Hope everyone is enjoying the conversation! Don't forget to leave a question for Andrew to answer on the podcast. It doesn't have to just be about RCV, ask us anything!
I have a hard time speaking up about my political beliefs because I don’t want the conflict from either extreme nor do I want my political beliefs to be so public and affect my relationships, since I have many friends that I know I disagree with politically, but we get along just fine socially. So…my question is: how can people like me get our government to be less extreme, more moderate without speaking out? Is it possible to be a quiet (anonymous), centrist activist? ☺️
@@eyescreamcake At the very least, RCV forces corrupt interests to compromise towards the people more, in that sense it would be better than FPTP but yes, STAR voting would be better than RCV in this context even more because of eliminating vote splitting
I am in CO-4 where Lauren Boebert has decided to run for Ken Bucks vacancy. I am 1000% in favor of ranked choice voting because if we had this in my district, Boebert would not be the shoe-in I expect her to be in our current broken primary system. P.S., I’m also now a donor to FairVote. Keep up the good work! We need RCV!
Ranked Choice Voting still suffers from the spoiler effect that plagues plurality voting, so while it’s still better than FPTP voters need to be aware of this limitation and will still have to vote strategically in states where it’s been implemented. There are better alternatives which don’t suffer from the spoiler effect such as Approval, Ranked Pairs, and Score; and STAR voting greatly lessens this effect though doesn’t completely eliminate it, by design. (See the Wikipedia entry for “Independence of clones criterion”.)
I want to know why senators and reps don't have term limits. Anybody who dies of old age in office is shameful, including RBG. Sorry to be negative, but the selfish disregard for democratic principles absolutely disqualifies repeat incumbents. They need to get some hobbies and retire.
Ranked Choice, aka the instant runoff method, is far from an “excellent addition” - addition is something it does a pretty poor job at. Its tendency to count only some of the preferences in contested races creates inaccurate outcomes in contests where it really matters.
Nah, RCV is a dead end only promoted by people who don't understand how it actually works. There are much better voting systems that actually fix the things that RCV is supposed to fix.
"Total cost of benefit at work" will only flourish in demand side economics where suppliers and demand are equally valued. Supply Side economics mainly focuses on profits and revenue (all those positive externalities)
@@googlewhyforwardfaqforward4076You can't have RCV everywhere, if something else like for example Approval Voting has already been implemented in some places.
@@googlewhyforwardfaqforward4076 RCV doesn't work, it's an overcomplicated dead end that doesn't actually fix anything. We need real voting method reform, not FPTP-based junk.
“We’ve got a 20 year track record…” - yes, you do. When RCV fails, and it fails at an unacceptably high level, it gets queued up for repeal. It’s not “Alaskan legislators” that are trying to pull it back- it’s a citizen campaign for repeal following the blatant failure of the method in August of ‘22.
“You’re a math guy” - Andrew, people count on you to get the math right, and the math of RCV is not good- this has been known since the late 1700s. Further, the RCV lobby’s willingness to fight a much better reform at the local level (Eugene STAR vote that just happened), and use outright false and misleading messages, is highly problematic.
No, not really. Yes, Polis signed the bill but he stated that “Regarding all-candidate primaries and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) that were included at the last moment and without proper stake-holding in the final version of the bill, if voters approve a ballot measure pertaining to those issues this November, the language in the bill will not be the starting point for implementation. It will be essential to reconcile the bill with the measure to prompt good faith actions to successfully implement the will of the voters.”
I'm honestly split on this initiative. I love the RCV aspect, I'm highly skeptical of the Final Four portion. I could very well just see it turning into 2 democrats vs 2 republicans in all statewide races. The dems and repubs have the money and structure to field two candidates into the final four, even over all of the minor parties in the state. I prefer the semi-open primaries, each party proffers up one candidate, then a statewide RCV in the general election. But whatever. The initiative is also fully funded by Kent Thiry.
