If you don't want to give a particular person a vote at all, how do you successfully do that under the RCV process? That's his point- one person, one vote. If you don't get that, then you are dumb.
I love how he goes "simple and easy? YeAh RiGhT" after he himself self explained it in less than five minutes, seems pretty fucking simple to me buddy.
@@thelyonandtheox but ranked choice voting IS very simple, he literally explained it himself in less than five minutes, doing it in a condescending tone doesn't magically make what he's talking about NOT simple.
No, that was not his argument. Here were his points as I understood. 1) This is not a simple political affiliation problem (ex. Both Bernie Sanders and Bill Weld are against RCV). Not divided along, politics, race, class, or education. 2) Current system is simpler. The calculus on voting is most simple with One-vote election. 3) Voters who only know and vote for one candidate are disadvantaged because their vote is "exhausted" before the final vote. 4) Having to actually vote for all the candidates (to maximize your vote eligibility) would take too much time for most people to properly vote for candidates that reflect their interests in the degree they want. 5) Plenty of examples show that RCV does not increase civility in elections.
I just was not convinced by the anti-RCV speaker. He seemed to use some illigitimate arguments based on fallacies, such as implying that RCV might be a bad idea because of who backs it, or even verbal sleight of hand, such as claiming that he is supporting an underdog being able to win in conventional voting, appealing to our benevolent desire to support the underdog, but failing to mention both that this means that a candidate with ANY unpopular position, whether it should be so or not, could be given an advantage in a scenario with an unequal ideological split on the ticket, and that conventional voting often aggressively SHUTS OUT alternative voices unlike RCV. He also often simply explained how it works and then followed it up by telling everyone how complicated it is. I can’t speak for everyone else, but it seems pretty straightforward to me, and the polling seems to indicate that it’s simple for others too based on what was cited in the debate. He sometimes claimed that RCV had X problem or Y problem, and my immediate thought was, “wouldn’t that problem be WORSE under conventional voting?” To me at least, RCV seems like the clear winner here.
The main argument against is that it's complicated? Or that it's unreasonable to ask the electorate to know about their candidates? And his response is to force the electorate to do something twice that often a majority can't even do once during an election: vote. Now we want to vote twice as a matter of protocol? That's even worse.
So in theory, you have a district that is 55% liberal and 45% conservative but let's say there are 4 candidates 2 conservative and 2 liberal. The two liberal candidates split their votes so they are 2nd and 3rd. The conservatives are more lopsided so the lower votes add up to the conservative votes and get over 50% of the voted counted, so the smallest minority gets their votes counted twice while the larger minorities are ignored. 55% voted liberal and 45% voted conservative, however a large enough of the 45% minority vote was counted twice to get past 50%
For the sake of discussion, let’s say that the district is made up of 100 voters. Liberal Candidate A gets 30 votes, Liberal Candidate B gets 25 votes. Conservative Candidate C gets 25 votes and Conservative Candidate D gets 20 votes. So in the first election, Candidate D gets eliminated. Let’s say that all of their votes go to Candidate C. Candidate A has 25 votes, Candidate B has 20 votes and Candidate C has 45 votes. Since no one has a majority yet, Candidate B gets eliminated and let’s say that all of their votes go to A. Well, Candidate A has 55 votes and Candidate C has 45. The election goes to Candidate A.
I think you got lost in the sauce, Alex haha - in your example, if the conservative votes are lopsided then they would only have MAJORITY of the 1st choice votes, they mathematically cannot get over 50%.
Having a representative democracy is more important than having a slightly more simple election process. It feels like the anti-ranked-choice debater is being disingenuous, because his points are so ridiculous and easy to disassemble.
The guy arguing against ranked choice is doing a piss poor job. 1st stating it's too difficult to understand... sounds real simple. 2nd he states that the citizens would have to educate themselves on the candidates... uh, yeah, that's exactly what we're supposed to do. In fact, one of the main arguments for a free press is that it is their responsibility to help spread the information, and hold them to task. Unfortunately, the "media" has forgotten what the news is supposed to be about. It feels like this is a bad faith argument. His argument that a run off election would suffice, and be more equitable is valid. I'm waiting to hear someone point out that the ranked voting, as proposed seems to more because of the way they go about it. Athletic competitions seem to have a better way of ranking teams. Take this example, Candidate A receives 34% of primary choice, Candidate B receives 33%, and Candidate C receives 31% as well as 67% of the secondary votes. Would it make sense that Candidate C is dropped, or should we weigh their rankings? I mean, it is called ranked choice... we could even ask A v B, B v C, and C v A... I don't think it is valid to say, "democracy is too hard, let's just let the Corporations continue to run the show" I'm also hoping to hear some historic anecdotes on why we don't adjust have ranked choice. Nany cultures and societies have experimented with democracy, the founding fathers were rather well educated, what are some of the other options, and lessons learned?
