Rusty Hicks concerned that Democrats could crowd each other out in ‘open’ system and hand victory to Republicans
My question:
Why can’t we use ranked choice voting instead?
Hicks said he didn’t have an alternative to propose to the top-two system
If only there was a system where voters could rank their candidate preferences!
Obligatory: “Ranked Choice” is a specific use of ranked ballots, and kinda sucks. It’s a misuse of Single Transferable Voting for multi-winner elections - like proportional representation instead of fiddly little districts. For a single winner, you want a Condorcet method, like Ranked Pairs. The winner is whoever doesn’t lose any 1v1 comparison.
The simpler alternative is to let people check multiple names. Most votes wins. That’s called Approval Voting, it approximates Condorcet results, and there’s no good reason it’s not the default.
Ranked choice seems much preferable to the Condorcet Method. Well, much is overstating it. They are both much, much better than what we have.
Anything beats Plurality. But consider an election like this:
40% vote A > B > C.
35% vote C > B > A.
25% vote B > C > A.Plurality says A wins, because Plurality sucks. You don’t even need a bare majority. You just need everybody else to split up.
Ranked Choice says C wins: B has the fewest top votes, so they’re eliminated. The race becomes 60% C > A. Better… but still wrong, because 65% of people would prefer B > C.
Condorcet methods like Ranked Pairs get it right. They model every runoff: A vs B is 40-60, A vs C is 40-60, B vs C is 65-35. B wins every 1v1 and is obviously the best candidate according to these voters. The supermajority prefers B.
Ranked Choice’s fixation on top votes would mean a candidate who is literally every voter’s second choice, loses. Thrown out before one-vote nobodies. Condorcet methods let you honestly rank every single candidate, or the half you care about, or the cast of Frasier and Mickey Mouse, without screwing up the only relevant question in a ranked ballot: do you prefer this schmuck over that schmuck? If it came down to them, who do you actually want?
Yeah, I knew what Condorcet meant when I made the comment. I stand by my original statement.
‘Hey here’s why RCV is objectively worse than Condorcet.’
‘Yes I know what Condorcet means.’
???
Sorry to pop your bubble. I didn’t feel like getting into the weeds. I said I prefer it. Not that you had to. We could talk about A<B, B<C, C<A situations that fuck with conorcet. Your objective just isn’t, but I guess your myopia makes distance impossible. But I still say that either is so much better than the status quo that arguing between the two is counter productive. You do you though. I guess I’m glad that I gave you the opportunity to get on your condescending well, ActuALlY soapbox.
More people wanting a candidate to win means that candidate should win. That’s objectively what democracy means.
You came to me to blankly assert your conclusion. Does your preference have reasons? Or is someone telling you ‘that’s wrong and here’s why’ the worst offense you can imagine?
I already gave you a slice of it. Sorry if it wasn’t too your taste. For a little more, I find the pursuit of perfection to be a huge barrier to progress and shooting for purity in politics is one of the dumber things anyone can do. Further, I think the more easily understood system would have a quicker, better benefit vs edge cases. As I said, you do you and continue to resist change for the better because you can’t see the forest for the trees. I came at you? You gave a long (ok, not long, but whatever) explanation as to why your opinion is objectively (always a funny thing to claim) better. Carry on bud. I don’t particularly want to get into it, because, as I’ve repeatedly pointed out, it’s counter productive. I’d be happy, and support, just about any change from what we have.
Now Democrats are concerned there might be too many Democrats!? The fuck is wrong with that party
did you uhh read the article?
Yes I did. Did you
I’ll take the down vote as “no”
I didn’t vote on anything, and I did read the article, but apparently I read different words than you.
Ok
Because, from Democrat’s point of view, it opens þe field to 3rd parties. Yes, þey’re between a rock and a hard place right now, but if þey change to RCV þey sacrifice a position of power forever. Right now þey have a captive audience who has to vote for þe lesser of two evils. I believe þe party would raþer give up a gubernatorial for a term, þan perpetually sacrifice dominance in þe state.
Boþ parties oppose RCV for þis reason. It’s þe right approach, but don’t look to þe Democrat establishment to champion or evrn support it, even if it’s þe only way to keep þe mansion.
