What is Ranked Choice Voting?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 июн 2024
- In most parts of the United States, voters select a single candidate for each position on their ballot, and the candidate with the most votes wins. This is known as single-choice, winner-take-all, which can sometimes result in the election of a candidate who earned only a small percentage of the vote. But that’s not the only way of electing our leaders.
Ranked choice voting is another voting method which allows voters to rank their favorite candidates in order of preference.
Learn more by visiting www.fairvote.org.
Animation created by Mikhaila Markham.
One main advantage that doesn’t get mentioned or given any emphasis is that RCV increases the power of democracy and collaboration by enabling candidates to adopt ideas proposed by opposing candidates to: 1) win ranked votes from people that support their opponents; and most all 2) add, revise & improve their proposals/solutions in their campaign platforms.
🆘Found a $10 bill with a message on it that reads: “If they can put serial numbers on all US money why can’t they do it on election ballots” ? It makes sense but democrats would never approve since it would make it harder for them to cheat in elections and liberals would call it racists like they do to everything they don’t like or approve of.
So the libtards can invade a district and introduce 3 or more puppets that all promise different things and trick voters into spreading their vote and then stack their votes to one of their puppets in the end? democracy in action
It's easy to manipulate the vote that way. Plus, you are blind voting
I hope to see elections that represent the American people properly within my lifetime. I support you, FairVote
won't happen without a socialist revolution
@@gloverelaxis or a democratic revolution
Don't! RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
@@secularsekai8910 or a libertarian revolution
@@vegahimsa3057 A look at Australia proves all you claimed about RCV wrong.
Great video! Let's make ranked choice voting a reality in the 2024 elections!
Yes, please!
Assuming we have an election in 2024, I'm all for it!
@Siamuel Alezander almost nobody watching this video is so partisan as to fall for your crap buddy. Most of us are 3rd party, independent, or sympathizers with those groups. We all see the world being destroyed by both republican and democrats (maybe some see one as a lesser evil).
The BLM is destroying america stuff is largely fed to you by conspiracy theorists. I promise you that 90+% of BLM supporters and activists really are there to end police brutality and are not trying to hurt anyone.
That's not going to happen before States replace winner takes all with congressional district or something similar like in maine and nebraska
@@nickmercurio2422 zz-zz,,zz lip
Greetings from Chile! I personally belive that besides RCV US could have a better political system if it had multy member electoral districts, maybe by joining existing districts so people from one district cand choose more than one representative and it could stimulate DEM and GOP to finally split their factions into parties so people can choose who they want.
Chile has a form of RCV and is one of the poorest countries in the world. Residents feel unheard and parties have become more polarized.
@@patrickvalandra9191 xD
Mi hermano en cristo que manera de hablar weas xD
1- Chile doesn't have RCV our D'hont it's not even close to what this video shows
2- Even though we're in Latam we're not by far one of the poorest countries (we are on of the best in many indicators)
3- People have been feeling unheard for years and btw that feeling comes from the old electoral system which was in fact a "bipartisan" system.
4- Parties are not polarized, as in many other parts of the world RIGHT WING PARTIES are the radical ones, in the last elections the "moderate center" choose to ally with the radical right party claiming that the current president was almost like Stalin or Mao and the right keep saying our government is communist even though it's not doing much different from what the orthodox economy says xD
Thank you!
#RankedChoiceVoting is _especially_ needed in primaries, where the fields are often crowded. How often to candidates win the primary nomination with ~1/3 of the vote? (Rhetorical)
How about "none of the above"?
That's actually also an option in Ranked Choice! If you dislike certain candidates on the ballot enough, you can just not rank them at all.
I have a question for experts: will this be more difficult to manage logistically?
To the best of my knowledge not much more, especially with electronic voting, but also because all the candidates on paper would get separate piles based on who voted them as #1 and then if those candidates get knocked out they get reorganized into their #2 pile and so on and so forth until a 50 percent majority is achieved.
Alaska tried it this year
@@disastermidi1990 did they try it this year, or sign it into law this year?
We do this in Australia across the board - local council, state and federal elections. We also don't do electronic voting either; it's completely paper based. It's a far superior voting system than FPTP, which always favours the two major parties, as you can never waste your vote unless you draw d1ckpics on your ballot or something.
Even still, we do have the two major parties in Australia, which is a shame, because most people usually just follow the "how to vote" cards that are given out by party supporters at the entrance to the polling booth and don't bother to think for themselves. You'd think those people would just stay home on election day, but we have enforced compulsory voting in Australia as well.
@@zo1dberg how long does it take for you to get the results of the election?
Best way to DEMOCRATICALLY vote this country has ever seen. it should be made both a federal law and a constitutional amendment to force ALL states to also use ranked choice voting as it is proven the most democratic way to make sure all votes count and all voiced heard..
It's a completely undemocratic system that should be banned as unconstitutional nationwide. It violates one person one vote and elects candidates who are not the preference of the majority.
It will be nice to have RCV in my country, where majoritarianism is quite rampant.
RCV doesn't fix majoritarianism
@@eyescreamcake uncertainty regarding the results does help prevent the formation of majoritarian echo chambers. You need to deliberate the 1st 3 choices, so you would have to vote for parties that are not that much likeable to you, but still somewhat good. Also, in order to not lose the 2nd choice and 3rd choice of voters, the politicians need to be more careful before being divisive or polarising.
@@dibyohaldar7671 RCV throws away votes for third parties and reassigns them to the main two. the main two don't have to worry about spoilers anymore.
