@@iloveTRUMP I'm a libertarian conservative. Ranked choice voting is just better. You no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. You simply choose your favorite candidates, & if they lose then you have your second choice to fall back on. What the majority like the most wins.
That's true. The reason they suddenly switched to this system is to try and save Murkowski who was losing badly in the polls to her Trump endorsed opponent. If Murkowski would have been winning in the polls, they would have stayed with the old system.
@@handsoffmygunmf6750 Alaska voters approved this election way before treason Trump got involved in Alaska politics because they were tired of corruption voting, this system is way better than the old one.
Republicans voted for this new rank choice loading system in Alaska. Sarah Palin will not even be placing in the top three under this new rain choice system.
She’s got %33 of the vote behind Peltola with %34 so this isn’t aging well. Palin will likely win with Republican Begich’s %27 of votes via rank choice.
@@theclamhammer4447 And now that the special election is concluded we can see that your response also did not age well since Palin only got roughly half of Begich's second choice votes enabling the Democrat to win. This, however, does show why RCV is world's better than FPTP, you have to compete not just for your own votes but also to be the second choice of the voters for weaker candidates. This will force people toward the center in most cases.
Just imagine a democracy where each person’s vote was equal regardless of any demographics. Come to think of it, anything not like that is not a democracy
They changed to this method hoping it would save Lisa Murkowski who was losing badly to the Trump endorsed candidate in the polls. If Murkowski would have been winning in the polls, they would not have switched to this system, where the general election decides. Doing it this way with 4 candidates, the winner will not win with a majority of the votes.
Can the voter just vote for who they want and leave the other choices blank? That's how I would treat a ballot like that. Maybe a 1 and a 2, but no more than that as it would otherwise force me place somebody as 3rd who I would never vote for.
Yes, but the biggest problem is that Alaska has FOUR candidates in the general election vying for ONE house seat. To win, one of them needs to get a minimum of 50% of the votes. Since Alaska is HEAVILY republican-conservative, there will ALWAYS be multiple conservative candidates. In fact, this year, there is 1 liberal democrat, 2 republican conservatives, and 1 libertarian conservative. So far 81% of the votes have been counted and the democrat has about 48% of the votes. The conservative candidates combined have almost 52% of the votes, but since the conservative votes are split between them none of them could possibly win 50%!!! The conservatives have about 24, 26, and 1.5 percent of the votes which when combined add up to 52%. But because of this convoluted election system, the democrat is on the verge of winning the nomination. There should be ONE candidate from the democrat ticket and ONE from the republican ticket to make it fair!!!
This shoulda been the norm nation-wide. Clearly a better system. You shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils. The opposition of RCV are clearly the ones that do not benefit from an election voted by the people. Look at the last half century's election in the US. Majority of Republicans won electoral college votes, but not the popular vote. I'd say that president did not win the people's choice. Certainly not when it comes to that candidate has to make decisions that will impact of my entire life.
There are several alternatives to our current system...RCV is the least accurate, most susceptible to fraud, etc. IT is the worst alt out there, save a dictator deciding to throw an election. Check out the Infographics video on it.
Trump didn't seem too happy about that new way to vote. However, Sarah Palin isn't anyone I would want in Congress or the Senate. From what I understand from her time as Governor she sucked at it. I kind of like rank choice voting. Trump would be last in line on that list in a lot of states.
Unfortunately, the man is very good at convincing people he's somehow a good choice. But yes, ranked choice will certainly help us cleanse all of the septuagenarians off of the ballots.
America is a constitutional republic. We employ democracy when we elect our representatives, but that is a far cry from being a democracy. The difference between the two systems is crucial. A democracy is where everything is decided by majority rule; rights, laws, everything. A republic is where individuals are elected to serve as representatives of the people and the government in which they serve is bound by the rule of law and the sovereign rights of individuals it represents. The tension which exists between these two systems is precisely the tension which exists between our two prevailing political parties, the democra(ts) and the republic(ans). Those who favor moving our nation closer to a pure democracy are those who argue that everything should be subject to the will of the masses. When Democrats don’t like the prohibition against redefining marriage, their inclination is to argue that the will of the people should trump the rights of individuals and that the Constitution should be seen as a “living document”, subject to the whims of the people. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Founders did everything possible to prevent our Constitution from being a living document. They understood that the freedoms and liberties they wanted to safeguard were only possible in an environment which recognizes absolute morality and individual sovereignty. When rights are determined by majority rule, then only those who adhere to the majority will be granted rights.