If we are to remain a Constitutional Republic and keep any Liberty and Justice, Ranked Choice Voting must be shunned, thrown out of every state elections process.
You really don't have to worry about it. Ranked choice voting (what we call Preferential Voting in Australia) is awesome, and is great at holding governments to account. It doesn't make a country any less constitutional, it's just a better voting system.
What?! Respectfully, I feel you didn’t pay attention and dont understand the process at all. The mayor in Chicago won the race in 2018 with only 17% of the vote. That’s it. Less than one out of every five people voted for her, yeah she won. That’s what our typical election process can look like if there’s more than two people running. Yet you’re saying that is good for our country and Constitution. It just doesn’t make any sense.
@19:54 ~ This is not an honest talking point. To say it’s “not fair“ is laughable. And I typically see the viewpoints of other people and their arguments whether I agree or not. But he’s saying it’s not fair that someone doesn’t get to use their subsequent votes (second, third) but that’s ridiculous for two reasons. One they chose not to use those votes. Second, that is the Exact same thing that currently happens with our “typical” voting system right now. Somebody only has one vote right now. I heard of this voting style in 2012. It instantly seemed like the most fair way to vote. But at the time I preferred the current typical voting system with the two parties. At least from what I can remember. But here’s why I thought that way. It was because I thought the parties provided a moderating control where each side picked its best candidate instead of having a whole bunch of crazies. But even at the time I understood that RCV/IRV was still the most fair to all voters. I think there are reasons that maybe RSV should not be implemented, but it has to do with people being uninformed voters more than anything.
when we do this is there anyway to drop the party affiliation?
It would be great to get people actually voting for ppl and ideas instead of parties.
Amen
When party affiliation is dropped candidates will be even more deceitful in order to win election.
So Jeff's main argument is basically that we're all too dumb for RCV.
well, yeah. unfortunately.
If you don't want to give a particular person a vote at all, how do you successfully do that under the RCV process? That's his point- one person, one vote. If you don't get that, then you are dumb.
I love how he goes "simple and easy? YeAh RiGhT" after he himself self explained it in less than five minutes, seems pretty fucking simple to me buddy.
@@thelyonandtheox but ranked choice voting IS very simple, he literally explained it himself in less than five minutes, doing it in a condescending tone doesn't magically make what he's talking about NOT simple.
No, that was not his argument. Here were his points as I understood.
1) This is not a simple political affiliation problem (ex. Both Bernie Sanders and Bill Weld are against RCV). Not divided along, politics, race, class, or education.
2) Current system is simpler. The calculus on voting is most simple with One-vote election.
3) Voters who only know and vote for one candidate are disadvantaged because their vote is "exhausted" before the final vote.
4) Having to actually vote for all the candidates (to maximize your vote eligibility) would take too much time for most people to properly vote for candidates that reflect their interests in the degree they want.
5) Plenty of examples show that RCV does not increase civility in elections.
If you are watching this debate, then you are not the average voter. Keep that in mind.
I just was not convinced by the anti-RCV speaker. He seemed to use some illigitimate arguments based on fallacies, such as implying that RCV might be a bad idea because of who backs it, or even verbal sleight of hand, such as claiming that he is supporting an underdog being able to win in conventional voting, appealing to our benevolent desire to support the underdog, but failing to mention both that this means that a candidate with ANY unpopular position, whether it should be so or not, could be given an advantage in a scenario with an unequal ideological split on the ticket, and that conventional voting often aggressively SHUTS OUT alternative voices unlike RCV. He also often simply explained how it works and then followed it up by telling everyone how complicated it is. I can’t speak for everyone else, but it seems pretty straightforward to me, and the polling seems to indicate that it’s simple for others too based on what was cited in the debate. He sometimes claimed that RCV had X problem or Y problem, and my immediate thought was, “wouldn’t that problem be WORSE under conventional voting?” To me at least, RCV seems like the clear winner here.
This is the most nerdy thing I have ever watched. Pog
The main argument against is that it's complicated? Or that it's unreasonable to ask the electorate to know about their candidates?
And his response is to force the electorate to do something twice that often a majority can't even do once during an election: vote.
Now we want to vote twice as a matter of protocol?
That's even worse.