@@eyescreamcake Fair point. So third parties no longer spoil the vote shares, in effect eliminating the smaller parties even before the voting started. So the largest parties only need to worry about their direct opponent, and thus can be more polarising. I did not think it this way. Thanks.
@@dibyohaldar7671 Then, if the third party becomes stronger, they start to act as a spoiler again, by threatening to take enough votes away from another party that that party gets eliminated first, but then the third party is typically eliminated second, so the "greater of two evils" wins from the third party's perspective. There are many other voting systems that don't have these problems.
How many times would a person have to vote?
Once, but providing ordinality instead of a single vote per race. Some refer to this as an "instant runoff"
@@jgjertsen Or as we get told in Australia when handed our ballot paper: “Number the boxes next to the candidates in order of your preference”. We actually write the numbers 1,2,3,4, etc. on our ballot papers.
Would this allow a group of say 4 candidates from one party to "gang up" on a mere single candidate from another party? Or are there limits on that (which would clearly be corrupt)?
Ranked choice voting doesn't add any laws about how campaigns are run. They could "gang up" on a single candidate if they wanted. It's not clear how that would help them, though.
No, because running multiple candidates from the same party causes spoiler effects. Palin acted as a spoiler in Alaska's election, costing the Republicans a seat, even though a majority of voters preferred a Republican over the Democrat.
*_This is a act of the Facist democrats to control voting..._*
This system is flawed and shouldn’t be put into action until fixed
@@eyescreamcake She was a spoiler in the sense that if more voters ranked Begich 1st, and Begich had advanced to the runoff, then Begich would have won. Too many Republican voters ranked a less appealing candidate at the top. A majority of voters preferred a Democrat over Palin.
People say it's confusing, hard and would make it further rig our elections and such? Well, what do you voters want then? Do you want change and make elections more fair or do you want to continue a system that's been rigged for this long? Choose and stop refusing to try something new.
I think the fact that there are people who find this confusing proves that an inferior IQ should not vote at all... Perhaps the media should then promote the message: "If you are too confused by this it is recommended that you stay home", lol
@@andybertozzi True words by how you put it. 👍
I have voted two times with ranked choice voting, and it is not confusing. Candidates names are listed on left side by alphabetical order, and across the top is your rank 1-2-3-4-etc. Each candidate has their own set of ovals, etc. so if you are voting for candidate 3 for 1st place, from their name follow across to the first oval, square, etc that is on the same line as their name. If you want candidate 3 in 4th place, follow their name line across to the fourth oval that is the same line as the name. Let say candidate 1 you are ranking 5th. go all the way across from left to right to mark the oval that is in the same line as candidates name. I love rank choice voting!
RCV does nothing but entrench two parties. "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
Most people who are confused will bullet vote (single top rank only). Or vote in a horizontal line, which is effectively the same thing. The Republican candidate typically gets 15% bullet votes, an enormous advantage (I presume from the elderly and, how should I say: the less thoughtful voters). It's ironic that Democrats are most often in favor of this broken system despite the Republican bloc voting advantage.
Anyone who thinks that this means less negative advertising obviously doesn't live in Virginia.
Is this for each state or popular vote nationwide?
This is a generic video about what rank choice voting is. Some local cities, some counties, and some states have implemented this for votes at those respective level. Maine is (or was at this time) the only state using ranked choice voting for a presidential election, but other states could start if they choose to.
Every level, please.
Dave: If you don't know the answer, you have no business voting. Ciao.
It's better and I like, it but it's not a Panacea. This works with candidates in the same party (primaries), or just one candidate per party. Also, It doesn't solve the problem with a heavy gerrymandered districts. Solution? You also need to get rid of districts and distribute the seats proportionally, like Germany. You need two elections, the first one to get an order of priority candidates using ranked choice (public primaries). Then another ranked choice election with the parties, not the candidates. Dependeding of how many seats a party got in the second election, fill those seats using that list of priority of the first (primary) election.
Fixing gerrymandering is a separate issue, and multiple states have taken steps to combat this. However, the degree of success depends on how willing the incumbent party is to ignore the will of the voters.
It works with multiple candidates per party. If A is in the Purple party and B and C are in the Green Party, A will win only if more than 50% of the voters choose A. If A is the top choice of 40% , B of 31%, and C 29% ... C's 2nd-place votes will go to B, and B will win, 60% to 40% (This assumes that C's fans prefer their party's other candidate, B, to A.)
Your example showed the Yellow Guy winning either way- that ruins the point you are trying to make about RCV. Please repost with the example showing how RCV would end up with a different outcome.
In many scenarios, the winner will be the same in either system. That's not a bad thing. However, one way that RCV is far superior to the single-choice winner-takes-all system is that RCV will always prevent the least popular candidate from winning, whereas the least popular candidate could win in the single-choice winner-takes-all system.
Suppose three candidate run for election in a city. Suppose 32% of the voters think candidate A is the best choice (and, simultaneously, all of these people think candidate B is the second best choice). Suppose further that 33% of the voters think candidate B is the best choice (and, simultaneously, all of these people think candidate A is the second best choice). The remaining 35% of voters think candidate C is the best choice.
In the single-choice winner-takes-all system, candidate C wins with 35% of the vote, even though 65% of the voters think candidate C is the worst choice. However, in ranked choice voting, candidate A would be eliminated and all their votes would get transferred to candidate B since candidate B is ranked second on all of those ballots. Now, candidate B wins with 65% of the vote.
