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

[Xenophon]

Binger, my apologies as in real life derailed my participation here but it looks like others picked up where I left off.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The voters of Alaska elected to manage their process this way and then made conscious choices that kept Palin from winning that seat under this system so I'm just not seeing something to cry foul about. I'm a huge proponent of ranked choice voting even acknowledging that "my side" is not going to benefit in all cases (lest we forget that there are all those Republicans in California who don't have much representation). Ranked choice is significantly better at preventing both elections via plurality (a problem in my state) and for facilitating third-party/independent candidates (a problem across the nation). I think Alaska was an excellent example of democracy at play and I'll be interested to see how it plays out going forward.

[Binger]

Binger, my apologies as in real life derailed my participation here but it looks like others picked up where I left off.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The voters of Alaska elected to manage their process this way and then made conscious choices that kept Palin from winning that seat under this system so I'm just not seeing something to cry foul about. I'm a huge proponent of ranked choice voting even acknowledging that "my side" is not going to benefit in all cases (lest we forget that there are all those Republicans in California who don't have much representation). Ranked choice is significantly better at preventing both elections via plurality (a problem in my state) and for facilitating third-party/independent candidates (a problem across the nation). I think Alaska was an excellent example of democracy at play and I'll be interested to see how it plays out going forward.

I am not crying foul. I hope you understand that. I have no suspicions that the votes were not counted correctly. I have no suspicions or accusations of foul play. I have no reason but to think that indeed, Alaskans (by a margin of 4k votes) chose ranked voting and that they voted this way a few days ago and got this result.

I have no interest in a system of voting that requires that level of algorithms to arrive at the outcome, particularly in light of the standing/laches sequence in litigating the outcome of elections throughout the United States. Rather, I will not endorse such a process with my participation. This is a difference between us, not an argument or a point to win. You like it. I can't and won't and actually have a visceral reaction just thinking about it. Feels yucky to me, feels awesome to you. Not right not wrong, just differences.

My understanding of the application of the algorithms is sound. I agree with the descriptions on the Law Review example and in the description used in cases that have been brought to the court. I would NEVER approve a similar method of counting in accounting. It just doesn't work for me. I am out. No big deal.

I too will be interested to see how it plays out going forward, but not interested enough to participate.

[canpakes]

I am not crying foul. I hope you understand that. I have no suspicions that the votes were not counted correctly. I have no suspicions or accusations of foul play.

That much is true. You do believe this.

However -

I have no interest in a system of voting that requires that level of algorithms to arrive at the outcome, particularly in light of the standing/laches sequence in litigating the outcome of elections throughout the United States. Rather, I will not endorse such a process with my participation.

The presence of ranked-choice voting (or VBM) in any given election that you’re eligible to vote in will absolutely not prevent you from voting in that election, for a candidate that you like and want to see in office.

[Res Ipsa]

The bedrock electoral principle undergirding the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection guarantee is that any one citizen has a constitutionally protected right to participate in an election on an equal basis with others.177 RCV affronts that principle. While courts have uniformly found RCV free of any voting burdens or inequities, this Comment challenges that notion. RCV is not just one election, it is multiple. RCV does not give equal opportunity to every voter but rather enhances the efficacy of some votes to the detriment of others. RCV is not easy to understand and infects the democratic process with unique complexities. And when it does burden voting rights, RCV does so unequally by inflicting harsher burdens on voters of certain demographics. When RCV is challenged in the future, courts should utilize Anderson-Burdick’s flexible standard to properly account for each of these burdens and conclude that they are not outweighed by any governmental interests.
Because RCV is spreading rapidly throughout the United States, it is paramount to understand the true burdens the system inflicts on voting rights now, not later. Consider the serious implications if RCV elections spread nationwide for use in all federal elections, including for President of the United States. With Maine’s Second Congressional District as a warning, RCV can and will alter the outcome of elections—not because of a change in substance but simply because the method for electing officials changed. Some of those outcomes will favor Democrats, and some will favor Republicans. Others might fall in favor of third-party candidates. But one’s partisan preference must not outweigh the importance of preserving the constitutional principle that voters should cast votes of equal weight. If RCV continues to expand, that principle will continue to erode. Legislatures, courts, and the voting public alike must understand the negative effects that RCV tolls on voting rights. A failure to make this realization soon might be too little, too late.
176. Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, 677 (2015) (quoting Schuette v. BAMN, 134 S.Ct. 1623,