@@JoHeLightning good point, but it would be an improvement to be able to pick the less extreme D or R. I could also see independent candidates making the top 4, but the formal third parties in CO, at least the Libertarians who I am quite familiar with, are a bit nutty IMO.
@@tonimika7900 There are 7 minor parties in Colorado, Libertarian is just one of them. Yeah I agree with you on the less extremism - that's the hope. Though I'm skeptical about any independents getting onto the final four ballot. I believe under the new paradigm, all parties would lose ballot access and all candidates would have to petition onto the ballot. If you're a major party (D or R), you have a strong infrastructure of volunteers, canvassing software, distribution lists, etc. to both sign petitions and help distribute petitions. If you're an independent without any of that, you either have to magically find a lot of volunteer resources immediately or do paid petitioning (which would require significant funding, likely from the wealthy). To put it in context, you roughly gather 10-15 signatures per hour petitioning. If it's a 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot (which I believe is the current setup for non-party-primary winners), you would need to devote at least 100 hours just to petitioning, just to get on the open primary ballot. My concern is that Kent is intentionally trying to push candidates to rely more on big dollar donors (like him) to compete. I guess where I would see independent candidates being successful is if they're indepdendently wealthy people already. But to your point, I think overall this initiative is worth a try, even if it may create some new problems. We can always solve the new problems with additional ballot initiatives down the line, but I'm all for trying new things and measuring/quantifying the results. :)
Something has to be done to wake up the Yang gang These are amazing congratulations and almost no one is listening Start some rumor that Andrew is considering a run in 2028.. something.. anything
As a younger person, I am relieved to see "adults" actually trying to help make the systems better for us/future generations nd having a plan in place to make it happen (with proven positive results)! Just for clarification, this Ranked Choice Voting is largely being circulated/implemented in terms of local/state elections, right? Because I'm curious how it would "work" with the presidential election where an electoral college essentially determines the vote....Very anti- ranked choice....
Proportional representation is better than rank choice voting because some of the issues with first past the post also occur with ranked choice. There are also examples of PR to follow. It's just a much stranger concept for Americans. Ranked Choice is a type of PR.
All good but Nov. election just around the corner with obvious two choices only, what is the best way or what's the only way we can nuture all these brillient ideas?
7:30 Yang unwittingly planting a new conspiracy seed in my mind between big food and big Pharma. I remember very clearly seeing a whole section in Walgreens devoted to diabetic maintenance, a clear cash cow.
8:54 Concentration of power and inequality. Question for the Q and A: Is Enacting UBI a measuring stick saying that the government works??? How confident are you in fixing democracy and the election will lead to UBI???
This is one of top three easy fixes! Ranked choice voting, campaign donation vouchers, and term limits! Anyone who does not support these is not in support of democracy or your right to have a fair playing field to elect our officials.
Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them evil or even bad people. Maybe you have not made your idea look good enough to throw past practice in the garbage bin.
If ranked choice voting makes it a more level playing field, why would the “government” allow it to happen? I never seen an elected official push an agenda that would give their opponent anything that could possibly give them an edge to be elected.
Ranked Choice Voting is not a strange, new concept. think of votes a conventions. If nobody wins enough seats to be the chosen one there is usually an intermission followed by another vote, on and on. When the Republicans couldn't get enough votes for a speaker after the mid-terms there were repeated votes until someone had sufficient vote. In all of those cases some people were eliminated as candidates. The only difference between that and Ranked Choice Voting is that in the latter the votes for those who would have been deleted are now reviewed to see to whom that voter would have cast their if the original choice had now been on the ballot. Then their second choice would be added to those remaining and on and on until there is a clear winner. Now, when a winner is announced it will not necessarily be the person with the most votes on the first count. It will, in fact, be the person who has the support of the majority of voters.
I live in San Francisco. Ranked Choice Voting has been in place for years but has turned out to be a disaster. What was intended to save money in the election process turned many voters to unintentionally vote in Chesa Boudin, one of the most progressive DAs in history. IT took the voters two years and over $10 million to recall him. He was an unintended candidate that took office and nearly destroyed the fabric of the city and we're still paying for his "reforms" today.