Now, in practice, it wouldn't be so clean-cut. Some of A's voters would prefer C to B, etc. But this shows one place where ranked choice voting is really superior to the single-choice winner-takes-all system.
@@MuffinsAPlenty "RCV will always prevent the least popular candidate from winning" True, but this form of RCV can still elect the 2nd least popular candidate, which is not much of an improvement.
What about STV? What about party list?
Look that green devil. He's so happy that he's lost 😅
does RCV *ALWAYS* guarantee that one candidate will hit the winning threshold? Or is there some very bizarre circumstance in which a winner won't result?
One person must always win. So in the example if nobody was above 50%, then only the person who received the fewest votes is eliminated. All people who voted that person as their 1st choice also cast a choice for a second, third and 4th. They move the votes until one person has atleast 50% plus 1 vote.
The only "bizarre circumstance" that could statistically happen is that at the end of elimination's, 2 people some how end up with exactly 50% votes split perfectly. It's statistically improbable, but it's not impossible.
@@mattervin6548 low probability but not NO probability. If it does indeed come down to a tie, then we move to Trial by Combat.
No, it can't always guarantee. If everyone only ranks their first choice then it is no different than FPTP. If you did a runoff (a seperate election after the first (Costly)) with the top 2 candidates then you can ensure the winner has the majority of the votes and not just the plurality.
But most likely with proper education and usage most people will rank more than 1 candidate with most people ranking all the choices from first to last. This will give you the best chance of getting a majority based winner than any other single election day voting system while also allowing minor parties/candidates to compete, and reducing the spoiler effect of voting for the minor party/candidate.
@@jasonwang9417 you're sounding like Rudy Giuliani lol
RCV creates a "majority" by eliminating candidates until only two are left. This is an illusion though, because they may not actually be supported by the majority of voters. In fact, a strong majority of voters may prefer most OTHER candidates over the winner. RCV is not a very democratic system.
Wait a minute, what happened to the green votes in orange's column at 1:30? The green sections of the other columns didn't grow when orange got eliminated. Were these votes just thrown away?
no, voters who would've ranked green and orange as their 1 and 2 would have their votes count towards their 3rd rank, whether it be yellow or pink. this video didn't do a great job showing this.
Probably just an error/misunderstanding they made while editing the video
Or maybe those voters stopped ranking after their second choice.
Yeah, I'll take a trifecta in this race . . . .
Democracy....something the United States has no clue how to accomplish it.
Democracy my ass. This thing is a leftist scam to cheat an election.
FairVote... Might be better with the F&V capitalized
Mmh, I still think "normal" proportional representation is better. In this system you still end up with only one candidate, and that means that some people might never see their #1 choice elected. It's better than FPTP though.
If you can figure out how to rank your votes then figuring out how to get an ID, vote on election day or fill out an absentee ballot should be a breeze.
star and approval is better
Good to see more comments like this. Maybe FairVote will finally come around someday.
star literally causes spoiler effect also
star's as good as it can get for any system with a single electee. but the amount of representatives should be far, far, far greater than it is now, and proportional to the will of the entire population. geographic electorates (or any other electorates where the minority votes are discarded) are incredibly undemocratic.
@@gloverelaxis STAR doesn't discard minority votes, though, so geographic representation would be much better if each district used it. Each winner would be the best representative of the entire electorate in each district.
It's that you should never have to betray your favorites. "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
Can I re post this video on my page?
Yes! We'd love any help with spreading the word
Do we forget that we live in a democratic republic? Yes, a republic not a democracy. Our founding fathers gave us this gift. I will say for RCV that it is intriguing, but I am still reading and searching for the best way to choose our representatives.
fwd with Andrew Yang
1. Green
2. Pink
....
3. Yellow
4. Orange
The reason this doesn't happen in the U.S. is because everyone with the power to change the voting system got there via the status quo and has a vested interest in maintaining the two-party hegemony/plutocracy that empowered them in the first place.
a big Problem I have with this Video is, that it acts as if instand runoff were the only ranked choice voting.
Yeah, it's one of the worst forms. Only Contingent Vote or Supplementary Vote are worse.
@@eyescreamcake strictly speaking first past the post can also be seen as ranked choice voting. That is also a worthy contender for being even worth than instand runoff. And you can always make any system worse by adding some nonsensible stuff to it. But I would absolutly agree, that among ranked voting Systems Least Popular Elimination (better name for instand runoff) is not a good choice.
@@MusikCassette FPTP is literally not ranked choice voting, but yeah
@@eyescreamcake a square is still a rectangle and the 0-ring is till a ring. And from a systematic point of view FPTP should be seen as a form ranked choice voting. Just that everything below the first rank gets Ignored.
@@MusikCassette So, in other words … it's literally not ranked choice
Please, people look it up on Wikipedia! Then explain it to someone.
Better to look up all the alternative voting systems and realize this is one of the worst.
RCV doesn't solve what's claimed. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
@@vegahimsa3057 AV will never get support in America. And your claim that RCV is complex and AV is simple? They're both pretty simple. Also, the reason AV will NEVER get support in America is because those against it, like myself, will just talk about how it destroys one person one vote.
We don't have to rank all in a race. We can vote for one candidate for Round 1 and then not rank anyone else. You didn't mention this in your video.
