Im so late to this party...hope theres room for 1 more onboard this opinion. I found this video by Googling a simple explanation for prop 131. This video was so thoroughly elementary and yet Helpful!!! I Vote for this video (and this comment! LOL).
The visualization of stacking the colors was excellent. I'm a math person and understood ranked choice voting already, but this would be very helpful for a visual person.
This video was by far the easiest to understand. I now understand RCV. I watched several other RCV videos on YT and came away from those even more confused then when I started. Thank you for making this truly simple and straight forward.
This is AMAZING!!! Thank you so much for simplifying this for me. I have to lead out elections for my student representative council and I liked this voting system but didn't know how it worked properly. Thank you so much again :)
Great explanation, but you failed to display one of the greatest mechanistic flaws of RCV. You showed a situation where all of blue’s next ranked votes were for the top two contenders, purple and green. If any of those votes had been for orange, their vote is discarded, which is a form of disenfranchisement. This happens in all RCV elections where there are more than 3 candidates, and the counting goes through more than 1 round of instant runoff. Approval voting is much better for this, and it eliminates vote splitting, which RCV does not.
@@soma2psyche it’s a huge flaw. It’s basically the same a plural voting but you are choosing your candidates ahead of time if the election goes to a runoff. In the case of a plural election, you get to physically go and vote for whoever your favored candidate is out of those that made it to the runoff. In RCV, you get left out if you didn’t correctly guess who made it to the next stage.
I noticed that immediately. But I feel like it'd be pretty easy to instead assign a point system. Four candidates, top choice gets four points, last gets 1 point. Eliminate the candidate with the least points. In the event Orange is everyone's second choice, that saves them from being thrown out in the first run. If blue is eliminated for having the least points, voters with candidates below blue will have those candidate's points raised. Ie: B4 O3 P2 G1. When Blue is eliminated, that will change to O4 P3 G2. The winner will be whoever gains 51% of the total points available in a round
I disagree. It is called "Instant" run-off voting - and that is the consequence *all* the voters face, to get the payoff of NOT holding the run-off on another (later) day (i.e. not instant). It is the cost of the cost/benefit. If the voters you're referring to didn't want their orange vote "discarded," (as you say - I disagree that it is "discarded"), then they should have put orange as their 1st choice. On the ONE day the voter votes, all the voters rank all their choices, knowing that their choices may not win or even make it to the next round. Again, if they believed orange was the better choice, then they should have put it as their first choice to begin with. We all make our rankings once. So no one is disenfranchised during that one ranking. That is the process. Approval voting isn't "much better" and doesn't eliminate vote splitting. Approval voting encourages bullet voting, and that isn't a choice, that's a gamble. And for approval voting, if every voter picked all the candidates, then no one would win. RCV is much fairer to ALL voters and ALL candidates. Make people truly rank their choices (the ones they want to rank), knowing any of their choices could be eliminated on subsequent rounds. RCV is not disenfranchisement, it is much more representative than what we have now, and it is better than so-called approval voting.
So the way this works is in the end it is possible that the most popular candidate actually will not be elected. So in other words there is a possibility that in a state like mine, idaho, the Republican will obviously be the most popular candidate but because of ranked Choice voting there's a possibility that an independent or a green party candidate could possibly get elected. I don't think I like this
Ranked choice voting did not work as advertised in the Minneapolis municipal elections of 2021. In the Fifth Ward, no majority was attained and the winner was declared with just 39% of the vote. For the record.
The counts show that Jeremiah Ellison won with 51.1% in Round 3 over Kristel Porter with 49.9%. Data was pulled directly form Ballotpedia. Perhaps you were mistaken with early voting data?
I mean, it's always possible to call X something it isn't. Pointing to an example of RCV where the rules weren't followed is not a mark against RCV, it's a mark against the previous system attempting to kill RCV in the cradle. By definition, RCV requires 51% of the vote. So I don't see a world where it "doesn't work as advertised" unless it was not implemented properly in the first place.
What if several of the greens voted their second choice as purple? But those weren't assessed as well? That would mean that purple would have received the most favor, but still would have lost. I'm not sure if I'm convinced that this voting method is accurate or fair.
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.
That actually sounds like it could be a good idea. Way better than the corrupt system we have now. I'd definitely do my part to make sure Delaware approves of Ranked Choice Voting
This is better than first-past-the-post, but it still has some problems. For example, what if all of the Purple voters ranked Blue higher than green? Then Green would've won even though the majority of the voters prefer Blue over Green in a head-to-head. With this method you don't check for that. I prefer the Ranked Pairs method because of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs
How the purple voters ranked their second or third choice is irrelevant for the election, and only of interest for data analysis. This process is built to eliminate the least popular candidates, and build an implicit compromise. That way we reduce "strategic voting" aka the lesser of two evils. Now you rank evils in order of preference, ha ha.
That's not the point - Purple's lower preferences SHOULD NOT be irrelevant. In Jose's example, blue would have beaten any other color in a one-on-one race. Based on that, it should win. There are systems that always notice this. IRV ignores everything but your top remaining preference, so it often misses it.
It's not like we need to go through ELECTION SYSTEM LEVEL 2 and get enough experience before we can try ELECTION SYSTEM LEVEL 3 and better. We can skip to the good stuff. Monotonic, Condorcet compliant systems, even!
Here's a hypothetical scenario: What if no one achieved 50% of #1 votes, but there was a candidate with over 50% of #2 votes before any Instant Runoff process occurred? It would seem to me that if a simple majority agreed on a #2 choice, that person should win. If we can't agree on a #1 choice but have agreed on a #2, maybe that's good enough?
Oh, I see, in this example we have only 20 votes, that's why the winner needs 11. This election "goes to 11." Orange is eliminated because there could only be 3 more purples or greens under orange but there just happens to be one more green as 2nd choice under orange-first, and it turns out that there are enough 2nd choices for green under blue-first for green get to 11. That's ranked choice. The other video example I cited earlier was "instant runoff", but, in that one, the bell curve was evenly distributed L-R between blue and red, and all the green-firsts were supposedly weighted on the blue side, as if there were no crossover voters from the red side, and the shape of the bell curve didn't change when the vote was weighted toward the blue-green side, because, in that projection, voters were evenly divided between blue-dems-libs, and red-GOP-cons, which is a fallacy.
OK, the follow-on video cut off my first comment draft. But my questions are: Why does the winner supposedly need 11 votes to win, after which, there is a cutoff of counting and an instant elimination round starts? Is this the way ranked-choice is supposed to work, or is it conflating with "instant-runoff"? The automatic follow-on video with my ranked browser/search history is titled "Why Is Ranked-Choice Voting Bad for Third Parties?", but it's really giving "instant-runoff" examples. To simplify the difference, as I see it, between “ranked-choice” vs. “instant-runoff” voting, is that “ranked-choice” eliminates the need for run-offs whether “instant” or not. In the example on the second video cited, all the votes that would have gone to blue are either subtracted from blue in one alternate scenario and in another, all given to green on the first round, but is that how “ranked-choice” is supposed to work, or is it really how “instant-runoff” supposedly works? If you notice in this (first) video, with “ranked choice” there are four colors, purple, blue, green and orange, and orange is eliminated in the first round because it has the fewest votes as first choice. But wait a second, the orange-first voters still had ranked-choice colors underneath the orange post-it! I thought ranked choice was supposed to be about which color or candidate got the most votes, but then, is it because whatever colors orange-first voters had underneath were supposedly mathematically, statistically, irrelevant to the outcome. But why not count them and project them out just to make sure? Although this is all very academic to the upcoming election, I think it deserves more analysis.
dude, it's like everything else in our time. We are not looking for the best, we are engaged in a process of elimination by focusing on the negative - in this instance lack of votes - and the orange ppl were eliminated out of the whole process by voting wrong on their first choice. process of elimination. it is a mockery of the principles behind democratic elections. Instead of giving everyone a voice in an election, an even chance, you are eliminating them based on their first vote and never to be heard of again. How can this be contemplated?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? It makes elections more of a farce than those influenced only by large amounts of money spent. We're not even going to talk about software issues and failings.
