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

[Res Ipsa]

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.

Apparently, it is for you. You’re just running in circles. I believe you’re the one who originally drew the distinction between the net effect and the process.

I’ve given you more than enough chances to explain your claims about the effect of RCV. I think it’s fair to conclude that you can’t and that there’s no reason to waste time on your dodging of questions.

[Binger]

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.

Apparently, it is for you. You’re just running in circles. I believe you’re the one who originally drew the distinction between the net effect and the process.

I’ve given you more than enough chances to explain your claims about the effect of RCV. I think it’s fair to conclude that you can’t and that there’s no reason to waste time on your dodging of questions.

Actually. I have explained it.

The process uses an algorithm to ultimately create a victor with over 50 percent of the vote. This could happen after zero iterations, or in the case of Alaska, up to 3 in a general election. And, as was identified in the law review review, up to nine.

The voters, however, would not choose between the head-to-head candidates, instead, they rely on the application of the algorithm to apply ranked choices in a contest that was not head-to-head. You seem cool with that. I find it to be absolute garbage. Laughable beyond normal comedy.

[Doctor Steuss]

I watched the whole thing and understand the simplistic gerrymandering explanation. The other stuff was too simplistic to be meaningful. What did you like about it?

Well, I'm a bit embarrassed to say, the thing I like about it is that it's simplistic.

[Binger]

I watched the whole thing and understand the simplistic gerrymandering explanation. The other stuff was too simplistic to be meaningful. What did you like about it?

Well, I'm a bit embarrassed to say, the thing I like about it is that it's simplistic.

Right on. Nothing embarrassing about that.

[Res Ipsa]

Apparently, it is for you. You’re just running in circles. I believe you’re the one who originally drew the distinction between the net effect and the process.

I’ve given you more than enough chances to explain your claims about the effect of RCV. I think it’s fair to conclude that you can’t and that there’s no reason to waste time on your dodging of questions.

Actually. I have explained it.

The process uses an algorithm to ultimately create a victor with over 50 percent of the vote. This could happen after zero iterations, or in the case of Alaska, up to 3 in a general election. And, as was identified in the law review review, up to nine.

The voters, however, would not choose between the head-to-head candidates, instead, they rely on the application of the algorithm to apply ranked choices in a contest that was not head-to-head. You seem cool with that. I find it to be absolute garbage. Laughable beyond normal comedy.

What you are leaving out is that the "algorithm" doesn't decide anything, anymore than we would say that counting votes, which is also an algorithm, chooses the winner. The algorithm simply tabulates the voter's choices. Each voter gets to choose their preferred candidate in order of preference. Your way forces me to choose between candidates that I don't prefer at all, just because they were the top two in a crowded field. How is that not completely arbitrary and in complete disregard as to my actual choice?

The only beneficiaries of the current system are the two major parties that have a stranglehold on the government. Why do we end up with crappy candidates? Because so many people don't want to risk "wasting" their vote on someone who doesn't have an R or a D by their name.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Apparently, it is for you. You’re just running in circles. I believe you’re the one who originally drew the distinction between the net effect and the process.

I’ve given you more than enough chances to explain your claims about the effect of RCV. I think it’s fair to conclude that you can’t and that there’s no reason to waste time on your dodging of questions.

Actually. I have explained it.

The process uses an algorithm to ultimately create a victor with over 50 percent of the vote. This could happen after zero iterations, or in the case of Alaska, up to 3 in a general election. And, as was identified in the law review review, up to nine.

The voters, however, would not choose between the head-to-head candidates, instead, they rely on the application of the algorithm to apply ranked choices in a contest that was not head-to-head. You seem cool with that. I find it to be absolute garbage. Laughable beyond normal comedy.

-_-

[canpakes]

What you are leaving out is that the "algorithm" doesn't decide anything, anymore than we would say that counting votes, which is also an algorithm, chooses the winner.

Res, are you sure that there isn’t a top-secret algorithm within the algorithm that allows votes for Republican candidates to be transferred into and multiplied for Democratic candidates, making it so that when Republicans vote, their votes are then adding to Democratic candidate margins of victory?

I mean, it’s literally called an Al Gore-ithm. If that doesn’t alert you to how sketchy this is, then I don’t know what would.

Clearly, Republicans should wise up to Binger’s case and follow his lead by not voting.

[Res Ipsa]

What you are leaving out is that the "algorithm" doesn't decide anything, anymore than we would say that counting votes, which is also an algorithm, chooses the winner.

