Frankly, the more realistic issue is that people are already so uninformed because they're not doing the research that we should all do when it comes to candidates. It's part of why we're stuck in the current system where we're given two 'choices', when it should be significantly more.
Oooo, careful. I feel 'voter suppression' allegations might be in your future. "Not smart enough. You're out." Yikes, this could start another riot or worse.
@@btw3344but he speaks the truth. Actually, it probably hasn’t been explained well. Also - the ending - if you can’t figure it out then just pick your favorite then it is , more or less, just like regular voting for you. Finally, if we didn’t live in this stupid two party system this would make a whole lot more sense.
Doesn't this low turnout be the effect of voters feeling that there vote doesn't matter? It is more complex than fptp but still fairly easy. If we are so affraid that people find this difficult, then why are we trusting them with kitchen knives or cars?
Ranked-choice elections would help break up the 2-party strangle hold in the US. People are way more willing to support 3rd parties that actually represent their values better if they can still have a say in which 2 parties they prefer. I.e, tons of people would have voted Jill Stein in 2016 but were so concerned about Trump winning they instead voted for someone they mostly hated (Hillary). And tons of people would have voted for Gary Johnson if they weren't so scared of Hillary and therefore forced to vote Trump.
With the 2 party system also comes a very toxic “us vs them” mentality. If you disagree with a democratic view, you’re automatically a Republican. And if you disagree with a republican view, you’re automatically a democrat. And if you say your don’t identify , or refuse to identify, with either party you’re accused of being passive.
The woman in red is genuinely trying to make it more difficult than it is. Vote for the person you want in you’re number one slot. Then for the second person you want, then vote for the third person you want. If you don’t want the second or third person don’t vote for them. Now if your first choice wins yay if not you had a voice in the second or not. This is simple
It can sometimes be more difficult, for example in Alaska’s last congressional elections, there was Mary Peltola (Dems), Sarah Palin, and another moderate Rep, Nick Begich. Nick Begich got eliminated first, with 27.8% of the votes against 30.9% for Palin and 39.7% for Peltola. Second round, Peltola got elected. It seems many Begich voters favored Peltola over Palin. However, the fairness of the result can be questioned. All Palin’s voters would have preferred Begich over Peltola. If he had made the second round, he would have won against Peltola. And he was close to make the second round. Next time Palin’s voters will have to think strategically, and give their first vote to Begich if they want a Republican congressman. It’s not as easy as “simply ranking your votes and the results will be fair”.
@@RalfAnodin- But of course don’t forget many people win with a small plurality of votes. Like the Chicago mayors race in 2018 where she won with only 17% of the vote because it was split by so many other candidates. Same thing when Larry Krasner was voted in as district attorney in Philadelphia. But I would presume that you already know this because you seem to be knowledgeable on the subject. But other people who read your comment might not quite understand the reason so many people are pushing for this rank choice voting but you’re correct that any voting system can have some abnormality, but I’m thinking that rank choice voting would really be needed right now. And it would be good. I don’t tend to think most voters are going to end up in a situation where One candidates voters hate the other voter of the same party, but it’s untrue the other way around. Usually if voters that support one candidate hate the other candidate then it’s gonna be the same both ways. Though do we have any information that would say your assumptions are correct? Could it be that both sets of Republican voters both hated the other one and would have preferred the Democrat?
@@iMatti00 I am not a fan of ranked-choice voting (nor of any other single-winner electoral system, nor of presidential systems overall) but in the context of the United States I support establishing it because the current system does obviously create tensions. Although we still need to see the effects it produces before hailing RCV: political science theory always comes with a lot of unexpected surprises when applied… On the long run it may lead to other changes that I would like to see, like electing proportional governing councils instead of a single governor, like in Swiss cantons where the councils have 5 or 7 members - combined with proportionally elected houses. I just think that it never hurts to point to its limits, defenders of ranked-choice voting will be better prepared this way. My assumption over what voters of Peltola / Begich / Palin would have preferred is speculative. But it seemed obvious to me that Palin’s voters would have preferred Begich, a Republican, than Peltola, a Democrat. But I may very well be completely wrong, I don’t know much about Alaska’s political scene.