Two questions: * Did the majority of voter prefer Boudin over each of the opposing candidates in the election? * Did the voters want to recall him before or after the aforementioned reforms? This matters in regards to whether RCV was to blame for getting them into office or if it was low voter information.
Hope everyone is enjoying the conversation! Don't forget to leave a question for Andrew to answer on the podcast. It doesn't have to just be about RCV, ask us anything!
I have a hard time speaking up about my political beliefs because I don’t want the conflict from either extreme nor do I want my political beliefs to be so public and affect my relationships, since I have many friends that I know I disagree with politically, but we get along just fine socially. So…my question is: how can people like me get our government to be less extreme, more moderate without speaking out? Is it possible to be a quiet (anonymous), centrist activist? ☺️
Hope that one day, we will have actual democratic choice.
Yes, but RCV ain't it. It still suffers from the same vote-splitting and two-party spoiler effect as FPTP.
@@eyescreamcakeStill better than FPTP, you have more range of candidates. Ultimate would be STAR voting
@@EmpoweredASD RCV isn't much better than FPTP. It still has the same problems and produces the same outcomes. STAR is indeed better.
@@eyescreamcake At the very least, RCV forces corrupt interests to compromise towards the people more, in that sense it would be better than FPTP but yes, STAR voting would be better than RCV in this context even more because of eliminating vote splitting
Commenting to help the algorithm push this to more people 👍
I am in CO-4 where Lauren Boebert has decided to run for Ken Bucks vacancy. I am 1000% in favor of ranked choice voting because if we had this in my district, Boebert would not be the shoe-in I expect her to be in our current broken primary system. P.S., I’m also now a donor to FairVote. Keep up the good work! We need RCV!
Colorado Forward Party can always use your help too! :) Thanks for donating to FairVote!
@@JoHeLightning I joined the Forward mailing list quite some time ago but haven’t heard much. What is Forward doing for the CO-4 race, if anything?
Ranked Choice Voting still suffers from the spoiler effect that plagues plurality voting, so while it’s still better than FPTP voters need to be aware of this limitation and will still have to vote strategically in states where it’s been implemented. There are better alternatives which don’t suffer from the spoiler effect such as Approval, Ranked Pairs, and Score; and STAR voting greatly lessens this effect though doesn’t completely eliminate it, by design. (See the Wikipedia entry for “Independence of clones criterion”.)
I want to know why senators and reps don't have term limits. Anybody who dies of old age in office is shameful, including RBG. Sorry to be negative, but the selfish disregard for democratic principles absolutely disqualifies repeat incumbents. They need to get some hobbies and retire.
Ranked choice is a excellent and needed addition to our election process
Ranked Choice, aka the instant runoff method, is far from an “excellent addition” - addition is something it does a pretty poor job at. Its tendency to count only some of the preferences in contested races creates inaccurate outcomes in contests where it really matters.
@@nardopolo101Welp guess we're stuck with two parties choosing two candidates for us to pick from for the rest of eternity
@@aricklenot so. Recommend checking out STAR Voting. Actually delivers on the talking points.
Nah, RCV is a dead end only promoted by people who don't understand how it actually works. There are much better voting systems that actually fix the things that RCV is supposed to fix.
Andrew thank you!! For being you!!!
We need more champions like Meredith! Will be advocating for ranked choice in my state!
As Treasurer for the Minnesota Forward Party, I'm all for this message!
Thanks for all you do!!!
This is what we need for our nation
"Total cost of benefit at work" will only flourish in demand side economics where suppliers and demand are equally valued. Supply Side economics mainly focuses on profits and revenue (all those positive externalities)
Approval and Star voting is better
STAR is considerably simpler and much more accurate than RCV. Oh, and it’s actually fair for the voters and candidates.
@@googlewhyforwardfaqforward4076You can't have RCV everywhere, if something else like for example Approval Voting has already been implemented in some places.
