|
Replies: 37
| visibility 1,041
|
Hall of Famer [20541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11686
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Ranked choice voting...the way out
Oct 26, 2019, 9:50 AM
|
|
For those who want actual menu options in elections, and are beyond tired of this two-party abomination we have going that gave us Trump v. Hillary in the last election and could well give us something similar in the next, there's an alternative: ranked choice voting.
It's really simple. You just list your picks, in order. It's that easy.
But it changes everything. It means if your guy doesn't win, you're not just throwing your vote away because if nobody wins a clear majority, the system just goes down your list, adding up the second-choice votes, and if that doesn't work, the third...etc.
It means if there's somebody who really scares you, somebody you really don't like - which, for many of us, would have been Trump and Hillary - you list them at the end. And folks who are seriously unacceptable to the majority will get filtered out.
It forces you to run for something, and for voters to vote for something...it means that simply obliterating your opponent isn't enough because you'll have at least 3-4 opponents.
It makes politics a whole lot more civil, and forces a discussion of issues...and it sort of eliminates this blind partisan tribal warfare we have going now. Which serves nobody.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/26/new-york-city-ranked-choice-voting-how-it-works
|
|
|
|
 |
All-TigerNet [12098]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6709
Joined: 8/3/09
|
Just have to leave none of the above off
Oct 26, 2019, 10:09 AM
|
|
Read where someplace that used this system wound up with none of the above as the overall winner
Everyone picked their candidate 1st and none of the above 2nd. There were enough candidates that there was no clear #1 and the landslide 2nd place votes overwhelmed the system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119717]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54484
Joined: 6/24/09
|
Lulz! That’s what campaigns and primaries are for....***
Oct 26, 2019, 10:32 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155937]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65832
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Yep...this just seems like it replicates the primary on a
Oct 26, 2019, 11:09 AM
|
|
Single ballot, except you have people that pay even less attention to the process making the choices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I think it'd be better *for* a primary.***
Oct 28, 2019, 8:11 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11686
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Lulz! That’s what campaigns and primaries are for....***
Oct 26, 2019, 11:35 AM
[ in reply to Lulz! That’s what campaigns and primaries are for....*** ] |
|
Not really. Think for a second what the primaries mean - it means you're basically cutting the general electorate in half, dividing it into left and right.
That means that in the Democratic primary, the nomination unduly influenced by the far left.
In the Republican primary, the opposite is true...and it means those at the far right get the most say.
Who gets left out? Well, the moderates. The middle. Nobody's representing them, which means those of us in the middle who see real value in both points of view - and both sets of voters - and don't view the world in "us or them" terms, don't have a voice...even though when you sit most of us down, the overwhelming majority - I'm tempted to say close to 80% or higher - would actually land in the middle if you just took it issue by issue.
That's the problem with binary politics; neither extreme works for the majority. RCV does address that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155937]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65832
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Shame on the moderates for being apathetic, and
Oct 26, 2019, 5:31 PM
|
|
Wouldn’t universally open primaries achieve the same goal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155937]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65832
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Gahhhhh, I disobeyed the lamp!!!
Oct 26, 2019, 5:37 PM
|
|
Many pardons...saying 12 hail geechies now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You almost caused Clemson to drop out of the top 40.***
Oct 29, 2019, 8:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11686
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Shame on the moderates for being apathetic, and
Oct 26, 2019, 6:35 PM
[ in reply to Shame on the moderates for being apathetic, and ] |
|
Wouldn’t universally open primaries achieve the same goal?
Maybe, but you've still got a binary main election...and you're back to vicious, bare-knuckle partisan politics again.
I was a registered Republican, as I've said...but I'm obviously not irrevocably Team GOP, especially when they started this Party of Trump nonsense. Now I'm looking at the moderates, especially Mayor Pete, and thinking: you know, this guy could appeal to both sides and maybe make America a little less ape$####...but my suspicion is, we're going to wind up with Warren, who drifts further and further to the left with each debate in order to pry loose a few more votes from the radical fringe that is ultimately going to decide the Democratic primary.
I think she's mostly an anti-trust fiscal progressive, but words have meaning, and she's going to have to make some alliances and take some policy positions middle America probably isn't going to like to drive the nomination home...which could well cost her the general election because the Right Wing Smear Machine will gleefully pounce on every leftist trope that leaves her mouth, and there's getting to be too many of those.