Unless it goes state by state individually you would need a constitutional amendment to do it in one fell swoop. Article one says states are responsible for their laws. The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators. Either way, if you think it will be nationwide any time soon I got a bridge in San Fran for sale.
@@MH-eu1dr I guess you didn't read the second part of your direct quote from the constitution- "But, Congress may at anytime by law make or alter such regulations." That means even though states can set their own election rules, the federal government can change them by passing a law. That also means that you could implement something like ranked choice voting for all the states with a federal law and not require a constitutional amendment.
@@devonmoody615 no I read it. I just think it has even less of a chance of happening than a convention of the states. Congress is probably the most dysfunctional it’s been since about 1870.
@@MH-eu1dr I see. You said it would have to be state by state and didn't mention that Congress could (theoretically) pass a uniform law. I agree that it is unlikely that will happen but disagree that an amendment is more likely. You'd need 38 states to approve any amendment passed by a convention and that's just never going to happen, not anytime soon at least.
Its too bad that the forward party gets so much partisan suspicion. I just keep pushing open primaries and rank choice voting. Let's find out who the citizens ACTUALLY want when we all set aside the gamesmanship of "electability", shall we?
It’s the Uniparty now, so what does it matter? It’s a convoluted idea telling candidates to lose their principals and values in order to pander to a bunch of whining narcissistic useful idiots.
Goat - So here in Alaska, we've gone through a couple rounds now. 0% of the most popular candidates were elected. Let me explain a little bit: Round 1, everyone votes their favorite. Round 2 their second favorite, and so on. Here, they have to get 50% to get the nod in any given round...which didn't happen. Alaska is a red heavy state, we almost always send Republicans to D.C. But what happens in reality? The good candidates split all the votes in the first round or two...then the worst candidate wins in round 3 or 4 because everyone's already exhausted their vote for the good candidate(s) in the first round or two. It is a horrible system...I'd advise to stay far away from it. I may be wrong, but I don't think this will stick around long here before it's voted out.
Worked perfect the most people got someone they could live with and didn’t have to drop a vote on anyone they could live with out. Just the way the republican party advertised to do but it backfired people didn’t drop votes on palin because they’d had enough. Literally anything but her is what enough voters said. It amounts to giving more voice to the voters pure and simple.
@@FlockingmMollifordsonite Not so simple. A special pain it is to tabulate, which with this system can only be done centrally, let alone to recount. Guarantees it will go slower than it needs to, and controversial results due to its inequitable treatment of exhausted votes will come as they have in other American jurisdictions where it's been repealed. On the plus side imo, RCV is more likely to elect an extremist than the other alt methods and I'm something of an extremist. If you want greatest shared happiness though then you want a different system. You can see infographics of RCV and Approval election results at ranked•vote and approval•vote, you know what to do with the dots.
Do more research. it's not difficult. It creates a system where you're less likely to be grossly disappointed with whoever get elected. It also reduces the backstabbing rivalry between candidates and parties.
it really isn't confusing at all. If a candidate has the majority of the voters then they win. If no one gets a majority then the one with the least votes is eliminated and the votes are recounted as if they were never in the race.
You're right, RCV is the more confusing and least accurate of the alternatives. It does nothing good for third parties, cementing the ruling parties deeper. It only takes care of the spoiler problem correctly when there are fewer than three viable candidates.
@@tommyanomaly6193 I'm down for restoring merit-based qualifications for voting eligibility, but something tells me a major party isn't Anyway, the way the RCV ballot is presented, it is distasteful for the voters who like only one candidate to rank other candidates as favored to any degree. This is called bullet voting, and it's both encouraged on the ballot but penalized in the results under RCV.
In Wyoming, Likely End of Cheney Dynasty Will Close a Political Era If Representative Liz Cheney loses her primary on Tuesday, as is widely expected, the Cowboy State’s conservative tilt will take on a harder edge.
Instant runoff voting works well for governor election, executive or single winner elections. But for the election of the legislature, single transferable vote in which multiple candidates can be elected to represent a district is better (for the legislature) to truly maximize the number of happy voters and to ensure that everyone gets a local representative that they feel more comfortable approaching. We need the fair representation act more than ever to reimagine a new democracy for this country.
