? It’s the same drop the last place candidates that you seem to think is absurd.

Under ranked choice, it’s the same result. My first choice is dropped from the bottom and I get to vote for my second choice. The result is the same. Those for whom A or B were their first choices had those choices honored. My choice — to prefer A over B (or the other way around was also honored.

No difference in effect. And my preference was honored, just as it would have been in a “normal” election.

So, show me this difference in net effect that you claim exists.

[Moksha]

Binger, would you say ranked-choice is anti-Republican in that it makes voters think rather than react?

[canpakes]

So, show me this difference in net effect that you claim exists.

I suspect that the difference is that it’s harder for extremist candidates to end up in office with minority-tally votes.

[Res Ipsa]

This explains it again. Res, there is an example here where the ranked choice process required NINE iterations.

Complete and total garbage. Absolute trash. It is just another manipulation to discredit elections. Oh well. Sad for Alaska. Ain’t my problem.

https://www.heritage.org/election-integ ... bad-choice

Oh look. You found an article by someone critical of ranked choice voting. Except it doesn’t back up the claim you’ve been repeating but refusing to back up for umpteen posts now.

You keep making claims that multiple iterations makes the system garbage, but you can’t explain why. Regardless of the number of iterations, the concept is simple and works Just like what happens when no candidate in a multi-candidate race gets 50%. Except in a normal runoff, all of your preferences are ignored except for the the top two. That’s arbitrary as hell, and certainly isn’t designed to reflect voter preference.

Neither Heritage nor the DNCC are fans because it threatens the stranglehold the two parties have on the political system. They’re afraid that people will reject the candidate their part cams down the voters throats in the general election in favor of someone the voters would actually prefer but are reluctant to waste their vote on. Your’re advocating for the corporate machine on this one, which seems out of character.

All that said, the heritage article does not back up your claim about some different net effect of what I said and the CNN description you quoted. You are still unable to explain the difference. The closest you’ve come so far is something like “it looks funny.”