Then your vote is THROWN OUT!
that depends on the place. some say you have to some say you dont
I think you misunderstood the video
@@rjkola your vote COULD be thrown out if your choice falls out of the race. it doesn't burst into flames because you didn't rank everyone
Man you did an EXCELLENT job explaining this!! Thank you so much and great job!!
This is fake, fraud, and deception why should my vote go to somebody who I'm forced to vote for deception, deception, deception just make it sound good and fool the people....
This system would do away with the fringe weirdos too, your Mastrianos, Lakes, etc.
How about cons? I am sure there are some. This video was just an ad…
Cons: It doesn't actually do anything that FairVote claims.
Why cant someone select the person they would vote for across all choices?
What does that mean?
Because that person/candidate wouldn't be an option.
Imagine this example, you are calling your pizza place to order a one-topping pizza tomorrow.
You: I want a pizza with one topping.
Pizza Place: What topping?
You: Pepperoni
Pizza Place: Great. If we run out of that topping what is your second choice?
You: Olives
You wouldn't say pepperoni because it wouldn't be an option. Your "next choice" for who to vote for is only selected if it is not an option because it was the candidate that received the least votes. If you put down the same candidate for each choice you are basically saying "throw my vote away".
@@eyescreamcake I think they mean pick Joe for #1,2,3, and 4th choice...like voting for that person 4X
@@mapleo4400 That would invalidate your ballot
You can! And in Alaska's recent elections, some people _did_ exactly that. Forty-seven people voted for Nick Begich as first, second, and third choice candidate. When Nick Begich was eliminated, all of their votes had to be disqualified from that point on, since none of the candidates they listed were still in the race. (To be clear, those votes _did_ count in the first round. They just couldn't count in later rounds.)
So if you really care about one particular candidate, you can vote for only that one candidate. Just keep in mind that you will not have a say in later rounds if your preferred candidate is eliminated.
Why is this the first time in my life at 40 I’m hearing this? I mean jk I know…
I didn't realize ranked choice voting worked quite like this, and it still seems a little bit flawed. This way only works well when only one person can win the election. For example, let's say that you can elect two candidates for a position. If candidate A got 80% in the first round, then they would be elected. But if Candidate B was also very popular, it wouldn't take into account any votes by the people who voted for candidate A above them, and could result in, say, candidate C being elected, even if the majority of voters preferred candidate B over candidate C.
In that scenario, a better way to do this would be to weight the votes. So let's say, something like this:
First Choice - 4 points
Second Choice - 3 points
Third Choice - 2 points
Fourth Choice - 1 point
Then, you'd just add together each candidate's point total, and the highest candidates would win. It seems a lot more logical to me than eliminating and re-shuffling the vote.
you didn't understand the video. if A gets 80% in the first round, then the vast majority of voters prefer A as their FIRST choice, and they are the clear winner.
@@Mr_Gabbles I did understand, you just didn't fully read my comment. I'm not talking about scenarios with only 1 winner. I'm talking about scenarios where you can have multiple.
Say there are 4 candidates, and 2 of them can be elected. If 95% of people voted for candidate A as their first choice, and all of those people chose candidate B as their second choice, you would think that candidate B would also win. But if the other 5% of voters voted for candidate C as their first choice, then in the first round or two of voting, candidates B and D would get zero votes, and they would both end up eliminated, because the votes for candidate B would be ignored, since no one chose B as their first choice. So you'd end up with Candidate A and C winning, even though Candidate B had way more support than C.
One way that I suppose this could be fixed is if they just restarted the counting after the first winner is chosen. So, for example, after round 1 comes out with 95% in favor of candidate A, then candidate A could be eliminated from the running, and their voters' second choices can be counted, which would lead to 95% in favor of candidate B, making them the other winner. But that's still a bit flawed, because it gives just as much weight to those second choice votes as the other people's first choice votes. And that could, in close cases, still lead to a candidate being elected over a more popular one. This method of ranked choice voting is just needlessly complicated and limited in applicability, where a weighted voting system would simplify it and eliminate all unpredictability.
This version of RCV is meant for races with only one winner. There is a separate proportional form of RCV that is great for races with multiple winners. Here's a video about it from a UK RUclipsr (over there it's called Single Transferable Vote): ruclips.net/video/l8XOZJkozfI/видео.html
@@fairvotereform That version might be better, but it still doesn't fix the problem I outlined. It still allows candidates to win over candidates who are generally more popular. I set up an example with 5 candidates and 3 winners as a test, using both STV and my weighted system, and they come out with different results. Here's the demonstration (with 100 voters):
50% of voters: 1 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2
30% of voters: 2 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 3
10% of voters: 3 | 1 | 4 | 5 | 2
6% of voters: 4 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 2
4% of voters: 5 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 2
Weighted Score (first votes * 5) + (second votes * 4) + (third votes * 3) + (fourth votes * 2) + (fifth votes * 1):
Candidate 1: 250 + 200 + 0 + 0 + 0 = 450
Candidate 2: 150 + 0 + 0 + 0 + 70 = 220
Candidate 3: 50 + 0 + 0 + 120 + 30 = 200
Candidate 4: 30 + 0 + 282 + 0 + 0 = 312
Candidate 5: 20 + 200 + 18 + 80 + 0 = 318
Winners:
1st = 1
2nd = 5
3rd = 4
STV Round 1:
Candidate 1: 50%
Candidate 2: 30%
Candidate 3: 10%
Candidate 4: 6%
Candidate 5: 4%
STV Round 2 (Candidate 1 wins, removed from running. Extra votes (17%) added to second choice (Candidate 5):
Candidate 2: 30%
Candidate 3: 10%
Candidate 4: 6%
Candidate 5: 21%
STV Round 3 (No one reached 33%, so last place (Candidate 4) removed, and votes (6%) added to second choice (Candidate 1). Candidate 1 already won, so votes are added to third choice instead (Candidate 5):
Candidate 2: 30%
Candidate 3: 10%
Candidate 5: 27%
STV Round 4 (No one reached 33%, so last place (Candidate 3) removed, and votes (10%) added to second choice (Candidate 1). Candidate 1 already won, so votes are added to third choice instead (Candidate 5):
Candidate 2: 30%
Candidate 5: 37%
STV Round 5 (Candidate 5 wins. Extra votes (4%) added to second choice (Candidate 1). Candidate 1 already won, so votes are added to third choice instead (Candidate 4). Candidate 4 already eliminated, so votes are added to fourth choice instead (Candidate 3). Candidate 3 already eliminated, so votes are added to fifth choice instead (Candidate 2). Candidate 2 wins:
Candidate 2: 34%
1st = 1
2nd = 5
3rd = 2
The problem here is that even though Candidate 4 is moderately well liked, and is the third choice for everyone except those who have them as their first choice, those votes aren't taken into account with STV/RCV. And because Candidate 4 has low votes for 1st choice, and none for 2nd choice, they're removed from the running right off the bat.