William Brown, if it's such a good idea why did it take over 200 years to come up with this scheme?? Only two states so far use it and they're both majority liberal.
From how I see it, I don't know if it will fix everything, but more people will vote for independent parties because they won't have to fear someone who they don't like from the two major parties winning. Like for the election now, I think I'd prefer voting for Jill Stein, but I don't want to risk Trump, so I'm casting my vote for Hilary. With ranked-choice voting I could've ranked my vote so it goes to Stein first and Clinton second. That way I can vote for the candidate I want the most, while not fearing that if she doesn't win I'll be making it easier for the party I oppose to win. I think it's really solid although it doesn't help the the (R) and (D) parties get way more attention.
So we've turned elections in to a casino whereby voters can gamble on voting on who they truly like with a small chance that their backup candidate (i.e. democrat or republican) may be ousted because of low vote count? That really doesn't make sense. What I see happening is that voters will still vote for their main party candidate while ranking the independent second and that will still result in independents being ousted first round. Sorry, but I don't see this system working at all.
If they use rank choice voting in 1992 Bill Clinton would not have been president. Republican vote was split between Ross Perot and George Bush 41. Ross Perot as a conservative and got 15% of the vote. And it’s totally bogus we should use it at all.
The problem with this process is that the lowest winning vote total determines the winner. In this example, let's say that it was really close between green and purple. The orange gets eliminated; and the second choice for orange is purple, and so purple wins. However, had the blue squares been unveiled, their second choice winner was green. Instead of eliminating the lowest vote total, the second choice for third place should be used to increase vote totals of the 1st and 2nd place options. I'm not sure why this obvious flaw is present in Ranked Choice Voting.
Interesting argument. I'm trying to wrap my head around the different scenarios. I think a good counter argument is that if you are saying the top two choices are both very close to the 50% threshold, then that would mean the 3rd and 4th place finishers are very small. As in they may have only received 2% and 1% of the vote respectively. So I see your point of why take the 1% voters second choice instead of the 2%, but I think in reality the likelihood that the 4th place voters' second votes actually push the winner past 50% is very small. It's more likely that you'd end up with something like 45%, 42%, 10%, and 3%, and in this situation it's impossible for the 3% voters' second choice to push any one of the leading two candidates over the 50% threshold. So long story short I believe that in reality it's almost always going to come down to the third place voters' second choice to determine the winner. And this way everyone whose votes were below the third place finisher in the initial round of voting still gets all of their second options counted, whereas they wouldn't in your scenario.
That scenario would be impossible though. If enough purple voted for orange as their 2nd choice that allowed them to exceed 50% of the votes, then even if all the blue went green there's no way it would total over 50 as well. Otherwise you'd end up with a scenario where you'd be counting over 100% of the votes (lets say if you did green first and for fun did an additional round with purple). The number in each round will always total 100%
Wait, you didn't count green's second choices. If they were all purple, then purple would have been the winner. It doesn't really make sense as you present it.
Exactly! All these people are saying how great a presentation this is, but really this presentation is 100% false and completely inaccurate. This is NOT how RCV works, people!
Why would you count green's second choices when green is still in? RCV doesn't give you MORE votes, it just lets your vote be considered in a tight race when your 1st pick is out of the race/has no chance. It's basically the current system with headpats for those who can count to 3.
@@keppela1 Nope. Only 1 vote. If you're 1st choice is eliminated, and you have selected a second choice, your ONE vote goes to the person who is still in the race, but you still only have ONE vote. I'm sorry the grade-school primary colors illustration was too complicated for you to understand it. Happy to clear it up for you.
The platforms of more than one party call for restricting voting systems to ranking ones. But for single-winner elections, the systems with the best chance of defeating the oligarchy are in the category of rated-choice voting. The platforms should call for voting systems "chosen for their high level of resistance to vote splitting." Such wording would state the goal without prematurely eliminating a very productive chunk of solution space.
@@MRFLAPPYTREE okay. So either you don't know or you never learned how to answer the question. No one talked about the probability of occurence. It's a model system, you telling me no one devised a contingency rule for a scenario that affects their most important step?
Eliminate all other candidates apart from those bottom two, redistribute the votes to them, and see who was more popular based on the preferences of the candidates that got more votes. Whoever got the least votes there is eliminated
Agreed. Like....do they take the third choice out of voters whose choice was eliminated first and second place out of the person who was eliminated 2nd?
@@Secretname807 Apparently it goes like this: Initially, a candidate with 868,000 first preference votes is eliminated. Those 868k are split between other candidates. If 68k go to the next candidate eliminated, here's how it will then be split. All 2nd preference votes from current eliminated candidate will be redistributed to their prospective candidates, and The 68k awarded to this candidate from the first eliminated would then be sent to those voters' third preferred candidate. And on and on until one candidate reaches the necessary threshold. Does that make sense? Hopefully that makes sense.
Using the same color analogy, if your ranked choice was 1. Orange 2. Blue 3. Green your first choice would have been eliminated, going to your second choice, blue. Then since blue still had the least number of votes your vote would have gone to your third choice, green. In this scenario anyone whose first two places were orange then blue would have seen there third place vote counted.
The whole video is a bit long-winded, but the relevant part is here ruclips.net/video/v7gZPEeOh1I/видео.html Some of the votes counted were the voters' third choice.
First past the post voting simply doesn't work. It produces a duopoly. We need ranked choice voting or a variant for every office. If they do this, and they get money out of politics, I firmly believe that will significantly strengthen democracy.
@@portelm3137 This example didn't go into pairwise matchups, but even if they did it wouldn't matter because they can just pick an an example in which it works out. The point is that it is not safe to vote for your favorite under instant runoff voting. If your favorite has high base support but low broad support, he can easily make it to the final round without having a chance to win. Meanwhile, voting for that candidate eliminates your lesser favorites who might be able to win in the final round.
Mutex50 not really, because if you made an informed decision about who you voted for, then your lesser favourites would have similar political views to your first preference, and so their votes would go to your favourite, meaning your favourite wins.
@@portelm3137 Imagine 3 candidates in an instant runoff voting election. You have a moderate right candidate, a moderate Left candidate, and a far left candidate. Voting for the far left candidate can eliminate the moderate left candidate. His moderate supporters would be closer to the moderate right candidate than the far left candidate. So the moderate right candidate would win and the far left candidate supporters got a worse result by putting their favorite first.
@@alitlweird in the sense that mail in voting, automatic voter registration and right to vote are also "convoluted methods for democrats to rig elections in their favor" by leveraging the fact that there's more of them and that's how democracy works... I agree. Such rigging. Much wow.
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.
The County and Precinct Chairs in Texas Congressional District 4 will have to choose a name to replace John Radcliffe on the November ballot. I've heard they will let all the choices speak, vote and the top two have a run off vote. This method seems better. In theory the top two candidates could have only 3 votes each and still would be the final two even if they were every other voters last choice. This system would save a lot of time and find a candidate that most people could support.
Rank choice voting has been around since the beginning of time but our founding fathers knew it was not the most democratic or fair way of representing the people. It is now used by people who feel their candidate will come in 2nd place or further down to try to still win an election.
I think your argument falls apart when you consider that the system the founding fathers actually set up 1) counted slaves as 3/5 human 2) didn't allow women to vote 3) Allows for a simple majority. The founding fathers interest in what is "fair" is rather suspect. Their attitude was "we'll fix it later." Now, It's later.
@@2thebaum The idea is each candidate needs 50% majority for each seat, just like how you need 50% in Congress anyway. You wouldn't want a party to win only 20% the national vote, but still get a majority in Congress.