That would definitely create the fairest overall system, but the problem there is local representation. You'd have to create bigger, and thus less representative of individual areas, districts. In the US, you aren't voting for a party, you are voting for a person.
@@jarynn8156 So to make sure STV doesn’t diminish local representation in rural areas, you make a 3 member multi winner district for sparsely populated areas so there representation doesn’t get diminished.
@@jarynn8156 I would be willing to make that trade off because it comes with additional benefits. It ends partisan gerrymandering & accurately reflects what voters want.
OK. I have tried to make ranked voting system work by trying it out more times on Excel. You can try it out too. It doesn't work and can't work simply by the logic of the method. I listed the candidates from left to right, and the alternate choices from top to bottom. The first step works when you subtract the loser from the first "round", which is the vote that the citizen wanted to work. But then it takes the loser's vote and distributes them evenly on the SECOND row. Why? It's supposed to be done to the first-round vote. that would be logically more fair. Either way it runs into problems. What happens is you either run out of votes to spread evenly across the candidates or run out of candidates to spread out the alternate votes, and you can't take the extra alternate votes and give them to one candidate. NOw after trying as best I could to make it work, it turns out that the most popular people running from the first, second, and possibly third positions (depending on how many candidates) are eliminated, and only the loser half of the race wins, usually somewhere around the middle of the choices. It's just enough to get rid of serious opposition, and the Democrats will cheat in every way possible. This method of voting makes it very easy to cheat on, as you can easily see.
11k republicans would rather have a democrat than crazy sara palin that's what ranked choice voting is saying. Stop running far right crazys and you will win ranked choice favors moderates over extremist
@@lithium25693 Good grief, son! Where is your brain? So Democrats choosing what I and Republicans want is what ranked voting is about? Don't you think the Democrats are as far left as you can get? There is no far right Republican - just a conservative. What is a moderate anyway? It's someone who does nothing. Look at the chaos the Dems have caused, and you are oblivious to everything. I know where you're coming from. You're scared to death that Republicans will reinstitute law and order along with morals and faith in the true God. You know there's always been a God, don't you? You yourself are proof there's a God. Nothing can create anything superior to itself, so the universe is at least equal to you, and superior because it created you. I can give you many more examples if I need to. You are in a state of brainwashed, liberal induced insanity. There are two cures for this: either get extensive therapy, or watch Fox News and Mark Levin. Now tell me where conservatives are wrong about anything. You can't. Or tell where Sarah Palin has ever actually been wrong.
RCV is the very worst of all the major alternative methods. So, apparently that's how it was chosen :p Everything else is so much better: approval voting, score voting, star voting...
@@dreamcoreapproval voting doesn’t satisfy arrows therom and cant be used for multichoicss votes like general elections, and the only one better than rcv is star voting the rest are all mathematically worse
The vote wasn't split. Do you even know what ranked choice voting is? When Begich came in 3rd, they removed him from the ballot and recounted the vote using his voters' second choice options. While Palin got most of his votes, the Democrat got a good chunk as well, enough to push her over 50%.
@@brucebarton8767 Before yelling in caps that Republicans split the vote, I'd recommend reading up on the changes to the system. The beauty of Ranked Choice Voting is that you can have multiple candidates on the field without splitting the vote. This allows voters to vote their mind without taking into account tactical voting. In order to win, a candidate must get 50% of the vote, a majority. If no one gets a majority, then one by one the lower performing candidates are eliminated and the vote is retallied using their voters' next preference. And it wasn't so much an insult as just being a touch rude and abrasive, in my opinion.
@@brucebarton8767 Typically caps lock is used to provide emphasis and is usually read as raising one's voice, either yelling or providing emphasis. How was my comment ridiculous?
no it still isnt there no downside into voting for what you want it also forces democrat to have more centrist policy appealing to republicans so its a win win
@@larryscarr3897 I agree. Active Duty Military, DoD employed civilians and Contractors are held accountable for the handling, transport & storing of all classification levels pertaining to documents. The “FORMER PRESIDENT” can take Top Secret documents with nuclear information to his home/resort in boxes and put them in a basement, and people think it is okay? Wow!
If a candidate is so great, then they shouldn’t have trouble getting more than 50% of first place votes then (or second place votes, if needed), so ranked choice voting sounds like a fair and more representative voting system to me.
@@trickydicky1 "If" the Republicans run only one CANDIDATE and the DEMOCRATS run 3 CANDIDATES, Its OBVIOUS the REPUBLICANS WILL WIN! NO! THAT'S STUPID!