I just find the STV system to be overly complicated and convoluted, while still failing to address all its flaws, while a weighted system is far simpler, is easy to understand, and can be applied in any situation.
The debates are a club and if you aint got a R or D next to your name you aint gettin in. R's an D's aint gonna let that happen.
They said the pros… what about the cons
What cons can you think of?
This instant run-off style of ranked choice voting has been criticized by people who study voting methods, and it isn't perfect, but all of the problems I've ever seen anyone point out about this system are shared by the single-choice winner takes all system. But this system has several advantages over the single-choice winners takes all system.
It doesn't fix the spoiler effect, doesn't fix vote-splitting, doesn't make it safe to vote your conscience, and is biased against moderates, in favor of polarizing candidates. Need more?
Great job explaining. Most other videos suck.
But if I like only one of the four candidates, I'll just vote for that candidate and leave the others blank.
@@rjkola but why should that be? Suppose Candidate A is the only one who I would even consider for the position and that Candidates B, C, and D are all equally bad. Why should I have to choose any of them as my number two pick or number three pick? If I am forced to vote for someone else in order for my original preference to count, that doesn't seem fair at all.
@@Danimal1177 with RCV youre being asked to provide your ranked preferences for who should be elected. In a 4 person election, the winner will be one of the 4 candidates no matter what. There is no "if not my candidate, then no one" option. Thats why you have to rank everyone on the ballot, otherwise the system doesn't work and your vote will not count
That's totally fine! In that case, if your candidate didn't get 50%+1 in the first round, your vote for that race wouldn't be counted, but if you consider candidates B, C, and D truly "equally bad," then that's a legitimate vote.
That's right. That's the way elections work now: vote for one and only one. With RCV, that's still an option, but you can also vote for your 2nd and 3rd (etc.) choices as well.
@@sjsturgis Yes but under RCV it's still a good idea to vote dishonestly for the lesser of two evils
People just voted for this in Nevada... And if you asked them they would have NO idea what it was they were voting for.
I can address this from two angles: I can tell you either 1.) this is a bold assumption to make, or 2.) this is no different from any other issue by your logic.
NOTE: if you do not rank ALL candidates (eg, you do not know some or you will never vote for some in a million lifetimes) your vote GETS THROWN OUT!
This isn't true. You can vote for as few candidates as you want, and your vote will still count as long as someone you ranked remains in the race
Even if you rank all the candidates, this system can still throw some of your preferences away, while counting those of other voters. That's why it can elect candidate B even when a supermajority of voters preferred candidate A over B.
@@eyescreamcake not how it works. If a supermajority of voters chose A over B, A would win. Especially if B voters listed A as their second choice.
America needs this as a nation terribly. Our political system is tearing us apart.
This doesn't fix polarization. It actually solidifies it. Third parties and moderates are excluded and their votes are transferred to the two-party system.
@@eyescreamcake how does this exclude third party ?
@@annebannan9817 Through the spoiler effect, same as our current system. If you vote honestly for a third party, your lack of support for the lesser of two evils can cause them to get eliminated first, and then the greater of two evils beats your favorite. So the third party acts as a spoiler and it would be better to vote for the lesser of two evils.
@@eyescreamcake It actually encourages third parties because you’re vote is never wasted, you always have a say when it comes down to the last two most popular choices. In your example, if your lack of support for the ‘lessor of two evils’ causes them to be eliminated first, then your first preference, the third party candidate, and the ‘greater of two evils’ are left. Who wins will depend on the second choice preferences of those whose first choice was the ‘lessor of two evils’. These preferences are not random, it’s the voters’ choice, and if the ‘lessor of two evils’ and the third party candidate are similar politically (quite likely since you consider them the lessor of two evils) then the preference ‘flow’ can be very high between them. i.e. Voters for either of those candidates will tend to preference each other as their second choice.
