The algorithm does not apply to how one chooses to rank the candidates. It applies to how the votes are tallied and that is hugely problematic.
I am correct about how they are tallied. And I am correct that it has an effect on the outcome. And I am correct that it weighs some voters choices more than others. And, enjoy voting in that mess. Have a great time, without me. Because what a joke.
Y'all keep writing about me though. That is cute.
How is it hugely problematic?
What effect does it have on the outcome?
How does it weigh some voters choices more than others?
Anybody can type words, Binger.
It isn't hugely problematic but it does affect outcomes. Voters who vote ranked choice are making a static decision regarding their own preferences without influence of the results of other voters behaviour. A runoff or traditional primary and general election process leads to gamesmanship. Folks can vote based on their least preferred candidates in ways ranked choice does not allow for. So the outcome of a ranked choice election is more likely to reflect people's choices for who is a better representative of the majority of voters.
Think about the 2016 Republican primaries and if they had been ranked choice. Trump would have had his solid 30% base. But of the divided other candidates, whose voters would have put Trump above almost anyone else in the field? In 2016, Trump would have failed to win the nomination had the Republican primary been entirely ranked choice winner-take-all in every state. So folks like Culty who want to see the world burn are going to be disappointed by the majority of folks who may have a hard time rallying around one candidate among a field of candidates they could support if they were elected but won't form a simple majority in support of an extreme candidate. The extreme candidates with diehard bases are hurt by ranked choice.
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.
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.
I downloaded the PDF and read though it. I was expecting something more I guess.
Suppose your first choice vote ends up being the winner of the ranked choice election. Your wife, OTOH, voted in an almost perfectly opposite manner where her choices are always the last place, statistically unable to win candidate that is eliminated and her final choice ends up being the final candidate to be eliminated. Your vote remained unaffected by n- rounds of tallying while hers was never exhausted until the final round when the winner was declared.
How would either of your votes be more heavily weighted than the others here? Yours always was for the ultimate winner. Hers, changed each round as her choices kept losing. Whose vote ended up being outcome determinative?
Now, you may say that isn't the problem because in the example the outcome is the same in all rounds. Your vote was for the winner, hers for the loser. This means the authors argument is flawed when he argues, "Voters who rank a non-continuing candidate first, and thus have their second or third choice considered, get to morph their ballots into outcome determinative votes. In contrast, voters who rank a continuing candidate are stuck with a single choice and that single vote."
His issue isn't with votes that can jump from candidate to candidate as they are eliminated. His issue is with votes that are outcome determinative but he fails to identify what makes a vote one that is outcome determinative that is also disenfranchising anywhere in the argument. He does however do so in his examples.
What his issue appears to be is with votes that were for a losing candidate that then go to the winning candidate when the winning candidate wouldn't have won in the first round if the plurality vote-getter had been named the winner. He argues that plurality first past the post elections are just how elections ought to be because that's the American way or some such in the opening. But every time he attempts a more formal argument this goes away as he builds a case on a different concern.
In terms of ranked voting, Palin's ex in-laws hosted a party for the GOP's Begich. It's tough when your name recognition is based upon a family that isn't voting for you.
The great problem of any civilization is how to rejuvenate itself without rebarbarization.
- Will Durant "Of what meaning is the world without mind? The question cannot exist."
- Edwin Land
Her vote lost, but she was allowed to keep voting.
That is the answer.
What an absolute farce.
False. She voted once, just like you did. She didn’t get to cast a new vote — she’s held to the choices she made just as you are. Your votes are given exactly the same weight.
If there were a normal runoff, she would be forced to change her vote to her second or third choice, while you still get to vote for your first choice. It’s the same result, even though she gets to change her vote. If that doesn’t bother you, neither should ranked choice voting.
Your claims aren’t factual. And the fact that you have to retreat to simple ridicule in every post rather than provide a cogent explanation for your claims is a tell that you’re just talking out your nethers.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Her vote lost, but she was allowed to keep voting.
That is the answer.
What an absolute farce.
False. She voted once, just like you did. She didn’t get to cast a new vote — she’s held to the choices she made just as you are. Your votes are given exactly the same weight.
If there were a normal runoff, she would be forced to change her vote to her second or third choice, while you still get to vote for your first choice. It’s the same result, even though she gets to change her vote. If that doesn’t bother you, neither should ranked choice voting.
Your claims aren’t factual. And the fact that you have to retreat to simple ridicule in every post rather than provide a cogent explanation for your claims is a tell that you’re just talking out your nethers.
Not simple ridicule. Just dismissiveness of the clown show. Obviously the authors of the linked review disagree with you. It is fine. People disagree. You can have your take. Others disagree.
Your insult is noted. Consider yourself equally insulted if that helps.
Her vote lost, but she was allowed to keep voting.
That is the answer.
What an absolute farce.
That's defining the process a certain way without argument supporting that position.
So what about approval voting where you simply vote all at once for anyone on the ballot you would be ok with if they won? No ballot would necessarily have equal votes as you may only support Gabbard and Trump while your wife is open to seeing every wants-to-run with an R by their name and Bernie Sanders in office.