Maybe…but I don’t care for all that Republican and Democrat stuff…I just base my vote on the candidate and their ideas, irrespective of what political party that they belong to. I think most of the founding fathers were against faction-based party politics, and I think that they were right…that’s too tribalistic for me. What are your values and ethics, that’s what I care about.
@@brucebarton8767 If Begich and Palin were the best, they would have had no trouble securing a majority. If Palin was the best, she would have had no trouble convincing Begich's voters to make her their second pick.
And who reads the results and decide who has won So they are going to let Sarah count them up and she will give them their winner I see how that’s going to work out just fine for someone lol
Approval voting is the way to go because you only have to change one sentence on the ballot. "Choose one or more." The candidate with the most votes still wins, but candidates who don't win still get valuable metrics of popularity. There's no confusion, no setting aside ballots, and no splitting of the vote. Why then is ranked choice the alternative with the most attention? Controlled resistance. It is allowed to be discussed as an alternative by the powers that be BECAUSE it is inferior. It was never meant to succeed, but to distract from better alternatives; To split the vote if you will.
Ranked choice voting is the best improvement to our system I've heard yet.
Depends on if your red or blue
@@iloveTRUMP I'm a libertarian conservative. Ranked choice voting is just better. You no longer vote for the lesser of two evils. You simply choose your favorite candidates, & if they lose then you have your second choice to fall back on. What the majority like the most wins.
@@iloveTRUMP not really, RCV is going to root out corruption.
@@austinbyrd4164 you need to see how this shell game is going to put the Marxist DemonicRATs in a position of single party absolute control.
@@iloveTRUMP not really ranked choice favors moderates over extremist
So cool too see the most people able to get someone they can live with.
The sooner ranked choice replaces all voting in the US the better!
Lemming
@@daleval2182 Care to explain? I mean we both know you cant but still, should prove good for a chuckle.
@@functionatthejunction care to explain, are you 75 going on 12,
@@daleval2182 And I was right.
Function, Why would you say the sooner the better?
Arrest Bonespurs
Ranked choice sounds like a good idea, but what would be even better is if we had a real democracy where the person with the most votes won.
I agree. The electoral college renders all voting in the US pointless.
Ranked choice is HORRIBLE, STUPID, AND NEEDS TO STOP.
That's true. The reason they suddenly switched to this system is to try and save Murkowski who was losing badly in the polls to her Trump endorsed opponent. If Murkowski would have been winning in the polls, they would have stayed with the old system.
why do you want to go back to corruption voting?
@@handsoffmygunmf6750 Alaska voters approved this election way before treason Trump got involved in Alaska politics because they were tired of corruption voting, this system is way better than the old one.
This sounds so great and if implementet perhaps it would help humble the partisan extremists on both sides and weaken partisan division.
Republicans voted for this new rank choice loading system in Alaska. Sarah Palin will not even be placing in the top three under this new rain choice system.
She’s got %33 of the vote behind Peltola with %34 so this isn’t aging well. Palin will likely win with Republican Begich’s %27 of votes via rank choice.
@@theclamhammer4447 And now that the special election is concluded we can see that your response also did not age well since Palin only got roughly half of Begich's second choice votes enabling the Democrat to win. This, however, does show why RCV is world's better than FPTP, you have to compete not just for your own votes but also to be the second choice of the voters for weaker candidates. This will force people toward the center in most cases.
BLUE WAVE 🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊🌊💝
Just imagine a democracy where each person’s vote was equal regardless of any demographics.
Come to think of it, anything not like that is not a democracy
Whew. Good thing we are a constitutional republic then. Had me worried for a minute.
@@MH-eu1dr so you're against everyone getting a vote? Got it. Oh by the way, a republic is a type of democracy, genius; representative democracy.
@@devonmoody615 only cuckholds use that feminine line “got it” as it to prove you made a valid point , calm down soy boy
They changed to this method hoping it would save Lisa Murkowski who was losing badly to the Trump endorsed candidate in the polls. If Murkowski would have been winning in the polls, they would not have switched to this system, where the general election decides. Doing it this way with 4 candidates, the winner will not win with a majority of the votes.
@@devonmoody615 define representative demacracy lmaooooo
I hope everywhere in the nation follows suit and adopts this voting style.