@@2thebaum This entire concept is convoluted. I understand it enough that I can see how it will ultimately rig elections in favor of democrats (communists), but I don’t understand it enough to where I can explain it to someone who plans on voting YES on this question this November.
@@alitlweirdsure you do. There's more Democrats, therefore more democratic processes are bad because you personally don't like their policies. If there were more Republicans, it would benefit you to allow ranked choice voting because more democratic processes would favor your preferred candidate/party. It's the same reason you don't like mail in voting, automatic voter registration attached to every driver's license, and early voting. The more time people have to cast their vote, do research on the various candidates/issues, and the more that voting is treated like a right, rather than a privilege, the worse things get.
Thanks for the excellent video. I certainly liked Ranked choice voting, but I think Weighted choice voting would be better than Ranked choice voting, because if a candidate is weighted too lowly by several voters then he should be eliminated too, even though he may have a majority, since what makes a candidate worthy of political office is if he/she is "likable" by most voters, not just Number 1 by most voters. A candidate could be 80% likable by most voters and disliked by only 20% of the voters, but he could be a Number 2 candidate for most voters and another candidate could be likable by 51% but be hated by 49%. The former candidate is a better choice then.
So for example, if 49% of people hated Hillary Clinton, and 49% of people hated Trump, than neither of them should be elected, but if one of the many candidates was at least acceptable to 80% of people, they should win the election. Is that what you're saying? I might be ok with that. That would favor more middle-of-the road candidates, and eliminate the super extreme ones like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, etc. *** In the 2020 election, that would probably mean a candidate like Tulsi Gabbard would be likely to win, as opposed to the more divisive candidates like Trump, Biden, Sanders, etc. I'd probably be ok with that.
@@swm714 that way only extremists would win, I think the best choice is someone who is liked by the 80% rather than only half the country. It doesn’t stop being democratic, actually is more democratic than the former.
The rule with ranked choice is that if no party has 50% of the votes in a particular round, there's no winner for that round. It means that RELATIVE popularity doesn't decide a winner, ABSOLUTE popularity in following rounds does.
what if we implemented a simple point system along with this voting method. It would actually be easier than eliminating the least popular candidate. Here's how it works in my head. I have 4 choices of colors (like above) and i rank them from favorite to least as: blue, orange, green and purple. In my head blue should get 4 points, orange 3, green 2 and purple 1. After giving each candidate their respective points they are all counted up to see who won. Unfortunately if we can't prevent either "side" from cheating and busing in voters, mailing in dead peoples votes, pets voting and so on then it really doesn't matter, the crookedest party will always win or "miss the mark" trying to make it look like a close race.
Fortunately none of that happens and there are fewer than 100 cases of voter fraud nationwide. Even when -insane- people insist it's a huge problem and launch massive multimillion dollar investigations into it, they all always come back the same.
This is completely WRONG!!! that is not how RCV works!!! Look at the voters who picked Purple in the 1st round. Their 2nd choices (in this lame video) are ignored in the second round. That is NOT how RCV works!!! ALL voters get their 2nd and 3rd ranks counted.. noooooot juuust the voters who initially picked the losing candidate in the 1st round. If you first choice (#1 rank) doesn't win in the 1st round, then everyone gets their 2nd round counted
Let's say you want to vote Green Party, but choose Democrats as a second choice. This way you're not taking away from the Democrat. This is way too sensible for the senseless country.
This system feels like the voter would need to be really invested (as they should) with investigating candidates and their stances/policies. Don’t see that being very efficient lol
Only thing I ask is people be given time and choice to Rearrange there Ranked choices until election day and Have to approve the next choice if there first choice loses...so it can't be used to boost numbers if they change there mind for canditate for any reason.
Nope. Once you cast that ballot, it's a done deal. If you turn out to regret your vote; then 1. You should have been more discerning. 2. You should have done more vetting. & 3. You'll have to wait till the next election to vote him/her out. & 4 actually; you need to consider the tellers and vote counters who will have to erase EVERYTHING they were doing, and start all over, just because YOU didn't do your due diligence!
Why do the voters that voted for orange get their votes counted twice? Shouldn't everyone's second favourite choice get added to see if one can get a majority?
No, because those orange votes are effectively ELIMINATED. Like, since that candidate is removed as the least popular, those votes have officially zero weight. So the goal with this system is to make sure that people who voted honestly for the least popular candidate still have a say in choosing from the list of different candidates in the end. Think about it from the perspective of our current voting system. We essentially eliminate third party candidates by default; if you vote for Orange right now in our current system, because Orange is less popular, they're not going to win, and your vote is doing nothing for either of the dominant parties. Because we don't have any way for you to recast your vote for one of the two dominant parties now that you know Orange isn't going to win, you have no vote in the final tally. Your voting for a third party means that you have no sway one way or the other on the final tally, which means your power to vote has been taken away from you. In Ranked Choice, if you had placed Purple or Green as your second choice, you as a voter would still have actual sway on the final tally, even with Orange fully eliminated! This system is made to make sure that regardless of someone's unpopular initial choice, their vote still has an effect on the final tally.
So what you're saying is vote for the ones you want, ranked in order of most favorable to least favorable...but if there is one you absolutely dont want, dont rank them at all?
With this should their be elimination rounds? First round gets the above result and then votes are recast maybe 2 more times. That seems like it would lead to the most accurate result. I really didn't like the baby-ing theme of this video though.
Yeah, it's truly a horrible way to vote and confusing as heck. this isna horrible video and in no way explains how it really works in real life. RCV advocates want you to think it's this simple.. it's NOT!
If orange had broad support across multiple parties, he wouldn't get less than 10% of the vote. Most people vote mainstream. Orange would have to be quite despized as an individual to enjoy the kind of broad coalition that you describe while getting almost no votes in the first round. In that case, I suppose the people have spoken. They did not want orange.
This feels so flawed to me. If my candidate is purple and I am totally disgusted with all three other options, I am now under this scenario forced to vote for a totally unpalatable candidate. I'm not really seeing the benefit or fairness over this system, still seems very very sketchy to me.
This is a horrible video.. but the masses love the colors and think it's great. In reality, with RCV, you don't have to rank a 2nd and/or 3rd candidate. You can just leave them blank if you don't want your votes (and I say votes because it is plural) to be inadvertently used for some other candidate(s) that you don't want to win
No, you're ranking them one through four. How you win is if everyone else ranks the same way; otherwise, you're not going to be happy when it's over. Surprised and unhappy b/c everyone's first pick/vote third least favorite candidate won. Green. Orange got dogged immediately. and the top two lost to the third popular vote. Think Independent or libertarian or tea party.
Shih Tzus Rule I understand it. But what’s to stop you from voting 3 times for the same color? How would they stop fraud? Also candidates would just focus on the more populated state. Correct?
@@johnj5726 Assuming that doesn't result in a ballot error, it wouldn't make any difference at all. Your vote stays with your #1 candidate until they are eliminated. So if that happened, and your #2 choice was the same candidate, nothing changes because that candidate is already out of the running.
Really nice way to explain this, and it illustrates the strength of ranked voting. The best, and most democratic, aspect of ranked voting is (as a voter) your choice is relevant throughout the election. Conventional voting (first past the post) would have selected purple.
Would it? A lot of jurisdictions would have a runoff between purple, blue and (or) green. Note that purple, in this example got less than 30% of the 21 votes available. I'm sure that's enough for some jurisdictions, but 25%, 25%, 30% is actually a pretty close race, and not usually enough to win.
Why don’t we just use a system where your 1st choice gets 3 points, your 2nd choice gets 2 points, and your 3rd choice gets 1 point? Whoever has the most points wins.
This is called Borda Count. Both RCV and Borda are prone to strategic voting and especially RCV doesn't fix FPTPs problems in practice (because of the details of how elimination works). E.g. search for "RCV spoiler effect". One of the best, yet simplest, methods is Approval Voting. Aaron Hamlin has done a lot of talks about why it's preferable.