@@shanebrown9378 No, your vote CAN be wasted if you vote honestly for a third party. If your lack of support for the lesser of two evils causes them to be eliminated first, then your first preference and the greater of two evils are left. The greater of two evils has more support than the spoiler candidate, and so they win. If you had instead voted dishonestly for the lesser of two evils, then your favorite would be eliminated first, and then the lesser of two evils would beat the greater of two evils, which is a better outcome for you (and for the populace as a whole). If you vote honestly for third parties, you hurt your cause, just like under our current system. Jurisdictions that use RCV are still two-party dominated. It doesn't help third parties; it protects the two-party system FROM them.
!!!!!
See 2021 New York City Dem Mayoral Primary for why this is an idiotic idea.
Let's get this in place as soon as possible. A big improvement.
It's not though. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
so you talked about the benefits, if you fair vote why not discuss the negatives. Is that because your afraid too talk about those? you should educate people not lead them to a decision
SM
The problem with this system is if a candidate looses and the election would have been held again there would have been another candidate that didn't run because the one ran instead. In a two party system it doesn't work
I dont understand what you mean.Why would the election be held again just because one candidate looses the election?.
it would be impossible for a candidate not to cumulate up to 50% of the votes unless people are not listing all of their preferences.
This give us a chance to have more relevant, secure, and pliable democracy.
No, it just perpetuates the status quo while giving the illusion of choice
This would require voters to have positions on EVERY candidate in every race. Just choosing between two candidates is too hard for most people. :-(
I feel like this really isn't the case. I think people generally have difficulty looking into each candidates policy decisions right now in the US because our system has failed them time and time again. What is the point of paying attention to each candidates politics if the system is just gonna stay fundamentally the same if they're elected anyways?
This is why a rank-choice solution would be effective, especially if used in all elections for every position. Average people who are passionate about particular policies, and not about how many corporate donations they'll get, will be more viable in every election across the country. This would lead to popular policies being easier to pass into law, which will make voters feel like they're vote is actually making a difference.
This is what will make people want to look into each candidate, because their choice will actually start to have real weight in how it affects their individual life.
you always have the option of only ranking 1 choice. It is just to your detriment as if your favored candidate loses you don't get a 2nd or 3rd choice.
Huh? Most people have no problem choosing between two candidates. Getting them to even consider the other candidate's point of view is impossible in most cases.
@@eyescreamcake That's kinda what I meant. Even when there are only two candidates, voters don't "choose" in that they seriously weigh one's policies against the other. They vote by party or race or gender or name recognition or they just don't vote.
Ranked choice means the most popular may not win. Not a good process.
Correct. A majority can rank A higher than B on their ballots, yet this system will still elect B because it doesn't count all those rankings.
hell yeah. lets abolish the supreme court while we’re at it.
Liberals Independence third party Democrat versus Conservative Republicans and libertarians...
So what is going to stop one party from littering the field with candidates with wide ranging promises then outspending the others? Then if we have two choice run offs we just have a one party choice. Doesn’t seem very great for increasing choices.
Multiple candidates from the same party is a bad idea because this system suffers from vote-splitting. Look at Alaska's election. The Republican Begich was preferred by majority of voters over both of the other candidates, but because there were two Republicans on the ballot, they split the Republican vote and he was eliminated first. Then the Democrat beat the other Republican. If they used a democratic system like Condorcet RCV, Begich would have won.
This is such an undemocratic system. I wish people were more educated about alternative voting methods. This is popular only because it's marketed most heavily.
and which one is your preference?
@@skibxskatic There are many. STAR, Approval, Score, a dozen different Condorcet methods, etc.
@@eyescreamcake okay, but which ONE is your preference?
@@skibxskatic I put them in "my favorite" order, but they're all roughly equally good in my mind
@@eyescreamcake okay, in this case, let's talk about STAR. is there any other data or countries that use this at a local, state/provincial, federal level that would support your argument besides what I've found so far for Oregon? Or any other voting method in your favorites?
I'm open to hearing the case but you gotta advocate for it now. You can't just pooh-pooh something and then not make the case for your preference.
this needs to be made illegal in the US.
Yep. We need a ranked choice voting system that counts all the votes, not this system that only counts some.
@@eyescreamcake Yeah brutha. Whenever a Democrat wins, it's because not all the votes were counted. XD
@@Sukuun In this case it is. Alaskans voted for Begich over Peltola, but RCV is an undemocratic system that throws away some voters' preferences while counting others, so Peltola won.
I didn't care about this till this morning, now it's a constitutional amendment in Nevada and yes it should be outlawed.
No way that's way too bad that's so that you can really form a one-party coalition
We have Primaries, which is a kind of “ranked choice” voting. In the Primary voting we choose our favorite from our Party. Then we choose whoever wins the primary, unless the other Party has a better candidate. Sure, if we had all the time in the world we could improve any system. But think about it - in this “ranked choice” system, what happens if you have 20 people running…how many times would you have to vote because no one gets to the 50%?
The primaries are necessary to select the lesser of two evil parties. RCV entrenches the two parties (Duverger's Law). "Approval Voting" tears down the two party system. Easily, cheaply, obviously. AV eliminates "lesser of evils", "fear of wasted vote", "favorite betrayal" strategies. EC, RCV, IRV are complex distractions that don't solve the two party problem. Vote for all approved candidates, the highest count wins; Same old ballots, same counting machines. Just better. It's how you'd select restaurants, outfits, vacations, any election seeking the widest satisfaction from multiple options is "Approval Voting".
The primaries fail at doing that. Do you really think Donald Trump was the most favored candidate of the Republican party during 2016? Or do you think he got the most votes because the lower candidates were vote splitting? If there are 5 candidates where 4 are very similar and 1 is say a radical he may be able to get say 30% of the vote while the other 4 split the remaining 70%. In a ranked choice it is very likely that 1 of those 4 would actually get 70% and defeat the radical in the primary.