Go for it. Have a great time. And this ranked voting is a farce. To hell with the entire voting process if we really need to jack it up this bad and this hard. Seriously. When we get to ranked voting by mail we might as well just have a monarchy or something. We need government, but this ranked voting by mail part is retarded.

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/view ... ntext=uclr

This student note is deeply flawed because it incorrectly claims that our elections are uniformly “plurality” elections. That’s simply not true. His major criticism is that RCV is more than one election. But, by claiming that we have plurality elections, he dodged the same issue that you have been dodging over and over - how is this aspect of RCV any different than holding a runoff election? That’s also holding more than one election. The student author complains about the fact that, under RCV, the votes of the people whose candidates were at the bottom are discarded and replaced with a vote for a different candidate. But that’s exactly what happens in a runoff election. But the author gets to dodge that weakness in his argument by making a false claim about how elections are conducted.



This kind of rhetorical sleight of hand should be caught and prevented by the reviews editors. But they’re all law students, so the quality of oversight varies.

[Binger]

Go for it. Have a great time. And this ranked voting is a farce. To hell with the entire voting process if we really need to jack it up this bad and this hard. Seriously. When we get to ranked voting by mail we might as well just have a monarchy or something. We need government, but this ranked voting by mail part is retarded.

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/view ... ntext=uclr

This student note is deeply flawed because it incorrectly claims that our elections are uniformly “plurality” elections. That’s simply not true. His major criticism is that RCV is more than one election. But, by claiming that we have plurality elections, he dodged the same issue that you have been dodging over and over - how is this aspect of RCV any different than holding a runoff election? That’s also holding more than one election. The student author complains about the fact that, under RCV, the votes of the people whose candidates were at the bottom are discarded and replaced with a vote for a different candidate. But that’s exactly what happens in a runoff election. But the author gets to dodge that weakness in his argument by making a false claim about how elections are conducted.



This kind of rhetorical sleight of hand should be caught and prevented by the reviews editors. But they’re all law students, so the quality of oversight varies.

Res is right.

Christafuckingmighty.

[Res Ipsa]

Binger, my apologies as in real life derailed my participation here but it looks like others picked up where I left off.

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The voters of Alaska elected to manage their process this way and then made conscious choices that kept Palin from winning that seat under this system so I'm just not seeing something to cry foul about. I'm a huge proponent of ranked choice voting even acknowledging that "my side" is not going to benefit in all cases (lest we forget that there are all those Republicans in California who don't have much representation). Ranked choice is significantly better at preventing both elections via plurality (a problem in my state) and for facilitating third-party/independent candidates (a problem across the nation). I think Alaska was an excellent example of democracy at play and I'll be interested to see how it plays out going forward.

I am not crying foul. I hope you understand that. I have no suspicions that the votes were not counted correctly. I have no suspicions or accusations of foul play. I have no reason but to think that indeed, Alaskans (by a margin of 4k votes) chose ranked voting and that they voted this way a few days ago and got this result.

I have no interest in a system of voting that requires that level of algorithms to arrive at the outcome, particularly in light of the standing/laches sequence in litigating the outcome of elections throughout the United States. Rather, I will not endorse such a process with my participation. This is a difference between us, not an argument or a point to win. You like it. I can't and won't and actually have a visceral reaction just thinking about it. Feels yucky to me, feels awesome to you. Not right not wrong, just differences.

My understanding of the application of the algorithms is sound. I agree with the descriptions on the Law Review example and in the description used in cases that have been brought to the court. I would NEVER approve a similar method of counting in accounting. It just doesn't work for me. I am out. No big deal.

I too will be interested to see how it plays out going forward, but not interested enough to participate.