Because, if your vote isn't counted equally to other votes, then the problem we are trying to fix doesn't get fixed. People will still vote for the two biggest parties first, because not doing so is less efficient. Likewise, parties will force in extra candidates to manipulate how the votes get distributed. I don't see why you would need to punish someone for picking a candidate they like first by weakening their vote. Knocking out their first choice is punishment enough.
1.) Notice how they talk to you like a child. 2.) Notice how if your first choice is the minority your votes are scraped. But the leading candidate (purples) second choice is orange. However, orange is eliminated. Even though orange was favored among the majority. Its deceptive.
If purples votes favored orange, then orange's votes would favor purple, and between them, purple is the preferred candidate. These colors aren't being assigned randomly, they represent a group of policies, attitudes and principles that are reflected in the voters voting for them. The fact that none of oranges votes went to purple makes it fairly likely that they are very, very different candidates.
@@TheBrothergreen Oranges second pick could have been blue. One does not equate to the other. Orange was forced to drop out. Even though he was favored by the majority on average. Meaning orange received the most #2 votes out of everyone. This voting system forces a majority and ignores the minority. Hence why orange was forced to drop out round 1. Even though he was favored.
@@dbzkings2626 Orange's second pick could have been blue. And had orange picked blue over green purple might have won, and that's the point. The voters for orange literally decided the outcome of the election, thus every vote mattered. Now I'm not sure where you got the blind assertion that orange was "favored" because clearly nobody wanted to vote for orange, and that too is an expression of the people's will. If you can't even scrape together enough votes to limp past the first round, you should lose. Any system where someone goes from 5% of the vote to winning the whole thing is obviously intrinsically flawed.
This would have changed my voting strategy in just about every election of my life. I kinda like it. I could vote indie #1 and #2 one of the "establishment" parties. When Bill Clinton was elected, I don't think he had the majority vote, but I could be wrong.
@@jomillen5131, Not in the Electoral College. Trump is the fifth President where this happened since 1824, before then the popular vote was not even recorded.
@@pappabear379 of the Electoral College yes. He had 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and over 49% in 1996. Here is my source (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election).
There are several voting methods that are technically superior in a variety of ways. However, ranked-choice has the advantage of being much simpler to understand. That's a critical element for getting things like this passed into law.
Borda has the weakness that the outcome depends strongly on the exact number of candidates. Throw in a bunch of riffraff at the bottom and the outcome will likely change.
It seems it would be best if we voted in multiple voting methods and then the majority winner of all voting methods combined should win. Seems rough but it would be the best way to get the real best choice possible.
Borda is a trap designed to punish people for voting outside the mainstream. If the mainstream candidate is your second choice, your vote counts half. If theyre third, your vote counts less than that. The only way to vote efficiently is to vote for the mainstream candidate who won't be eliminated making it virtually the same as what we have now.
Well most voters like their "team" so they wouldn't pick a second or third choice they would pick their candidate only. A Kamala voter would possibly put the 3rd party candidate but not pick Trump, so they would have 2 picked if they even bothered with picking anyone else. This system just makes everything ripe for the person nobody wanted to be the winner
Well, with 1 of the two major political parties being nazi sympathizers, traitors and criminals, this election is a little out of the norm. Go back to bush v gore or something, though and you would see a lot more people willing to vote for a 3rd party candidate because the fate of democracy wasn't hanging in the balance...
I love this system and it works wherever it is used. What people are missing is that Jill Stein, or another candidate like her, can reach the 5% threshold of total votes. This accomplishment helps parties such as Green become viable on the national level because they no longer have to spend so much money and time just getting on state ballots and they are provided more federal dollars for next election cycle. RCV levels the playing field, allowing more than two polarizing figures to dominate. It allows people to vote for what they love not against what they fear!!!
Well, no. Their worst nightmare is eliminating the electoral college and going to a straight popular vote... Followed by automatic voter registration where anyone with an ID can vote. Followed by absentee voting, or any system of voting where you don't have to stand in line for 10hrs if you live in a poor neighborhood. Followed by statewide elections for the house. I'm sure RCV is on the list somewhere, though. Probably right after church busses or something.
35 candidates should not be competing in an election. There should be prerequisites like getting 20,000 registered voters signatures or whatever. It's very unlikely that 35 people will hit those signposts and be allowed to register.
*"BYE BYE BLUE"*
Yeah...I was totally not creeped out by that.
oh no... this HELPS the real blue.
@@nickdigger exactly. lol
LMAO
I loved it 🤣🤣
Bye bye blue
By far and away the most comprehensive explanation of ranked choice voting. Kudos to whoever thought of this presentation
Im so late to this party...hope theres room for 1 more onboard this opinion. I found this video by Googling a simple explanation for prop 131.
This video was so thoroughly elementary and yet Helpful!!!
I Vote for this video (and this comment! LOL).
Thank you for taking time to put this together. I now understand the process a lot better.
The first explanation out of six I tried that actually explained this completely and understandably.
What a crock! One vote per person! The winner has the majority of votes. Pretty simple!
The visualization of stacking the colors was excellent. I'm a math person and understood ranked choice voting already, but this would be very helpful for a visual person.
This is by far the simplest illustration I have seen. Love it!
This by far is the best video on explaining the ranked-choice voting system.
Thank you! We hope it helps!
This video was by far the easiest to understand. I now understand RCV. I watched several other RCV videos on YT and came away from those even more confused then when I started. Thank you for making this truly simple and straight forward.
This is AMAZING!!! Thank you so much for simplifying this for me. I have to lead out elections for my student representative council and I liked this voting system but didn't know how it worked properly. Thank you so much again :)
I'm also looking to do this for my Student Council Elections. I know this is 2 years old, but can you tell me how it went for you?
Anybody else notice how the only color the first guy wanted nothing to do with is the one that got picked in the end?
IKR?! All 3 of his lost. We should not allow those people to vote LOL!
*_B Y E B Y E B L U E_*
Fingers crossed 🤞🏻
@@ahoypolloi2980 I stuck around to the end of the video, green won.
@@ahoypolloi2980 does that mean what I think it does?
@@engu1348 and then some
Better yet, let's have a March Madness-like tournament to determine the president.
You want to have 6 different elections?
I agree each candidate should battle it out in a head to head basketball tournament. Just like the founding fathers intended god bless this country
Better yet we can just have voting by combat. Isn't like the Civil War was bloody af or anything like that.
yeah, I thought it wuz like that but seems not, Y I am not 4 it.
Duels duels and more duels!!!😂😂😂
Great explanation, but you failed to display one of the greatest mechanistic flaws of RCV. You showed a situation where all of blue’s next ranked votes were for the top two contenders, purple and green. If any of those votes had been for orange, their vote is discarded, which is a form of disenfranchisement. This happens in all RCV elections where there are more than 3 candidates, and the counting goes through more than 1 round of instant runoff. Approval voting is much better for this, and it eliminates vote splitting, which RCV does not.
It's not that big of a flaw, considering what happens in a winner-take-all election, as we have now with plurality voting.
@@soma2psyche it’s a huge flaw. It’s basically the same a plural voting but you are choosing your candidates ahead of time if the election goes to a runoff. In the case of a plural election, you get to physically go and vote for whoever your favored candidate is out of those that made it to the runoff. In RCV, you get left out if you didn’t correctly guess who made it to the next stage.
I noticed that immediately.
But I feel like it'd be pretty easy to instead assign a point system. Four candidates, top choice gets four points, last gets 1 point. Eliminate the candidate with the least points. In the event Orange is everyone's second choice, that saves them from being thrown out in the first run.
If blue is eliminated for having the least points, voters with candidates below blue will have those candidate's points raised.
Ie:
B4 O3 P2 G1.
When Blue is eliminated, that will change to O4 P3 G2.