Say Ted Cruz beating Trump because he got Kasich and Rubio's votes towards him surging him past Trump after 2nd and 3rd round of ranking.
@@TheBanshee90 i was not clear. The closed party primaries contribute to polarized candidates (or no viable alternatives in non-swing districts). Some believe that an open non-partisan blanket primary (possibly "final five") will provide opportunities for a diversity of candidates who tend to toward the center.
@@TheBanshee90 RCV nearly always elects the same one-choice plurality winner, otherwise the opposite extreme, squeezing out the center. .. And by RCV, were referring to Instant Runoff single seat IRV.
We're not a democracy...we're a republic. Ranked choice allows candidates that would normally not win slip under the radar when two other candidates are neck by using counting the 3rd option vote to add to the minorities first option vote as we just saw in Alaska in a vote to replace a Republican seat with a Democrat.
Who a vote transfers to is determined entirely by the voters. Democrats won the Alaska seat just now largely because voters didn't vote solely based on party lines: lots of Republicans prefered Democrat Mary Peltola over Republican Sarah Palin, and ranked Peltola higher as a result
@@fairvotereform that's not true at all and we will see just how untrue your statement is come Nov.
You know you can be both right?
LOL you're a feeb, even that fascist Pain said herself that the "Other republican not dropping out" was the major cause, so many voted for him OVER Palin with the Dem as their second choice that when neither of them got 50% all HIS votes when for the DEM. THIS allowed those NORMAL, REASONABLE Republicans to say if we can't have HIM we'll take the Dem over Palin. THEY (The sane Republicans) chose the sane Dem over the extremist Palin iof they couldn't have their "Sane Republicans" ) . Simple as that. NOW the MAJORITY of Alaskans got either their first vote or their 2nd choice over PALIN...lmao DEAL WITH DEMOCRACY WORKING LIKE IT SHOULD.
@@skystlimit3047 It's completely true. You can look at the data yourself. The math doesn't lie. That's what happened.
Voter ID required
Election day only voting
Rank choice voting
Term limits
No union, pac or corporate funding of elections.
no staying in the primary when you statistically cant win, taking votes from other candidates. (vote hogging)
"Election day only voting"? Are you serious? You want people making uninformed votes?
@@eyescreamcake What? how does expanding voting days make anyone more informed? I'd love to hear that explanation.
@@williampennjr.4448 Because you can actually see who's on the ballot before the election and research them to decide who is the best candidate, instead of just walking into the voting booth and blindly voting on party lines
@@eyescreamcake "see who's on the ballot before the election and research them". Are you serious?
How does election day voting keep you from researching a candidate before election day? This has got to be a good one.
OMG if I knew someone was trying to vote who didn't know about a candidate a week before election day I'd shoot him.
It does explain how Biden ,Obama and Clinton got elected.
@@williampennjr.4448 You've never gone to the polls and found several options on the ballot that you weren't aware of before? Only with an absentee ballot have I finally been able to know who's on the ballot before election day and spend time researching them. Even VOTE411 can't figure out all the options that will be on every local ballot. It's ridiculous.
Yes, of course uninformed party line voting is how we end up with candidates like Biden/Trump/Clinton. I'm trying to produce MORE informed voters so we don't have to put up with that crap. They want us less informed and voting party line without knowing anything about the candidates.
If you're interested in RCV, check out the most exciting race in the country. Lisa Savage is running for U.S. Senate in Maine. Let's show that RCV works at the highest echelons of government...check out our campaign, contact me. @t
RCV has been around for >200 years and it has never worked. There are many other voting systems that do. It's so frustrating that people remain willfully ignorant of them and continue to push this obsolete garbage.
So the one most voters voted for can actually lose to 2nd choice votes. 😅
I don’t think you understand how this works. If that 2nd choice got that many votes, they would be the first choice.
@@molluskweddin the first majority choice can be over voted and lost when they add all the second choice votes in. That’s means the majority lost even tho that’s what the people wanted. You don’t get it. They don’t show it like that in their little cartoon in the video.
@@molluskweddin this would make it common for the most popular candidates, the ones wanted by the people in local government to often lose.
@@Dperfater I think you mean plurality. If the candidate had a majority it would be over 50%. The point of the system is to find a candidate with a *majority* of support, not a plurality. If people listed someone as their second choice, they are saying that they’re okay with that person winning. You don’t rank people you don’t want to win. So you find the person who actually has a majority saying “this person is a good choice,” even if for some of them that person was a second choice.
@@molluskweddin adding the runner up isn’t going to make the majority. It will often drown out the majority and make them the loser. The people voting don’t want to give the first place trophy to the second place winner.
What a scam!
It's a scam. There is no way the orange can jump 21 to 27% and the violet jumps from ONLY 28-31%. The redistribute of percentages is all screwed up.
Votes are redistributed based on the voter's personal 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc. choices. They aren't redistributed evenly. It's absolutely possible for the redistribution to be one-sided if there are divisive candidates.
For one example, let's say that there are three colours: Orange, Green, and Purple. Purple gets 45%, Green gets 20%, and Orange gets 35%. Green gets kicked out because they're the biggest loser, so the votes for them get redistributed based on the voter's second choices. Most people who voted for Green *_despise_* Purple, so the overwhelming majority of them had Orange as their 2nd choice. Specifically, Purple only gets a 3% bump up to 48%, whereas Orange gets a massive 17% bump up to 53%. Orange ends up winning because he was the most appealing candidate to the most number of people on average. Purple was just too unappealing of a candidate to people outside of their core base.