@@googlewhyforwardfaqforward4076 RCV doesn't work, it's an overcomplicated dead end that doesn't actually fix anything. We need real voting method reform, not FPTP-based junk.
Need to rephrase this. Sarah Palin lost because more people did not want her than they wanted anyone else.
Can you have RFK Jr on your pod please. I was part of the Yang Gang from the start and RFK Jr seems like a great guest for your audience
Florida banned rank choice voting 😠 😡
Refreshing
“We’ve got a 20 year track record…” - yes, you do. When RCV fails, and it fails at an unacceptably high level, it gets queued up for repeal. It’s not “Alaskan legislators” that are trying to pull it back- it’s a citizen campaign for repeal following the blatant failure of the method in August of ‘22.
“This is a reform that math people love” *chortle*
“You’re a math guy” - Andrew, people count on you to get the math right, and the math of RCV is not good- this has been known since the late 1700s. Further, the RCV lobby’s willingness to fight a much better reform at the local level (Eugene STAR vote that just happened), and use outright false and misleading messages, is highly problematic.
Colorado just put an indefinite ban on ranked choice voting, even if we vote for its implementation in November.
No, not really. Yes, Polis signed the bill but he stated that “Regarding all-candidate primaries and Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) that were included at the last moment and without proper stake-holding in the final version of the bill, if voters approve a ballot measure pertaining to those issues this November, the language in the bill will not be the starting point for implementation. It will be essential to reconcile the bill with the measure to prompt good faith actions to successfully implement the will of the voters.”
I'm honestly split on this initiative. I love the RCV aspect, I'm highly skeptical of the Final Four portion. I could very well just see it turning into 2 democrats vs 2 republicans in all statewide races. The dems and repubs have the money and structure to field two candidates into the final four, even over all of the minor parties in the state. I prefer the semi-open primaries, each party proffers up one candidate, then a statewide RCV in the general election. But whatever. The initiative is also fully funded by Kent Thiry.
@@JoHeLightning good point, but it would be an improvement to be able to pick the less extreme D or R. I could also see independent candidates making the top 4, but the formal third parties in CO, at least the Libertarians who I am quite familiar with, are a bit nutty IMO.
@@tonimika7900 There are 7 minor parties in Colorado, Libertarian is just one of them. Yeah I agree with you on the less extremism - that's the hope. Though I'm skeptical about any independents getting onto the final four ballot. I believe under the new paradigm, all parties would lose ballot access and all candidates would have to petition onto the ballot. If you're a major party (D or R), you have a strong infrastructure of volunteers, canvassing software, distribution lists, etc. to both sign petitions and help distribute petitions. If you're an independent without any of that, you either have to magically find a lot of volunteer resources immediately or do paid petitioning (which would require significant funding, likely from the wealthy). To put it in context, you roughly gather 10-15 signatures per hour petitioning. If it's a 1,000 signatures to get on the ballot (which I believe is the current setup for non-party-primary winners), you would need to devote at least 100 hours just to petitioning, just to get on the open primary ballot. My concern is that Kent is intentionally trying to push candidates to rely more on big dollar donors (like him) to compete. I guess where I would see independent candidates being successful is if they're indepdendently wealthy people already.
But to your point, I think overall this initiative is worth a try, even if it may create some new problems. We can always solve the new problems with additional ballot initiatives down the line, but I'm all for trying new things and measuring/quantifying the results. :)
Something has to be done to wake up the Yang gang
These are amazing congratulations and almost no one is listening
Start some rumor that Andrew is considering a run in 2028.. something.. anything
As a younger person, I am relieved to see "adults" actually trying to help make the systems better for us/future generations nd having a plan in place to make it happen (with proven positive results)!
Just for clarification, this Ranked Choice Voting is largely being circulated/implemented in terms of local/state elections, right? Because I'm curious how it would "work" with the presidential election where an electoral college essentially determines the vote....Very anti- ranked choice....
We need RCV!
Proportional representation is better than rank choice voting because some of the issues with first past the post also occur with ranked choice. There are also examples of PR to follow. It's just a much stranger concept for Americans. Ranked Choice is a type of PR.