The winner will be whoever gains 51% of the total points available in a round
I disagree. It is called "Instant" run-off voting - and that is the consequence *all* the voters face, to get the payoff of NOT holding the run-off on another (later) day (i.e. not instant). It is the cost of the cost/benefit. If the voters you're referring to didn't want their orange vote "discarded," (as you say - I disagree that it is "discarded"), then they should have put orange as their 1st choice. On the ONE day the voter votes, all the voters rank all their choices, knowing that their choices may not win or even make it to the next round. Again, if they believed orange was the better choice, then they should have put it as their first choice to begin with. We all make our rankings once. So no one is disenfranchised during that one ranking. That is the process. Approval voting isn't "much better" and doesn't eliminate vote splitting. Approval voting encourages bullet voting, and that isn't a choice, that's a gamble. And for approval voting, if every voter picked all the candidates, then no one would win. RCV is much fairer to ALL voters and ALL candidates. Make people truly rank their choices (the ones they want to rank), knowing any of their choices could be eliminated on subsequent rounds. RCV is not disenfranchisement, it is much more representative than what we have now, and it is better than so-called approval voting.
But Approval Voting's flaw is that you tend to end up w/ the candidate that no one preferred.
So the way this works is in the end it is possible that the most popular candidate actually will not be elected. So in other words there is a possibility that in a state like mine, idaho, the Republican will obviously be the most popular candidate but because of ranked Choice voting there's a possibility that an independent or a green party candidate could possibly get elected. I don't think I like this
Bingo! 🤯
Ranked choice voting did not work as advertised in the Minneapolis municipal elections of 2021. In the Fifth Ward, no majority was attained and the winner was declared with just 39% of the vote. For the record.
The counts show that Jeremiah Ellison won with 51.1% in Round 3 over Kristel Porter with 49.9%. Data was pulled directly form Ballotpedia. Perhaps you were mistaken with early voting data?
I mean, it's always possible to call X something it isn't. Pointing to an example of RCV where the rules weren't followed is not a mark against RCV, it's a mark against the previous system attempting to kill RCV in the cradle.
By definition, RCV requires 51% of the vote. So I don't see a world where it "doesn't work as advertised" unless it was not implemented properly in the first place.
And Massachusetts just voted against RCV and for 2-party system where you have to vote for "lesser evil".
Thank you so much. This video really helps in understanding the ranked choice voting fruitfully.
What if several of the greens voted their second choice as purple? But those weren't assessed as well? That would mean that purple would have received the most favor, but still would have lost. I'm not sure if I'm convinced that this voting method is accurate or fair.
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.
They’ll do #1 ignore 2 - 3, and just lie.
why the remake of the video from 2009-05-10 titled "MPR News: Instant Runoff Voting Explained"?
Because it has a different name now? No idea just speculation
I thought I understood RCV, but this simple vid taught me more!
That actually sounds like it could be a good idea. Way better than the corrupt system we have now. I'd definitely do my part to make sure Delaware approves of Ranked Choice Voting
This is better than first-past-the-post, but it still has some problems. For example, what if all of the Purple voters ranked Blue higher than green? Then Green would've won even though the majority of the voters prefer Blue over Green in a head-to-head. With this method you don't check for that. I prefer the Ranked Pairs method because of this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranked_pairs
How the purple voters ranked their second or third choice is irrelevant for the election, and only of interest for data analysis. This process is built to eliminate the least popular candidates, and build an implicit compromise. That way we reduce "strategic voting" aka the lesser of two evils. Now you rank evils in order of preference, ha ha.
That's not the point - Purple's lower preferences SHOULD NOT be irrelevant. In Jose's example, blue would have beaten any other color in a one-on-one race. Based on that, it should win. There are systems that always notice this. IRV ignores everything but your top remaining preference, so it often misses it.
This may be suboptimal, but it's better than what we have now.
It's not like we need to go through ELECTION SYSTEM LEVEL 2 and get enough experience before we can try ELECTION SYSTEM LEVEL 3 and better. We can skip to the good stuff. Monotonic, Condorcet compliant systems, even!
Here's a hypothetical scenario: What if no one achieved 50% of #1 votes, but there was a candidate with over 50% of #2 votes before any Instant Runoff process occurred? It would seem to me that if a simple majority agreed on a #2 choice, that person should win. If we can't agree on a #1 choice but have agreed on a #2, maybe that's good enough?
Oh, I see, in this example we have only 20 votes, that's why the winner needs 11. This election "goes to 11." Orange is eliminated because there could only be 3 more purples or greens under orange but there just happens to be one more green as 2nd choice under orange-first, and it turns out that there are enough 2nd choices for green under blue-first for green get to 11. That's ranked choice. The other video example I cited earlier was "instant runoff", but, in that one, the bell curve was evenly distributed L-R between blue and red, and all the green-firsts were supposedly weighted on the blue side, as if there were no crossover voters from the red side, and the shape of the bell curve didn't change when the vote was weighted toward the blue-green side, because, in that projection, voters were evenly divided between blue-dems-libs, and red-GOP-cons, which is a fallacy.
OK, the follow-on video cut off my first comment draft. But my questions are: Why does the winner supposedly need 11 votes to win, after which, there is a cutoff of counting and an instant elimination round starts? Is this the way ranked-choice is supposed to work, or is it conflating with "instant-runoff"? The automatic follow-on video with my ranked browser/search history is titled "Why Is Ranked-Choice Voting Bad for Third Parties?", but it's really giving "instant-runoff" examples. To simplify the difference, as I see it, between “ranked-choice” vs. “instant-runoff” voting, is that “ranked-choice” eliminates the need for run-offs whether “instant” or not. In the example on the second video cited, all the votes that would have gone to blue are either subtracted from blue in one alternate scenario and in another, all given to green on the first round, but is that how “ranked-choice” is supposed to work, or is it really how “instant-runoff” supposedly works?
If you notice in this (first) video, with “ranked choice” there are four colors, purple, blue, green and orange, and orange is eliminated in the first round because it has the fewest votes as first choice. But wait a second, the orange-first voters still had ranked-choice colors underneath the orange post-it! I thought ranked choice was supposed to be about which color or candidate got the most votes, but then, is it because whatever colors orange-first voters had underneath were supposedly mathematically, statistically, irrelevant to the outcome. But why not count them and project them out just to make sure?
Although this is all very academic to the upcoming election, I think it deserves more analysis.
dude, it's like everything else in our time. We are not looking for the best, we are engaged in a process of elimination by focusing on the negative - in this instance lack of votes - and the orange ppl were eliminated out of the whole process by voting wrong on their first choice. process of elimination. it is a mockery of the principles behind democratic elections. Instead of giving everyone a voice in an election, an even chance, you are eliminating them based on their first vote and never to be heard of again. How can this be contemplated?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!!? It makes elections more of a farce than those influenced only by large amounts of money spent. We're not even going to talk about software issues and failings.
William Brown, if it's such a good idea why did it take over 200 years to come up with this scheme?? Only two states so far use it and they're both majority liberal.
Should use this method in all elections
How exactly is this method better for independent parties, who most likely will be eliminated during the first runoff?
From how I see it, I don't know if it will fix everything, but more people will vote for independent parties because they won't have to fear someone who they don't like from the two major parties winning. Like for the election now, I think I'd prefer voting for Jill Stein, but I don't want to risk Trump, so I'm casting my vote for Hilary. With ranked-choice voting I could've ranked my vote so it goes to Stein first and Clinton second. That way I can vote for the candidate I want the most, while not fearing that if she doesn't win I'll be making it easier for the party I oppose to win. I think it's really solid although it doesn't help the the (R) and (D) parties get way more attention.
So we've turned elections in to a casino whereby voters can gamble on voting on who they truly like with a small chance that their backup candidate (i.e. democrat or republican) may be ousted because of low vote count? That really doesn't make sense. What I see happening is that voters will still vote for their main party candidate while ranking the independent second and that will still result in independents being ousted first round. Sorry, but I don't see this system working at all.
Okay. Sorry you feel that way.