Yes
It is a terrible idea because often times people vote against certain candidates and will jockey their choices, accordingly. For instance, you don't care for so and so, but you don't want X to win so you will vote for the candidate most likely to beat X. You are blind voting when you rank vote.
this instantly penalizes people who vote based off of moral decisions instead of ranking. you could literally use candidate flooding to ensure a particular minority has their voice drowned out.
..
RCV gives you more freedom to vote your conscience by letting you select backup choices if the candidate you feel most morally inclined to pick can't win. Plurality voting is what drowns out peoples' voices by letting 'vote splitting' occur if more than 2 candidates run
No, you can't, because RCV suffers from vote-splitting and the spoiler effect. Look at Alaska's election. The voters preferred Begich over both of the other candidates, but having two Republicans on the ballot split the Republican vote, and Begich was incorrectly eliminated first. Palin acted as a spoiler, causing the winner to be a Democrat, which was not the will of the Alaskan voters.
So, you're not sure about who you're supporting so, just toss a handful on the wall and hope some sticks?
No, you're sure about who you support. You're just not sure who everyone else supports.
Meanwhile it's totally NOT needed unless your trying to persuade the direction of a vote. One paper ballot, one ID, one vote. There was never a problem in the first place
@@Uzztoob There are tons of problems with FPTP. It's completely undemocratic. The winner is decided more by who runs than by who the voters want to win. FPTP is the main reason why we have a polarized two-party system and massive government dysfunction.
That's how everyone will have their very own Bill de Blasio!! Just say NO! Califonia said no.
In this year's Democratic primary for the 4th Massachusetts Congressional District, in a field of 7 candidates the winner, Jake Auchincloss, had 22% of the vote and the 2nd place finisher had 21%. It's highly likely that Auchincloss will win in the general election because MA-04 is a blue district. Something similar happened in MA-03 in 2018. In a field of 9, Lori Trahan won the Dem primary with 21.7% of the vote. The runner-up had 21.5%. Not surprisingly, there was a hand recount before the results were certified. Trahan was elected to Congress that November. Can you maybe see the drawbacks with that? RCV would ensure that the candidate who makes it to the general election has a majority of the primary vote. An excellent reason to vote YES on Question 2.
This is amazing. Wow. Let's make some gd changes. I'm tired of this.
USSR style voting, nice.
Um... No?
Return to pottery shards
WHO ELSE IS HERE BECAUSE OF ANDREW YANG?
So much for one person one vote. Never try to learn from someone who only gives the pros . It shows their bias.
It's still "one person, one vote." This is in essence no different from a runoff election. It's just that, instead of showing up to _another_ election to cast a vote in a runoff, you do it ahead of time. It's like saying, "If my most preferred candidate doesn't win a majority, then I would like to cast my vote for my next preferred candidate in the runoff."
Yep. A majority can rank A higher than B on their ballots, yet this system will still elect B because it doesn't count all those rankings. If we're using ranked ballots we need a system that actually counts all of them, like Ranked Robin or Total Vote Runoff.
@@WilliamFord972 No, it's not. This system counts some voters' rankings while discarding others.
This seems expensive and nonsensical
It's very sensible and more fair. And it's cheaper than a standard run-off scenario, since the run-off happens instantly, as opposed to having to do a whole new election.
@@MuffinsAPlenty This system is not fair, what are you talking about? It counts some voter's preferences and throws away others. That's why it can elect candidate B even when a supermajority of voters preferred candidate A over B.
@@eyescreamcake "It counts some voter's preferences and throws away others."
Could you describe this better? Like give an example, not some vague statement.
"That's why it can elect candidate B even when a supermajority of voters preferred candidate A over B."
Could you give an example?
@@MuffinsAPlenty If you vote A > B > C, and A is eliminated first, your preference for B > C is then counted. If you vote A > B > C, but B is eliminated first, your preference for B > C is never counted. A majority of voters may have said they prefer B > C, but C can still win because many of those preferences are never counted. There are better ranked voting systems that count all the voters' preferences, but FairVote fights against them, because they don't want to admit they've been pushing a flawed system all these years.
@@eyescreamcake Thank you. In this case, I agree with you. The second-worst candidate can still be elected in this system, including the possibility of beating the best candidate (should such a clear ranking exist).
It is better than first past the post, since FPTP can elect the absolute worst candidate, which IRV cannot, but IRV is still quite flawed.
The reason I pushed back is because many Republicans in the US are spreading out-and-out misinformation about IRV after Peltola won in the Alaska special election. I've encountered multiple people who claim that Palin won 60% of the vote but lost the election because of RCV. This is simply not true - Palin never had 60% of the vote. Now, this election could potentially demonstrate the issue you are talking about here. Begich very well may have been the Condorcet winner of the election; however, having the smallest pool of votes in the initial round caused him to be eliminated. In the second round, Palin, being the Condorcet loser (assuming Begich was legitimately the Condorcet winner) lost to Peltola.
I think it's worth pointing out that, under FPTP, the election would have had the same outcome here, so RCV did not hurt. Nonetheless, I also think it's worth pointing out that we could do better (again, assuming Begich was legitimately the Condorcet winner).
Except....this isn't a DEMOCRACY.
It should be!