RCV -- throwing the single-winner case under the bus.
Aren't lobbiest all a bunch of attorneys?
So in theory, you have a district that is 55% liberal and 45% conservative but let's say there are 4 candidates 2 conservative and 2 liberal. The two liberal candidates split their votes so they are 2nd and 3rd. The conservatives are more lopsided so the lower votes add up to the conservative votes and get over 50% of the voted counted, so the smallest minority gets their votes counted twice while the larger minorities are ignored. 55% voted liberal and 45% voted conservative, however a large enough of the 45% minority vote was counted twice to get past 50%
For the sake of discussion, let’s say that the district is made up of 100 voters. Liberal Candidate A gets 30 votes, Liberal Candidate B gets 25 votes. Conservative Candidate C gets 25 votes and Conservative Candidate D gets 20 votes. So in the first election, Candidate D gets eliminated. Let’s say that all of their votes go to Candidate C. Candidate A has 25 votes, Candidate B has 20 votes and Candidate C has 45 votes. Since no one has a majority yet, Candidate B gets eliminated and let’s say that all of their votes go to A. Well, Candidate A has 55 votes and Candidate C has 45. The election goes to Candidate A.
I think you got lost in the sauce, Alex haha - in your example, if the conservative votes are lopsided then they would only have MAJORITY of the 1st choice votes, they mathematically cannot get over 50%.
The term liberal is a misrepresentation of Socialist ideology as being liberating when it is certainly not.
Having a representative democracy is more important than having a slightly more simple election process.
It feels like the anti-ranked-choice debater is being disingenuous, because his points are so ridiculous and easy to disassemble.
Having a broader election pool along with the ability to ignore parties. Would greatly help in a democratic vote for our republic.
The guy arguing against ranked choice is doing a piss poor job.
1st stating it's too difficult to understand... sounds real simple.
2nd he states that the citizens would have to educate themselves on the candidates... uh, yeah, that's exactly what we're supposed to do.
In fact, one of the main arguments for a free press is that it is their responsibility to help spread the information, and hold them to task.
Unfortunately, the "media" has forgotten what the news is supposed to be about. It feels like this is a bad faith argument.
His argument that a run off election would suffice, and be more equitable is valid.
I'm waiting to hear someone point out that the ranked voting, as proposed seems to more because of the way they go about it.
Athletic competitions seem to have a better way of ranking teams.
Take this example,
Candidate A receives 34% of primary choice, Candidate B receives 33%, and Candidate C receives 31% as well as 67% of the secondary votes. Would it make sense that Candidate C is dropped, or should we weigh their rankings? I mean, it is called ranked choice... we could even ask A v B, B v C, and C v A...
I don't think it is valid to say, "democracy is too hard, let's just let the Corporations continue to run the show"
I'm also hoping to hear some historic anecdotes on why we don't adjust have ranked choice. Nany cultures and societies have experimented with democracy, the founding fathers were rather well educated, what are some of the other options, and lessons learned?
The debater for the anti position is either disingenuous or dumb
If we are to remain a Constitutional Republic and keep any Liberty and Justice, Ranked Choice Voting must be shunned, thrown out of every state elections process.
You really don't have to worry about it. Ranked choice voting (what we call Preferential Voting in Australia) is awesome, and is great at holding governments to account. It doesn't make a country any less constitutional, it's just a better voting system.
What?! Respectfully, I feel you didn’t pay attention and dont understand the process at all.
The mayor in Chicago won the race in 2018 with only 17% of the vote. That’s it. Less than one out of every five people voted for her, yeah she won. That’s what our typical election process can look like if there’s more than two people running. Yet you’re saying that is good for our country and Constitution. It just doesn’t make any sense.
@19:54 ~ This is not an honest talking point. To say it’s “not fair“ is laughable. And I typically see the viewpoints of other people and their arguments whether I agree or not. But he’s saying it’s not fair that someone doesn’t get to use their subsequent votes (second, third) but that’s ridiculous for two reasons. One they chose not to use those votes. Second, that is the Exact same thing that currently happens with our “typical” voting system right now. Somebody only has one vote right now.
I heard of this voting style in 2012. It instantly seemed like the most fair way to vote. But at the time I preferred the current typical voting system with the two parties. At least from what I can remember. But here’s why I thought that way. It was because I thought the parties provided a moderating control where each side picked its best candidate instead of having a whole bunch of crazies. But even at the time I understood that RCV/IRV was still the most fair to all voters.
I think there are reasons that maybe RSV should not be implemented, but it has to do with people being uninformed voters more than anything.