Not at all, I'm sorry you believe this method will result anything different from what is already in place.
Okay.
Best video on the subject by far! Thank you!!❤️
So the 3rd place canidate could end up winning? Under rank choice. And WHO came up with this system? Some smarty pants with a degree?
If they use rank choice voting in 1992 Bill Clinton would not have been president. Republican vote was split between Ross Perot and George Bush 41. Ross Perot as a conservative and got 15% of the vote. And it’s totally bogus we should use it at all.
The problem with this process is that the lowest winning vote total determines the winner. In this example, let's say that it was really close between green and purple. The orange gets eliminated; and the second choice for orange is purple, and so purple wins. However, had the blue squares been unveiled, their second choice winner was green. Instead of eliminating the lowest vote total, the second choice for third place should be used to increase vote totals of the 1st and 2nd place options. I'm not sure why this obvious flaw is present in Ranked Choice Voting.
Interesting argument. I'm trying to wrap my head around the different scenarios. I think a good counter argument is that if you are saying the top two choices are both very close to the 50% threshold, then that would mean the 3rd and 4th place finishers are very small. As in they may have only received 2% and 1% of the vote respectively. So I see your point of why take the 1% voters second choice instead of the 2%, but I think in reality the likelihood that the 4th place voters' second votes actually push the winner past 50% is very small.
It's more likely that you'd end up with something like 45%, 42%, 10%, and 3%, and in this situation it's impossible for the 3% voters' second choice to push any one of the leading two candidates over the 50% threshold.
So long story short I believe that in reality it's almost always going to come down to the third place voters' second choice to determine the winner. And this way everyone whose votes were below the third place finisher in the initial round of voting still gets all of their second options counted, whereas they wouldn't in your scenario.
That scenario would be impossible though. If enough purple voted for orange as their 2nd choice that allowed them to exceed 50% of the votes, then even if all the blue went green there's no way it would total over 50 as well. Otherwise you'd end up with a scenario where you'd be counting over 100% of the votes (lets say if you did green first and for fun did an additional round with purple). The number in each round will always total 100%
Loved this explanation: clear, concise, and easy enough for a kid to understand.
Wait, you didn't count green's second choices. If they were all purple, then purple would have been the winner. It doesn't really make sense as you present it.
Exactly! All these people are saying how great a presentation this is, but really this presentation is 100% false and completely inaccurate.
This is NOT how RCV works, people!
Why would you count green's second choices when green is still in?
RCV doesn't give you MORE votes, it just lets your vote be considered in a tight race when your 1st pick is out of the race/has no chance. It's basically the current system with headpats for those who can count to 3.
@@TheBrothergreen "RCV doesn't give you more votes". Really? They literally say you get 3 votes instead of 1 in the first 8 seconds of the video.
But, yeah, I get why they didn't count green's second votes since green already won.
@@keppela1 Nope. Only 1 vote. If you're 1st choice is eliminated, and you have selected a second choice, your ONE vote goes to the person who is still in the race, but you still only have ONE vote.
I'm sorry the grade-school primary colors illustration was too complicated for you to understand it. Happy to clear it up for you.
The platforms of more than one party call for restricting voting systems to ranking ones. But for single-winner elections, the systems with the best chance of defeating the oligarchy are in the category of rated-choice voting. The platforms should call for voting systems "chosen for their high level of resistance to vote splitting." Such wording would state the goal without prematurely eliminating a very productive chunk of solution space.
What happens if two candidates are tied for the lowest position?
Well im assuming more than 30 people willl be voting so an exact tie is really unlikely
@@MRFLAPPYTREE okay. So either you don't know or you never learned how to answer the question. No one talked about the probability of occurence.
It's a model system, you telling me no one devised a contingency rule for a scenario that affects their most important step?
Eliminate both and redistribute their second choice?
Have another round of runoff election
Eliminate all other candidates apart from those bottom two, redistribute the votes to them, and see who was more popular based on the preferences of the candidates that got more votes. Whoever got the least votes there is eliminated
This is the second video I've seen on ranked-choice, but they never say when the third choice is used.
Agreed. Like....do they take the third choice out of voters whose choice was eliminated first and second place out of the person who was eliminated 2nd?
@@pdxcorgidad I honestly don't know and I can't seem to find info on it.
@@Secretname807 Apparently it goes like this:
Initially, a candidate with 868,000 first preference votes is eliminated.
Those 868k are split between other candidates. If 68k go to the next candidate eliminated, here's how it will then be split.
All 2nd preference votes from current eliminated candidate will be redistributed to their prospective candidates, and
The 68k awarded to this candidate from the first eliminated would then be sent to those voters' third preferred candidate. And on and on until one candidate reaches the necessary threshold.
Does that make sense?
Hopefully that makes sense.
Using the same color analogy, if your ranked choice was 1. Orange 2. Blue 3. Green your first choice would have been eliminated, going to your second choice, blue. Then since blue still had the least number of votes your vote would have gone to your third choice, green.
In this scenario anyone whose first two places were orange then blue would have seen there third place vote counted.
The whole video is a bit long-winded, but the relevant part is here ruclips.net/video/v7gZPEeOh1I/видео.html
Some of the votes counted were the voters' third choice.
First past the post voting simply doesn't work. It produces a duopoly. We need ranked choice voting or a variant for every office.
If they do this, and they get money out of politics, I firmly believe that will significantly strengthen democracy.
This is a problem if orange or blue can beat all the other colors head to head.
Mutex50 but they didn’t
@@portelm3137 This example didn't go into pairwise matchups, but even if they did it wouldn't matter because they can just pick an an example in which it works out. The point is that it is not safe to vote for your favorite under instant runoff voting. If your favorite has high base support but low broad support, he can easily make it to the final round without having a chance to win. Meanwhile, voting for that candidate eliminates your lesser favorites who might be able to win in the final round.
Mutex50 not really, because if you made an informed decision about who you voted for, then your lesser favourites would have similar political views to your first preference, and so their votes would go to your favourite, meaning your favourite wins.
@@portelm3137 Imagine 3 candidates in an instant runoff voting election. You have a moderate right candidate, a moderate Left candidate, and a far left candidate. Voting for the far left candidate can eliminate the moderate left candidate. His moderate supporters would be closer to the moderate right candidate than the far left candidate. So the moderate right candidate would win and the far left candidate supporters got a worse result by putting their favorite first.
@@Mutex50 you’re right
Can this possibly get rid of our 2 party system? I would love that.
It would help usher in and establish a single party. this is a convoluted way for democrats to rig elections in their favor.
@@alitlweird in the sense that mail in voting, automatic voter registration and right to vote are also "convoluted methods for democrats to rig elections in their favor" by leveraging the fact that there's more of them and that's how democracy works...
I agree. Such rigging. Much wow.
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.
THis is SO Wrong!!
The County and Precinct Chairs in Texas Congressional District 4 will have to choose a name to replace John Radcliffe on the November ballot. I've heard they will let all the choices speak, vote and the top two have a run off vote. This method seems better. In theory the top two candidates could have only 3 votes each and still would be the final two even if they were every other voters last choice. This system would save a lot of time and find a candidate that most people could support.
Rank choice voting has been around since the beginning of time but our founding fathers knew it was not the most democratic or fair way of representing the people. It is now used by people who feel their candidate will come in 2nd place or further down to try to still win an election.
I think your argument falls apart when you consider that the system the founding fathers actually set up
1) counted slaves as 3/5 human
2) didn't allow women to vote
3) Allows for a simple majority.
The founding fathers interest in what is "fair" is rather suspect. Their attitude was "we'll fix it later."
Now, It's later.
This is so cool👏👏
Have you done one for STV?
Carl Parrish it is the same thing.
NOT BLUE!!! NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
anyone else here as a result of count fecking TWENTY in the Irish elections for MEPs??
Could you caption this video please?
Excellent!!!
In this example the 3rd place finisher wins.