Why can America not have a choice between the top four candidates - which I think will probably end up being Trump, Warren, Mayor Pete, and probably Bernie...and I think if it worked this way you'd probably see a second Republican candidate like Sanford or Weld appear alongside Trump on the final ballot, maybe bumping Bernie.
All of a sudden that ticket looks a lot more appealing, because frankly I would very much like a country run by a non-crazy center-right guy like Sanford or a non-crazy center-left dude like Mayor Pete. That actually starts looking like sane and decent government again, actually....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [119717]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 54484
Joined: 6/24/09
|
And the electoral college which hinders candidates
Oct 26, 2019, 10:37 AM
|
|
From campaigning ONLY in HIGH POPULATION CITIES
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17289]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14239
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Start with term limits ....
Oct 26, 2019, 12:10 PM
|
|
2 to 3 for Senate.
6 to 9 for House.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11686
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Start with term limits ....
Oct 26, 2019, 1:25 PM
|
|
2 to 3 for Senate.
6 to 9 for House.
COMPLETELY agree. We were never supposed to have a professional political class in this country.
You were supposed to do your term and come home.
I was supposed to do my term and come home.
Joe down the street was then supposed to do his term and come home.
We the people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [111620]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 73767
Joined: 9/10/03
|
Re: Start with term limits ....
Oct 26, 2019, 4:38 PM
|
|
and how about they not all be attorneys, but professionals working across a multitude of disciplines. I have never felt like congress nor the senate were capable of fixing our problems when they do not even understand them. Why not throw a few Scientists, Engineers, clinical psychiatrists, Educators etc.. into the fold.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10134]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8862
Joined: 7/20/12
|
Re: Start with term limits ....
Oct 28, 2019, 3:09 PM
[ in reply to Re: Start with term limits .... ] |
|
I agree 100%!!! Might as well throw all the other political offices in there while you at it. All the way from sheriff, mayor, Governor to the President. You’d be surprised how many secretaries and secretaries of secretaries of retired governors, senators and federal judges are still getting pension and free healthcare for life. Political positions weren’t never meant to be a career! Have these people do their 2 year terms and then get out, contribute to the workforce and to healthcare just like everyone else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42171]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38256
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: Start with term limits ....
Oct 28, 2019, 8:04 AM
[ in reply to Start with term limits .... ] |
|
Term limits would be great, but we have to realize that it won't happen as the people who have to make it happen don't want limits to their terms. Such is the cycle we're stuck in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
If you want a pure democracy you should just leave the US.
Oct 27, 2019, 7:22 AM
|
|
That's horsechit voting system a very creative way to end a republic which amounts to changing the very nature of our constitution. What genius came up with that and how in the world did they get an intellectual elite like you to fall for it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
How is this "pure democracy"?
Oct 28, 2019, 8:09 AM
|
|
Pure democracy is the people voting directly for every law. This is still the people electing representatives, who would make policy. That's by definition, not a pure democracy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
That system corrupts the balance between states.
Oct 28, 2019, 2:40 PM
|
|
Our union was formed by the prospective states being convinced they had equal voice in government and that the federal government would not take away states' rights. State's rights weren't specifically and exhaustively defined. Every state had to be onboard or united. 'United States...'
It gives the more populated states more power to decide who runs which manipulates the election which means the democratic majority are in control over who is on the ballot in less populated states.
Here's an example of the opposite happening. Each state can eliminate a candidate. In the last election if voters had the power to remove a candidate Hillary might have won. If those state who cast their EVs to Trump had the power to eliminate a candidate...
The concept of having a majority of voters eliminate a candidate gives them the power to choose which candidate they want to run against their favorite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I'm missing something.
Oct 28, 2019, 3:26 PM
|
|
I don't understand how this has anything to do with "balance between states". Maybe you're thinking of a different application. The application I'm thinking of would be *within* a state. Like, to decide which *one* candidate gets that state's electoral votes. I don't advocate for a change to the Electoral College system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11686
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: I'm missing something.
Oct 28, 2019, 5:26 PM
|
|
It has nothing whatsoever to do with states. I have no idea whatsoever what point the guy is trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Sure it does.
Oct 28, 2019, 5:47 PM
|
|
Having a choice who you vote for is American. Determining who runs against them is communist, third world country chit.
When California, NJ, NY and a few other states decided they want to deny TN, SC and Texas a vote for who TN, SC and Texas wants...simple. You're going to take away my right to vote for Trump? Do you really want to do that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11686
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Sure it does.