Can the voter just vote for who they want and leave the other choices blank? That's how I would treat a ballot like that. Maybe a 1 and a 2, but no more than that as it would otherwise force me place somebody as 3rd who I would never vote for.
Yes, you can rank up to four choices. If you only pick one choice, then it is just like the old ballots (which is fine if you like that).
I mentioned that also. You're right.
its a trap
Yes, but the biggest problem is that Alaska has FOUR candidates in the general election vying for ONE house seat. To win, one of them needs to get a minimum of 50% of the votes. Since Alaska is HEAVILY republican-conservative, there will ALWAYS be multiple conservative candidates. In fact, this year, there is 1 liberal democrat, 2 republican conservatives, and 1 libertarian conservative. So far 81% of the votes have been counted and the democrat has about 48% of the votes. The conservative candidates combined have almost 52% of the votes, but since the conservative votes are split between them none of them could possibly win 50%!!! The conservatives have about 24, 26, and 1.5 percent of the votes which when combined add up to 52%. But because of this convoluted election system, the democrat is on the verge of winning the nomination. There should be ONE candidate from the democrat ticket and ONE from the republican ticket to make it fair!!!
@@ElizaDolittle 100% Correct. The Dems outsmarted the people on this yet again.
Australia’s entire House of Reps is elected by ranked choice (or preferential)
only Australia's lower house is single-winner RCV, which is the problematic variety this is
FYI that the title is wrong. Alaska uses ranked choice voting for general elections, not primaries.
of course, you are correct.
Don't they use it for both?
This shoulda been the norm nation-wide. Clearly a better system. You shouldn't have to choose between the lesser of two evils. The opposition of RCV are clearly the ones that do not benefit from an election voted by the people. Look at the last half century's election in the US. Majority of Republicans won electoral college votes, but not the popular vote. I'd say that president did not win the people's choice. Certainly not when it comes to that candidate has to make decisions that will impact of my entire life.
There are several alternatives to our current system...RCV is the least accurate, most susceptible to fraud, etc. IT is the worst alt out there, save a dictator deciding to throw an election. Check out the Infographics video on it.
Take Republicans off all ballots.
enjoy high gas prices, inflation, crimes, and turmoil around the world, keep voting for evil dems
Is that a typo? It should be the other way around!
that will be okay with me because that means we will get Libertarians elected in the places that usually have Republicans elected today.
Trump didn't seem too happy about that new way to vote. However, Sarah Palin isn't anyone I would want in Congress or the Senate. From what I understand from her time as Governor she sucked at it. I kind of like rank choice voting. Trump would be last in line on that list in a lot of states.
Unfortunately, the man is very good at convincing people he's somehow a good choice. But yes, ranked choice will certainly help us cleanse all of the septuagenarians off of the ballots.
Alaska has officially become the most democratic state. No vote is wasted
America is a constitutional republic. We employ democracy when we elect our representatives, but that is a far cry from being a democracy.
The difference between the two systems is crucial. A democracy is where everything is decided by majority rule; rights, laws, everything. A republic is where individuals are elected to serve as representatives of the people and the government in which they serve is bound by the rule of law and the sovereign rights of individuals it represents.
The tension which exists between these two systems is precisely the tension which exists between our two prevailing political parties, the democra(ts) and the republic(ans). Those who favor moving our nation closer to a pure democracy are those who argue that everything should be subject to the will of the masses. When Democrats don’t like the prohibition against redefining marriage, their inclination is to argue that the will of the people should trump the rights of individuals and that the Constitution should be seen as a “living document”, subject to the whims of the people.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Our Founders did everything possible to prevent our Constitution from being a living document. They understood that the freedoms and liberties they wanted to safeguard were only possible in an environment which recognizes absolute morality and individual sovereignty. When rights are determined by majority rule, then only those who adhere to the majority will be granted rights.
People who don't understand it shouldn't be allowed to vote. It's not that difficult to understand.
Ranked choice allows politicians to vote their conscience without worried about being "Primaried out"
Its NOT confusing. YOu just vote your conscience
its a scam the party with less candidates will win . more gop voted split the vote over D candidate.
not a scam all the republicans who dont want sarah palin have a choice now
Now spread it to the rest of the country.
Unless it goes state by state individually you would need a constitutional amendment to do it in one fell swoop. Article one says states are responsible for their laws.
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Either way, if you think it will be nationwide any time soon I got a bridge in San Fran for sale.