Yeah, it's disgusting. RCV is horrible
@@2thebaum The idea is each candidate needs 50% majority for each seat, just like how you need 50% in Congress anyway. You wouldn't want a party to win only 20% the national vote, but still get a majority in Congress.
@@2thebaum
This entire concept is convoluted.
I understand it enough that I can see how it will ultimately rig elections in favor of democrats (communists), but I don’t understand it enough to where I can explain it to someone who plans on voting YES on this question this November.
@@alitlweirdsure you do. There's more Democrats, therefore more democratic processes are bad because you personally don't like their policies.
If there were more Republicans, it would benefit you to allow ranked choice voting because more democratic processes would favor your preferred candidate/party.
It's the same reason you don't like mail in voting, automatic voter registration attached to every driver's license, and early voting.
The more time people have to cast their vote, do research on the various candidates/issues, and the more that voting is treated like a right, rather than a privilege, the worse things get.
These guys are coming for you CGP Grey
Thanks for the excellent video. I certainly liked Ranked choice voting, but I think Weighted choice voting would be better than Ranked choice voting, because if a candidate is weighted too lowly by several voters then he should be eliminated too, even though he may have a majority, since what makes a candidate worthy of political office is if he/she is "likable" by most voters, not just Number 1 by most voters. A candidate could be 80% likable by most voters and disliked by only 20% of the voters, but he could be a Number 2 candidate for most voters and another candidate could be likable by 51% but be hated by 49%. The former candidate is a better choice then.
If 51% of a population has someone as their first choice they should win that's what democracy is.
So for example, if 49% of people hated Hillary Clinton, and 49% of people hated Trump, than neither of them should be elected, but if one of the many candidates was at least acceptable to 80% of people, they should win the election. Is that what you're saying? I might be ok with that. That would favor more middle-of-the road candidates, and eliminate the super extreme ones like Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, etc.
***
In the 2020 election, that would probably mean a candidate like Tulsi Gabbard would be likely to win, as opposed to the more divisive candidates like Trump, Biden, Sanders, etc. I'd probably be ok with that.
By weighted, do you mean Score Voting (defined in W'pedia)?
@@swm714 that way only extremists would win, I think the best choice is someone who is liked by the 80% rather than only half the country. It doesn’t stop being democratic, actually is more democratic than the former.
@@swm714 Well, no. Wouldn't it be better if 90% was required? Yes, it would be. And so it should be.
Who else is here because of Jill Stein?
tell me why didn't purple win when purple had the most votes initially?
The rule with ranked choice is that if no party has 50% of the votes in a particular round, there's no winner for that round. It means that RELATIVE popularity doesn't decide a winner, ABSOLUTE popularity in following rounds does.
Purple has a loyal, but narrow base. Nobody likes purple except the ones who made him their 1st choice.
7 years later I still find this is the best explanation of RCV
This is great!!
what if we implemented a simple point system along with this voting method. It would actually be easier than eliminating the least popular candidate. Here's how it works in my head. I have 4 choices of colors (like above) and i rank them from favorite to least as: blue, orange, green and purple. In my head blue should get 4 points, orange 3, green 2 and purple 1. After giving each candidate their respective points they are all counted up to see who won. Unfortunately if we can't prevent either "side" from cheating and busing in voters, mailing in dead peoples votes, pets voting and so on then it really doesn't matter, the crookedest party will always win or "miss the mark" trying to make it look like a close race.
Borda Count? Look that term up.
Fortunately none of that happens and there are fewer than 100 cases of voter fraud nationwide.
Even when -insane- people insist it's a huge problem and launch massive multimillion dollar investigations into it, they all always come back the same.
Ranked choice allows politicians to vote their conscience without worried about being "Primaried out"
Its NOT confusing. YOu just vote your conscience
This is completely WRONG!!! that is not how RCV works!!!
Look at the voters who picked Purple in the 1st round. Their 2nd choices (in this lame video) are ignored in the second round. That is NOT how RCV works!!!
ALL voters get their 2nd and 3rd ranks counted.. noooooot juuust the voters who initially picked the losing candidate in the 1st round.
If you first choice (#1 rank) doesn't win in the 1st round, then everyone gets their 2nd round counted
Let's say you want to vote Green Party, but choose Democrats as a second choice. This way you're not taking away from the Democrat. This is way too sensible for the senseless country.
This system feels like the voter would need to be really invested (as they should) with investigating candidates and their stances/policies. Don’t see that being very efficient lol
I'll try again.
Only thing I ask is people be given time and choice to Rearrange there Ranked choices until election day and Have to approve the next choice if there first choice loses...so it can't be used to boost numbers if they change there mind for canditate for any reason.
Nope. Once you cast that ballot, it's a done deal. If you turn out to regret your vote; then
1. You should have been more discerning.
2. You should have done more vetting.
& 3. You'll have to wait till the next election to vote him/her out.
& 4 actually; you need to consider the tellers and vote counters who will have to erase EVERYTHING they were doing, and start all over, just because YOU didn't do your due diligence!
The only way this works is if you're voting online.
In person with paper ballots or mail in, this doesn't work.
Why do the voters that voted for orange get their votes counted twice? Shouldn't everyone's second favourite choice get added to see if one can get a majority?
No, because those orange votes are effectively ELIMINATED. Like, since that candidate is removed as the least popular, those votes have officially zero weight. So the goal with this system is to make sure that people who voted honestly for the least popular candidate still have a say in choosing from the list of different candidates in the end.
Think about it from the perspective of our current voting system. We essentially eliminate third party candidates by default; if you vote for Orange right now in our current system, because Orange is less popular, they're not going to win, and your vote is doing nothing for either of the dominant parties. Because we don't have any way for you to recast your vote for one of the two dominant parties now that you know Orange isn't going to win, you have no vote in the final tally. Your voting for a third party means that you have no sway one way or the other on the final tally, which means your power to vote has been taken away from you. In Ranked Choice, if you had placed Purple or Green as your second choice, you as a voter would still have actual sway on the final tally, even with Orange fully eliminated! This system is made to make sure that regardless of someone's unpopular initial choice, their vote still has an effect on the final tally.
So what you're saying is vote for the ones you want, ranked in order of most favorable to least favorable...but if there is one you absolutely dont want, dont rank them at all?
Correct! You're allowed to do that.
Thanks
With this should their be elimination rounds? First round gets the above result and then votes are recast maybe 2 more times. That seems like it would lead to the most accurate result. I really didn't like the baby-ing theme of this video though.
But what happens if everyone's 2nd choice was orange? And you just eliminated it...
Then I think they would just eliminate the next highest and then use their second choices.
Yeah, it's truly a horrible way to vote and confusing as heck.
this isna horrible video and in no way explains how it really works in real life.
RCV advocates want you to think it's this simple.. it's NOT!
If orange had broad support across multiple parties, he wouldn't get less than 10% of the vote. Most people vote mainstream. Orange would have to be quite despized as an individual to enjoy the kind of broad coalition that you describe while getting almost no votes in the first round.
In that case, I suppose the people have spoken. They did not want orange.
Great simple explanation
So, our voter got neither 1st, 2nd, nor 3rd choice. They're left with the option they didn't choose.
This feels so flawed to me. If my candidate is purple and I am totally disgusted with all three other options, I am now under this scenario forced to vote for a totally unpalatable candidate.
I'm not really seeing the benefit or fairness over this system, still seems very very sketchy to me.
This is a horrible video.. but the masses love the colors and think it's great.
In reality, with RCV, you don't have to rank a 2nd and/or 3rd candidate. You can just leave them blank if you don't want your votes (and I say votes because it is plural) to be inadvertently used for some other candidate(s) that you don't want to win
You could JUST vote for purple. You are not forced to vote for any of the other three.
What if everyone voted for their least favorite.
Can I vote all three times for one color?