Oct 28, 2019, 7:34 PM
|
|
How on Earth does this take away your right to vote for Trump?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
CT88,
Oct 29, 2019, 6:29 AM
[ in reply to Sure it does. ] |
|
I, like quozzel, am rather dumbfounded at how what your posting has anything remotely to do with the topic of the original post. It seems like extremely different topics altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Did you read it?
Oct 29, 2019, 11:17 AM
|
|
"It means if there's somebody who really scares you, somebody you really don't like - which, for many of us, would have been Trump and Hillary - you list them at the end. And folks who are seriously unacceptable to the majority will get [b}filtered out..."
Here:
Filter out
"To filter out something from a substance or from light means to remove it by passing the substance or light through something acting as a filter."
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/filter-out
Perhaps Quaz misspoke, didn't understand what he was saying or really didn't mean to present the concept displayed in the OP to be a way for voters in a group of states to remove someone from the ballot but 'filtered out,' has a definition.
I promise, I have no idea why we aren't understanding one another here, Prod.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
No, pretty sure he meant that
Oct 29, 2019, 11:21 AM
|
|
very unpopular candidates would be filtered out organically, because of how the people vote, not because someone took some specific action to "filter them out".
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11686
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: No, pretty sure he meant that
Oct 29, 2019, 5:40 PM
|
|
Yup.
I have no idea how 88 thinks any part of what I said takes away his right to vote Trump.
All RCV does is add other menu options, and says: "pick 'em in order."
If that's too tough for folks, they probably shouldn't vote.
It gives moderates a voice again. We literally could be left in the position this next election of voting Bernie Sanders versus Trump. You wanna talk about leaving the moderates cold....
There's about an acre of space in the middle of there, you know?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Yeah, I can see how I misunderstood you, Quaz.
Oct 29, 2019, 8:00 PM
|
|
My bad, I read that one paragraph literally without consideration of the context. I shouldn't be so quick and apologize to you and Prod. I have a question.
Doesn't the POTUS need a fixed number of electoral vote or is it just a matter of the one with the most votes winning?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Well, if no one has a majority of electoral votes...
Oct 29, 2019, 8:24 PM
|
|
The Constitution gives a mechanism that gets the House of Representatives to vote, if I remember correctly. I don't think people particularly want that. That's why I think a better application for this is a primary, when there are a lot of candidates vying. But that would still leave a mostly binary general election, which quozzel is rightly decrying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20541]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11686
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Well, if no one has a majority of electoral votes...
Oct 31, 2019, 2:03 PM
|
|
Sort of. Like, the way it works is: you add up all the "1" votes. If somebody's got a majority, it stops right there. That person wins, outright.
If there's no clear winner - meaning, nobody has a majority of 50%-plus - you add all the "2" votes to that total. Again...if somebody hits 50%, it ends, and right there. That person wins.
If there's still no clear winner, you go to the "3" votes...if there's just 4 people on the final ballot, that's as far as you can go, because mathematically somebody has to get 50-point-something at this point, and that person will win.
Where it mostly matters is in the middle - moderate and third-party candidates have a voice again - and it also makes elections - and politics in general - a lot more civil because you can't just win by trying to obliterate your opponent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
I like the idea on its face...
Oct 28, 2019, 8:10 AM
|
|
It seems that it would make a candidate more likely to be elected, who appeals to a broader group of people. That's a good thing.
I'd have to study up and benchmark on it, to really have the best-informed opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
You just described a pure democracy.***
Oct 28, 2019, 3:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
Huh?
Oct 29, 2019, 6:30 AM
|
|
In a pure democracy, there would be no such thing as electing representatives. I do not even come close to comprehending what you are trying to say in this thread. I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Me too.
Oct 29, 2019, 11:18 AM
|
|
We'll work through this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [55780]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 35309
Joined: 11/30/98
|
regardless, the real problem in the US system is money.
Oct 28, 2019, 12:23 PM
|
|
I was in Canada once during an election. The biggest thing that stood out is that normal people could get elected. They didn’t have to have tons of money behind them.
Special interests ruin everything in our system. And the system will soon collapse.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [46825]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30731
Joined: 8/11/15
|
Add in that people over 65 can't vote***
Oct 29, 2019, 11:49 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [50635]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 43019
Joined: 12/3/98
|
and only property owners***
Oct 29, 2019, 6:49 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [93672]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 95422
Joined: 12/25/09
|
Neither of those are going to happen cause it's racist.
Oct 29, 2019, 8:01 PM
|
|
Just a preamble of what you'll face with a proposal such as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 37
| visibility 1,041
|
|
|
50