@@MH-eu1dr I guess you didn't read the second part of your direct quote from the constitution- "But, Congress may at anytime by law make or alter such regulations." That means even though states can set their own election rules, the federal government can change them by passing a law. That also means that you could implement something like ranked choice voting for all the states with a federal law and not require a constitutional amendment.
@@devonmoody615 no I read it. I just think it has even less of a chance of happening than a convention of the states. Congress is probably the most dysfunctional it’s been since about 1870.
@@MH-eu1dr I see. You said it would have to be state by state and didn't mention that Congress could (theoretically) pass a uniform law. I agree that it is unlikely that will happen but disagree that an amendment is more likely. You'd need 38 states to approve any amendment passed by a convention and that's just never going to happen, not anytime soon at least.
Once again the forward party called this out It's in one of the policies people need to do more research #Forward party 🥳 #AndrewYang #Yanggang
Woot! Forward Party
Its too bad that the forward party gets so much partisan suspicion. I just keep pushing open primaries and rank choice voting. Let's find out who the citizens ACTUALLY want when we all set aside the gamesmanship of "electability", shall we?
All we can is hope 🙏 and pray 🙏
Who would put her in an office. PLEASE. The world can get worse
Need to be more about the policies than the party. We need ranked-choice voting.
It’s the Uniparty now, so what does it matter? It’s a convoluted idea telling candidates to lose their principals and values in order to pander to a bunch of whining narcissistic useful idiots.
It seems like it has some real advantages. We need something like that in GA.
the good news is that it's the worst alternative method, any other alternative you choose will be better still
Goat - So here in Alaska, we've gone through a couple rounds now. 0% of the most popular candidates were elected. Let me explain a little bit: Round 1, everyone votes their favorite. Round 2 their second favorite, and so on. Here, they have to get 50% to get the nod in any given round...which didn't happen.
Alaska is a red heavy state, we almost always send Republicans to D.C. But what happens in reality? The good candidates split all the votes in the first round or two...then the worst candidate wins in round 3 or 4 because everyone's already exhausted their vote for the good candidate(s) in the first round or two.
It is a horrible system...I'd advise to stay far away from it. I may be wrong, but I don't think this will stick around long here before it's voted out.
Worked perfect the most people got someone they could live with and didn’t have to drop a vote on anyone they could live with out. Just the way the republican party advertised to do but it backfired people didn’t drop votes on palin because they’d had enough. Literally anything but her is what enough voters said. It amounts to giving more voice to the voters pure and simple.
@@FlockingmMollifordsonite Not so simple. A special pain it is to tabulate, which with this system can only be done centrally, let alone to recount. Guarantees it will go slower than it needs to, and controversial results due to its inequitable treatment of exhausted votes will come as they have in other American jurisdictions where it's been repealed.
On the plus side imo, RCV is more likely to elect an extremist than the other alt methods and I'm something of an extremist. If you want greatest shared happiness though then you want a different system.
You can see infographics of RCV and Approval election results at ranked•vote and approval•vote, you know what to do with the dots.
This sound confusing, but I'm not in Alaska, so good luck to Alaskans.
Do more research. it's not difficult. It creates a system where you're less likely to be grossly disappointed with whoever get elected. It also reduces the backstabbing rivalry between candidates and parties.
it really isn't confusing at all. If a candidate has the majority of the voters then they win. If no one gets a majority then the one with the least votes is eliminated and the votes are recounted as if they were never in the race.
You're right, RCV is the more confusing and least accurate of the alternatives. It does nothing good for third parties, cementing the ruling parties deeper.
It only takes care of the spoiler problem correctly when there are fewer than three viable candidates.
Anyone who thinks that it's too confusing probably shouldn't be voting to begin with
@@tommyanomaly6193 I'm down for restoring merit-based qualifications for voting eligibility, but something tells me a major party isn't
Anyway, the way the RCV ballot is presented, it is distasteful for the voters who like only one candidate to rank other candidates as favored to any degree. This is called bullet voting, and it's both encouraged on the ballot but penalized in the results under RCV.
Sarah was a naturally attractive woman. Now her upper lip is oddly frozen.
This is awesome
How does she believe murk is a rep? Good lord
Isn’t it supposed be like that the most popular person wins
This ensures that votes for 3rd parties actually matter and aren't just getting thrown away.
Sounds Crooked Again.
What's crooked about it?
Drill baby drill...