Come to Reno Nevada!!
All good but Nov. election just around the corner with obvious two choices only, what is the best way or what's the only way we can nuture all these brillient ideas?
We won't have it in the Presidential election for decades. The more it spreads locally the faster we'll get there.
The main parties doesn’t like the ranked choice voting for fear of losing control over who they want to be the president!
Go national popular vote interstate compact!😊 Let’s make this place representative again.
Keep spreading the message. Ranked Choice works.
Inspiring episode! Did you explain what ranked choice voting is? If so, I missed that 😅
❤❤❤
Definitely RCV can game changer!!
At large Congressional districts combined with RCV would be great to end the endless gerrymandering and lawsuits against it.
What are the incentives that make it difficult for Elon Musk to give $1B dollars to RCV initiatives?
7:30 Yang unwittingly planting a new conspiracy seed in my mind between big food and big Pharma. I remember very clearly seeing a whole section in Walgreens devoted to diabetic maintenance, a clear cash cow.
All we need are term limits. One term and then get a real job.
Is STAR voting actually a better way??
8:54 Concentration of power and inequality. Question for the Q and A: Is Enacting UBI a measuring stick saying that the government works??? How confident are you in fixing democracy and the election will lead to UBI???
#CouldahadYang!
OR.....we're letting the political systems get in the way of innovation and progress. Take away power from politicians
AY could have won under RCV in 2016 I believe
Approval voting?
Nice sneakers!
RCV is a much-needed improvement for our republic.
ranked choice voting
‼️
I support ranked voting for our future
Too many ads man
This is just common sense
This is one of top three easy fixes! Ranked choice voting, campaign donation vouchers, and term limits! Anyone who does not support these is not in support of democracy or your right to have a fair playing field to elect our officials.
Just because someone does not agree with you does not make them evil or even bad people. Maybe you have not made your idea look good enough to throw past practice in the garbage bin.
@@jameslatimer3600I'm sorry things need to "look good" in order for you to understand them. You should probably work on that.
comment 4 algrthm
I want ranked voting so bad.
If ranked choice voting makes it a more level playing field, why would the “government” allow it to happen? I never seen an elected official push an agenda that would give their opponent anything that could possibly give them an edge to be elected.
Ranked Choice Voting is not a strange, new concept. think of votes a conventions. If nobody wins enough seats to be the chosen one there is usually an intermission followed by another vote, on and on. When the Republicans couldn't get enough votes for a speaker after the mid-terms there were repeated votes until someone had sufficient vote. In all of those cases some people were eliminated as candidates. The only difference between that and Ranked Choice Voting is that in the latter the votes for those who would have been deleted are now reviewed to see to whom that voter would have cast their if the original choice had now been on the ballot. Then their second choice would be added to those remaining and on and on until there is a clear winner.
Now, when a winner is announced it will not necessarily be the person with the most votes on the first count. It will, in fact, be the person who has the support of the majority of voters.
Stop dropping names and get to the point. Are you interested in improving our representative democracy or networking???
I live in San Francisco. Ranked Choice Voting has been in place for years but has turned out to be a disaster. What was intended to save money in the election process turned many voters to unintentionally vote in Chesa Boudin, one of the most progressive DAs in history. IT took the voters two years and over $10 million to recall him. He was an unintended candidate that took office and nearly destroyed the fabric of the city and we're still paying for his "reforms" today.
Two questions:
* Did the majority of voter prefer Boudin over each of the opposing candidates in the election?
* Did the voters want to recall him before or after the aforementioned reforms?
This matters in regards to whether RCV was to blame for getting them into office or if it was low voter information.
If we had ranked choice voting system, we wouldn’t have been stuck with two senile candidates as we have today!
Yes we would. RCV doesn't actually fix the two-party system.
@Intel 🤝 @FutureFarming1
💻 + 🚜 = 🌮 + 🧀🧀🧀🧀
Compras una finca muy grande y crea una nueva economía con comida económico.