Res, are you sure that there isn’t a top-secret algorithm within the algorithm that allows votes for Republican candidates to be transferred into and multiplied for Democratic candidates, making it so that when Republicans vote, their votes are then adding to Democratic candidate margins of victory?

I mean, it’s literally called an Al Gore-ithm. If that doesn’t alert you to how sketchy this is, then I don’t know what would.

Clearly, Republicans should wise up to Binger’s case and follow his lead by not voting.

***chuckling at Al Gore ithm*** Well played.

Binger is using "algorithm" as a bogeyman, even though every vote tabulation can be fairly described as an algorithm. The electoral college is an algorithm. And if no one gets a majority of votes as "decided" by that algorithm, Binger gets no say at all in who becomes president. But that doesn't seem to bother him.

It's more complex than first past the post and it's new. And it tends to be pushed by progressives who are tired of seeing the Democratic Party squelch their candidates. So, I don't think Binger's distrust is surprising. in my opinion, his whole "I'm not going to play" schtick is a cop out, but it's still a free country and he gets to vote or not vote as he chooses.

[Binger]

Res, you are not a good judge of what bothers me and what does not. In fact, you really suck at those judgments.

Let's look at how you describe this sham ranked choice thing. On the one hand.... you like it because it changes outcomes but then, on the other hand, you pretend that it has the same outcome as traditional voting.

[all emphasis is added]

It's more complex than first past the post and it's new. And it tends to be pushed by progressives who are tired of seeing the Democratic Party squelch their candidates.

- so, it is more complex which can affect the outcome and process and it can lead to a different outcome than FPtP. RIGHT!!!!!!!! AGREEED!!!!!!

and here, again, you suggest that this process can lead to a different outcome

The only beneficiaries of the current system are the two major parties that have a stranglehold on the government. Why do we end up with crappy candidates? Because so many people don't want to risk "wasting" their vote on someone who doesn't have an R or a D by their name.

In your opinion, you believe that the current system benefits specific candidates and leads to a binary outcome. The new system, would lead to a different outcome, according to you. RIGHT!!!!!!!! AGREEED!!!!!!

And, my point is very simple, frankly. The outcome is different because of the applied process, not because of policies, character or debate. And to that I say, "BS." If you want a different outcome, find a different candidate or party. Don't just “F” up the election process again. Or maybe just go ahead and “F” it up again, that is fun to watch and observe.

Of all the issues I have with it, "it's more complex than first past the post" is the most concerning. If we can't recount votes and we can't audit votes and if nobody has standing before votes are certified and laches applies after votes are certified then, in my opinion, any effort to make the process more complex is just an affront to voters anyways.

[Res Ipsa]

Res, you are not a good judge of what bothers me and what does not. In fact, you really suck at those judgments.

Let's look at how you describe this sham ranked choice thing. On the one hand.... you like it because it changes outcomes but then, on the other hand, you pretend that it has the same outcome as traditional voting.

[all emphasis is added]

It's more complex than first past the post and it's new. And it tends to be pushed by progressives who are tired of seeing the Democratic Party squelch their candidates.

- so, it is more complex which can affect the outcome and process and it can lead to a different outcome than FPtP. RIGHT!!!!!!!! AGREEED!!!!!!

and here, again, you suggest that this process can lead to a different outcome

The only beneficiaries of the current system are the two major parties that have a stranglehold on the government. Why do we end up with crappy candidates? Because so many people don't want to risk "wasting" their vote on someone who doesn't have an R or a D by their name.

In your opinion, you believe that the current system benefits specific candidates and leads to a binary outcome. The new system, would lead to a different outcome, according to you. RIGHT!!!!!!!! AGREEED!!!!!!

And, my point is very simple, frankly. The outcome is different because of the applied process, not because of policies, character or debate. And to that I say, "B.S.." If you want a different outcome, find a different candidate or party. Don't just “F” up the election process again. Or maybe just go ahead and “F” it up again, that is fun to watch and observe.

Of all the issues I have with it, "it's more complex than first past the post" is the most concerning. If we can't recount votes and we can't audit votes and if nobody has standing before votes are certified and laches applies after votes are certified then, in my opinion, any effort to make the process more complex is just an affront to voters anyways.

You misunderstand the distinction between giving the voter an ability to express their actual preference and the effect of the algorithm. The algorithm, which is what you have been harping about, doesn't change the result. That's what I've been addressing because that's what you keep harping on. Under RSV, the voter gets to say "Here is who I want, in order of preference." They aren't forced to vote defensively to prevent the worst candidate from winning. What is your objection to basing elections on what voters actually prefer?

ETA: your description of the post-election legal process is bollocks.