Stormy Daniels told Trump that right?
Trouble is it's far easier to fudge averages.
Gigachad moment
thats stupid
Democrats are freaking out.
How dems hate the electoral college and got the largest amount of votes
1036 /656
This has to be Sara again
She just can’t get her brain to work anymore
She has so much in common with Trump
I think that it’s going to blow up on them
Wait a minute...merkowski adopted this not alaskans, and this is bs.
The Alaskan voters approved it last election.
What on Earth does Murkowski have to do with this? This is a state level issue, she is a federal senator.
In Wyoming, Likely End of Cheney Dynasty Will Close a Political Era
If Representative Liz Cheney loses her primary on Tuesday, as is widely expected, the Cowboy State’s conservative tilt will take on a harder edge.
She isn't conservative she toots demonrats. She's useless
Instant runoff voting works well for governor election, executive or single winner elections. But for the election of the legislature, single transferable vote in which multiple candidates can be elected to represent a district is better (for the legislature) to truly maximize the number of happy voters and to ensure that everyone gets a local representative that they feel more comfortable approaching. We need the fair representation act more than ever to reimagine a new democracy for this country.
That would definitely create the fairest overall system, but the problem there is local representation. You'd have to create bigger, and thus less representative of individual areas, districts. In the US, you aren't voting for a party, you are voting for a person.
@@jarynn8156 So to make sure STV doesn’t diminish local representation in rural areas, you make a 3 member multi winner district for sparsely populated areas so there representation doesn’t get diminished.
@@jarynn8156 I would be willing to make that trade off because it comes with additional benefits. It ends partisan gerrymandering & accurately reflects what voters want.
Yeah ,because 1 person ,1 vote ,most votes win is such a complicated system....
Ranked choice ensures that people can feel like they can vote for a 3rd party without having to worry about their vote getting thrown away.
You still have one person one vote with ranked choice it is simply more elections in one.
FPTP benefits the corrupt, RCV benefits the voters.
Disgusting
OK. I have tried to make ranked voting system work by trying it out more times on Excel. You can try it out too. It doesn't work and can't work simply by the logic of the method. I listed the candidates from left to right, and the alternate choices from top to bottom. The first step works when you subtract the loser from the first "round", which is the vote that the citizen wanted to work.
But then it takes the loser's vote and distributes them evenly on the SECOND row. Why? It's supposed to be done to the first-round vote. that would be logically more fair. Either way it runs into problems.
What happens is you either run out of votes to spread evenly across the candidates or run out of candidates to spread out the alternate votes, and you can't take the extra alternate votes and give them to one candidate.
NOw after trying as best I could to make it work, it turns out that the most popular people running from the first, second, and possibly third positions (depending on how many candidates) are eliminated, and only the loser half of the race wins, usually somewhere around the middle of the choices. It's just enough to get rid of serious opposition, and the Democrats will cheat in every way possible.
This method of voting makes it very easy to cheat on, as you can easily see.
11k republicans would rather have a democrat than crazy sara palin that's what ranked choice voting is saying.
Stop running far right crazys and you will win ranked choice favors moderates over extremist
@@lithium25693 Good grief, son! Where is your brain? So Democrats choosing what I and Republicans want is what ranked voting is about? Don't you think the Democrats are as far left as you can get? There is no far right Republican - just a conservative. What is a moderate anyway? It's someone who does nothing. Look at the chaos the Dems have caused, and you are oblivious to everything.
I know where you're coming from. You're scared to death that Republicans will reinstitute law and order along with morals and faith in the true God. You know there's always been a God, don't you? You yourself are proof there's a God. Nothing can create anything superior to itself, so the universe is at least equal to you, and superior because it created you. I can give you many more examples if I need to.
You are in a state of brainwashed, liberal induced insanity. There are two cures for this: either get extensive therapy, or watch Fox News and Mark Levin.
Now tell me where conservatives are wrong about anything. You can't. Or tell where Sarah Palin has ever actually been wrong.
RCV is the very worst of all the major alternative methods. So, apparently that's how it was chosen :p
Everything else is so much better: approval voting, score voting, star voting...
@@dreamcoreapproval voting doesn’t satisfy arrows therom and cant be used for multichoicss votes like general elections, and the only one better than rcv is star voting the rest are all mathematically worse
how to legally get votes tossed, make p[people think their write in votes will get counted
Who was the mud shark?
ruclips.net/video/XXdmq_pTr8A/видео.html
SPLITTING THE VOTE FOR EITHER SIDE IS A LOSING STRATEGY!