I actually have no problem with you opposing RCV on a gut feeling. It’s the BS claims that you’ve been making to rationalize your gut feeling that I object to. You can believe the earth is flat based on your gut — makes no never mind to me. But don’t feed me BS claims that your belief is rational.

[Binger]

I am not crying foul. I hope you understand that. I have no suspicions that the votes were not counted correctly. I have no suspicions or accusations of foul play. I have no reason but to think that indeed, Alaskans (by a margin of 4k votes) chose ranked voting and that they voted this way a few days ago and got this result.

I have no interest in a system of voting that requires that level of algorithms to arrive at the outcome, particularly in light of the standing/laches sequence in litigating the outcome of elections throughout the United States. Rather, I will not endorse such a process with my participation. This is a difference between us, not an argument or a point to win. You like it. I can't and won't and actually have a visceral reaction just thinking about it. Feels yucky to me, feels awesome to you. Not right not wrong, just differences.

My understanding of the application of the algorithms is sound. I agree with the descriptions on the Law Review example and in the description used in cases that have been brought to the court. I would NEVER approve a similar method of counting in accounting. It just doesn't work for me. I am out. No big deal.

I too will be interested to see how it plays out going forward, but not interested enough to participate.

I actually have no problem with you opposing RCV on a gut feeling. It’s the BS claims that you’ve been making to rationalize your gut feeling that I object to. You can believe the earth is flat based on your gut — makes no never mind to me. But don’t feed me BS claims that your belief is rational.

The so-called BS claim is that they apply an algorithm by dropping the last place candidate and then running another contest using the alternate ranked choice of the voters that had picked the loser, giving them another crack at the contest. That is not a BS claim. That is the damned facts. For “F” sakes, Res. That is the damned process.

[Res Ipsa]

This student note is deeply flawed because it incorrectly claims that our elections are uniformly “plurality” elections. That’s simply not true. His major criticism is that RCV is more than one election. But, by claiming that we have plurality elections, he dodged the same issue that you have been dodging over and over - how is this aspect of RCV any different than holding a runoff election? That’s also holding more than one election. The student author complains about the fact that, under RCV, the votes of the people whose candidates were at the bottom are discarded and replaced with a vote for a different candidate. But that’s exactly what happens in a runoff election. But the author gets to dodge that weakness in his argument by making a false claim about how elections are conducted.



This kind of rhetorical sleight of hand should be caught and prevented by the reviews editors. But they’re all law students, so the quality of oversight varies.

Res is right.

Christafuckingmighty.

Broken clock.

[Res Ipsa]

I actually have no problem with you opposing RCV on a gut feeling. It’s the BS claims that you’ve been making to rationalize your gut feeling that I object to. You can believe the earth is flat based on your gut — makes no never mind to me. But don’t feed me BS claims that your belief is rational.

The so-called BS claim is that they apply an algorithm by dropping the last place candidate and then running another contest using the alternate ranked choice of the voters that had picked the loser, giving them another crack at the contest. That is not a BS claim. That is the damned facts. For “F” sakes, Res. That is the damned process.

Stop with the strawman, Binger. What I’ve called BS on is very clear, and it’s not your objective description of the mechanical aspect of the vote counting. It’s your claims about the “net effect, as you put it, on the result, which even after pages and pages of assertion and ridicule, you still can’t manage to explain.

[Binger]

The so-called BS claim is that they apply an algorithm by dropping the last place candidate and then running another contest using the alternate ranked choice of the voters that had picked the loser, giving them another crack at the contest. That is not a BS claim. That is the damned facts. For “F” sakes, Res. That is the damned process.

Stop with the strawman, Binger. What I’ve called BS on is very clear, and it’s not your objective description of the mechanical aspect of the vote counting. It’s your claims about the “net effect, as you put it, on the result, which even after pages and pages of assertion and ridicule, you still can’t manage to explain.

The process is the net effect. Rather than run actual elections, they re-run the numbers by dropping the losers and using the alternate choice of that candidate's voters. And that is nonsense.

This is not that hard, Res.