No, you're ranking them one through four. How you win is if everyone else ranks the same way; otherwise, you're not going to be happy when it's over. Surprised and unhappy b/c everyone's first pick/vote third least favorite candidate won. Green. Orange got dogged immediately. and the top two lost to the third popular vote. Think Independent or libertarian or tea party.
Shih Tzus Rule I understand it. But what’s to stop you from voting 3 times for the same color? How would they stop fraud? Also candidates would just focus on the more populated state. Correct?
@@johnj5726 its not 3 votes, its voting 1st 2nd and 3rd
no that's why its' voter fraud
@@johnj5726 Assuming that doesn't result in a ballot error, it wouldn't make any difference at all. Your vote stays with your #1 candidate until they are eliminated. So if that happened, and your #2 choice was the same candidate, nothing changes because that candidate is already out of the running.
Really nice way to explain this, and it illustrates the strength of ranked voting. The best, and most democratic, aspect of ranked voting is (as a voter) your choice is relevant throughout the election. Conventional voting (first past the post) would have selected purple.
Would it? A lot of jurisdictions would have a runoff between purple, blue and (or) green. Note that purple, in this example got less than 30% of the 21 votes available. I'm sure that's enough for some jurisdictions, but 25%, 25%, 30% is actually a pretty close race, and not usually enough to win.
this is just an algorithm and shouldnt be used for actually choosing a best option T-T
i still dont funcking get it
This is common core (math for kids) for grownups.
How DARE you remove orange then blue! Those are my two favorite colors!
Should have voted. Can't complain now...
Why don’t we just use a system where your 1st choice gets 3 points, your 2nd choice gets 2 points, and your 3rd choice gets 1 point? Whoever has the most points wins.
I really thought this is what it was going to be... I think it makes more sense.
This is called Borda Count.
Both RCV and Borda are prone to strategic voting and especially RCV doesn't fix FPTPs problems in practice (because of the details of how elimination works). E.g. search for "RCV spoiler effect".
One of the best, yet simplest, methods is Approval Voting. Aaron Hamlin has done a lot of talks about why it's preferable.
Because, if your vote isn't counted equally to other votes, then the problem we are trying to fix doesn't get fixed.
People will still vote for the two biggest parties first, because not doing so is less efficient.
Likewise, parties will force in extra candidates to manipulate how the votes get distributed.
I don't see why you would need to punish someone for picking a candidate they like first by weakening their vote. Knocking out their first choice is punishment enough.
1.) Notice how they talk to you like a child.
2.) Notice how if your first choice is the minority your votes are scraped. But the leading candidate (purples) second choice is orange. However, orange is eliminated. Even though orange was favored among the majority. Its deceptive.
If purples votes favored orange, then orange's votes would favor purple, and between them, purple is the preferred candidate.
These colors aren't being assigned randomly, they represent a group of policies, attitudes and principles that are reflected in the voters voting for them. The fact that none of oranges votes went to purple makes it fairly likely that they are very, very different candidates.
@@TheBrothergreen Oranges second pick could have been blue. One does not equate to the other. Orange was forced to drop out. Even though he was favored by the majority on average. Meaning orange received the most #2 votes out of everyone.
This voting system forces a majority and ignores the minority. Hence why orange was forced to drop out round 1. Even though he was favored.
@@dbzkings2626 Orange's second pick could have been blue. And had orange picked blue over green purple might have won, and that's the point. The voters for orange literally decided the outcome of the election, thus every vote mattered.
Now I'm not sure where you got the blind assertion that orange was "favored" because clearly nobody wanted to vote for orange, and that too is an expression of the people's will. If you can't even scrape together enough votes to limp past the first round, you should lose. Any system where someone goes from 5% of the vote to winning the whole thing is obviously intrinsically flawed.
This would have changed my voting strategy in just about every election of my life. I kinda like it. I could vote indie #1 and #2 one of the "establishment" parties. When Bill Clinton was elected, I don't think he had the majority vote, but I could be wrong.
In fact, Trump had less votes than Hillary!
Bill won the majority both times.
@@jomillen5131, Not in the Electoral College. Trump is the fifth President where this happened since 1824, before then the popular vote was not even recorded.
@@pappabear379 of the Electoral College yes. He had 43% of the popular vote in 1992 and over 49% in 1996. Here is my source (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election).
@@rcwest5190 Yeah, it's something like 7% of the time in US history, that a president has been elected with less of the popular vote.
So if choose the biggest loser I get to vote again! I get 2 votes you get 1! Does not sound far!
No, you don't get to vote again. It's called instant runoff, you decide the order ahead of time.
I still only get 1 vote, as do you.
I think you need to dumb it down even more for the Americans
Bull 💩
Dem Idea, dumb idea.
This appears inferior to borda voting. How is it superior?
There are several voting methods that are technically superior in a variety of ways. However, ranked-choice has the advantage of being much simpler to understand. That's a critical element for getting things like this passed into law.
Borda has the weakness that the outcome depends strongly on the exact number of candidates. Throw in a bunch of riffraff at the bottom and the outcome will likely change.
It seems it would be best if we voted in multiple voting methods and then the majority winner of all voting methods combined should win. Seems rough but it would be the best way to get the real best choice possible.
Borda is a trap designed to punish people for voting outside the mainstream.
If the mainstream candidate is your second choice, your vote counts half. If theyre third, your vote counts less than that. The only way to vote efficiently is to vote for the mainstream candidate who won't be eliminated making it virtually the same as what we have now.
But what about people’s third choices and 4th, 5th etc.? When do those come into play?
If no one has %50 of the votes after the 3rd choices, we go to everyone's 4th choices
This is up in a proposition in Idaho and dummies here and the MAGAts are complaining that it’s confusing. They need to see this video.
and people think i am crazy when i say the US is not a democracy
Ask them to write out the pledge of allegiance and circle the word democracy.
So easy to understand, even a caveman could do it.
Maine brought me here.
What happens if in round 3, the BYE BYE blue votes all have ORANGE as the next pick?
It would be ignored, as orange has been eliminated. They go to option 3.
"...THERE ARE 4 LIGHTS!!!"
Well most voters like their "team" so they wouldn't pick a second or third choice they would pick their candidate only.
A Kamala voter would possibly put the 3rd party candidate but not pick Trump, so they would have 2 picked if they even bothered with picking anyone else.
This system just makes everything ripe for the person nobody wanted to be the winner
Well, with 1 of the two major political parties being nazi sympathizers, traitors and criminals, this election is a little out of the norm.
Go back to bush v gore or something, though and you would see a lot more people willing to vote for a 3rd party candidate because the fate of democracy wasn't hanging in the balance...
I love this system and it works wherever it is used. What people are missing is that Jill Stein, or another candidate like her, can reach the 5% threshold of total votes. This accomplishment helps parties such as Green become viable on the national level because they no longer have to spend so much money and time just getting on state ballots and they are provided more federal dollars for next election cycle. RCV levels the playing field, allowing more than two polarizing figures to dominate. It allows people to vote for what they love not against what they fear!!!
Jill stein would never even run in this system. GREEN party stands for Getting Republicans Elected Every November.
Wrong on so many levels.
Republicans worst nightmare
And for any major right wing party in the developed world.
Well, no. Their worst nightmare is eliminating the electoral college and going to a straight popular vote...
Followed by automatic voter registration where anyone with an ID can vote.
Followed by absentee voting, or any system of voting where you don't have to stand in line for 10hrs if you live in a poor neighborhood.
Followed by statewide elections for the house.
I'm sure RCV is on the list somewhere, though. Probably right after church busses or something.
if 35 candidates compete in a ranked election, you should probably allow voters to rank more than 3 choices.
It's what we do in Ireland except there's also more seats
35 candidates should not be competing in an election. There should be prerequisites like getting 20,000 registered voters signatures or whatever. It's very unlikely that 35 people will hit those signposts and be allowed to register.
Gross oversimplification.
Options... the republican worst nigthmare
Thanks Mike.