The vote wasn't split. Do you even know what ranked choice voting is? When Begich came in 3rd, they removed him from the ballot and recounted the vote using his voters' second choice options. While Palin got most of his votes, the Democrat got a good chunk as well, enough to push her over 50%.
@@jarynn8156 "do uou even know "
Well, of course not! It's new & unheard of!
But, "WHY THE INSULT?"
@@brucebarton8767 Before yelling in caps that Republicans split the vote, I'd recommend reading up on the changes to the system. The beauty of Ranked Choice Voting is that you can have multiple candidates on the field without splitting the vote. This allows voters to vote their mind without taking into account tactical voting. In order to win, a candidate must get 50% of the vote, a majority. If no one gets a majority, then one by one the lower performing candidates are eliminated and the vote is retallied using their voters' next preference.
And it wasn't so much an insult as just being a touch rude and abrasive, in my opinion.
@@jarynn8156
I wasn't yelling in caps! I was GIVING you a comment!
Next I'll spell something wrong!
Your comment was RIDICULOUS!
@@brucebarton8767 Typically caps lock is used to provide emphasis and is usually read as raising one's voice, either yelling or providing emphasis.
How was my comment ridiculous?
WAIT.. THIS IS A FAKE NEWS CHANNEL AFTER I GET OUT OF HERE I'M GOING TO FOX
It rewards the biggest liers
Partisanship isn't everything but it is if Democrats stick like glue and too afraid to break away
no it still isnt there no downside into voting for what you want it also forces democrat to have more centrist policy appealing to republicans so its a win win
Procedures for declassification of materials are complicated. However, the president has ultimate declassification authority and may declassify .
this is about Alaska......not that mentally ill Orange dude who purposefully DIDNT declassify because then there would be a paper trail
Please explain
Who cares?? It's about mishandling documents classified or not.
Coo coo. Another Dump puppet.keep pulling his string ...he will obey
..
@@larryscarr3897 I agree. Active Duty Military, DoD employed civilians and Contractors are held accountable for the handling, transport & storing of all classification levels pertaining to documents. The “FORMER PRESIDENT” can take Top Secret documents with nuclear information to his home/resort in boxes and put them in a basement, and people think it is okay? Wow!
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY INSANE!
The 2 BEST are sabotaged by the WORST!
If a candidate is so great, then they shouldn’t have trouble getting more than 50% of first place votes then (or second place votes, if needed), so ranked choice voting sounds like a fair and more representative voting system to me.
@@trickydicky1
"If" the Republicans run only one CANDIDATE and the DEMOCRATS run 3 CANDIDATES, Its OBVIOUS the REPUBLICANS WILL WIN!
NO! THAT'S STUPID!
Maybe…but I don’t care for all that Republican and Democrat stuff…I just base my vote on the candidate and their ideas, irrespective of what political party that they belong to. I think most of the founding fathers were against faction-based party politics, and I think that they were right…that’s too tribalistic for me. What are your values and ethics, that’s what I care about.
@@trickydicky1 OBVIOUSLY, you're a DEMOCRAT!
A specialist in DENIAL, DECEPTION & PROPOGANDA!
LOL! May the best man win! That's hilarious!
@@brucebarton8767 If Begich and Palin were the best, they would have had no trouble securing a majority. If Palin was the best, she would have had no trouble convincing Begich's voters to make her their second pick.
Lmao. AKA Voter fckin fraud
True, Palin got too many votes. Pretty suspicious anyone would vote for a loser quitter.
And who reads the results and decide who has won
So they are going to let Sarah count them up and she will give them their winner
I see how that’s going to work out just fine for someone
lol
why not just have a "1 vote for every 5 black democrat vote" rule? Its kinda going in that direction if theyre gonna do that
the video doesnt even touch on a subject remotely about that
Approval voting is the way to go because you only have to change one sentence on the ballot. "Choose one or more." The candidate with the most votes still wins, but candidates who don't win still get valuable metrics of popularity. There's no confusion, no setting aside ballots, and no splitting of the vote.
Why then is ranked choice the alternative with the most attention? Controlled resistance. It is allowed to be discussed as an alternative by the powers that be BECAUSE it is inferior. It was never meant to succeed, but to distract from better alternatives;
To split the vote if you will.