@@iMatti00 I am not a fan of ranked-choice voting (nor of any other single-winner electoral system, nor of presidential systems overall) but in the context of the United States I support establishing it because the current system does obviously create tensions. Although we still need to see the effects it produces before hailing electing governors with RCV: political science theory always comes with a lot of unexpected surprises when applied… On the long run it may lead to other changes that I would like to see, like electing proportional governing councils instead of a single governor, like in Swiss cantons where the councils have 5 or 7 members - combined with proportionally elected houses. I just think that it never hurts to point to the limits of RCV, its defenders will be better prepared this way. My assumption over what voters of Peltola/Begich/Palin would have preferred is speculative. But it seemed obvious to me that Palin’s voters would have preferred Begich, a Republican, than Peltola, a Democrat. But I may very well be completely wrong, I don’t know much about Alaska’s political scene.
There are unexpected consequences of RCV we may discover: for example under plurality vote, it is clear and known to everyone when a governor is unpopular and elected by few. This is important, because even is a governor has legally the same powers, in practice a governor badly elected won’t be able to act too obviously against the oppositions. Under RCV, this becomes less visible and it is less clear what is the actual legitimacy of an elected governor. This may give the winner a pass to do what they want… And it is not always possible to have a “consensual” winner: when society is divided no single individual can be representative, and negotiation should take time. Plurality vote does not solve the problem but it makes it visible. I am not sure RCV can solve the problem: we will see. Anyhow, right now there’s no place in the world were the executive is directly elected and where it does not create tensions, apart from Switzerland’s cantons where the elected executive are councils. Parliamentary systems obviously produce more consensus, but we have to deal with the US system as it is.
Stopping you at 2:45, because it seems your support person is not going to challenge your biased framing of ranked choice balloting. The reality is that there is no winner until a majority of votes are earned. To say that there is a winner of a first round vote is not accurate, and is in fact purposely misleading; an attempt to monger fear that winning candidates will be systematically cheated by ranked choice voting. The first choice votes in favor of each candidate are counted. If necessary [if no candidate has earned more than 50% of total votes cast] then the person with the least votes is eliminated from the contest and those votes are reassigned to the voters' second choice candidates. Stop fear mongering. Stop being dishonest.
@mighty mouse you need to define, "padding votes", and provide an example, or else you haven't really said anything. If you can't be more specific, I will give myself the victory in this mini debate of minimal consequence. Yes, centrist Dems are horrible, but they resist Ranked Choice Voting because they realize it is the first step to their power being undone by popular opinion. Please, expand your thought about padding votes. If you convince me I might no longer support RCV.
@mighty mouse Look at Maine's 2nd district race; Poliquin and Golden. Explain to me how votes were padded. If you think it unfair that Golden had more 2nd and 3rd choice votes leading to his victory [fewer first choice votes than Poliquin] then the solution is to field a wider range and larger number of conservative candidates. You seem to understand that the Dem party is in a civil war [corporatists v progressives], so how are you confused with the outcome in RCV in maine? The Democrat ended up winning, but progressives gave their first and second votes to the more populist progressive candidates, therefore Poliquin had more first choice votes, or as biased corporate media would frame it, "Poliquin won the first round of voting" The reason Poliquin had fewer 2nd and 3rd choice votes [I bet close to zero] was because he was the only conservative in the race. No option for Republican voters in this race.
it's not just the green party vote, what about these primaries where we had 10 dems running? Rank voting would have helped us so much to get the right person advancing in the primary this November. Even for the republicans, i doubt trump was everyones first choice as a R back in 2016, and then they just got stuck with him
Rank your choices from 1 to X number of candidates, it's that simple. You don't need to know the algorithm, not that the algorithm is that complicated. The number of first choice votes shouldn't matter anyways. This eliminates the "vote for the lesser evil" idea, and promotes other parties. RCV ultimately gives voters more strategy and choice, and it challenges people in power.
The reason that people cant vote for their candidate across all choices is because the creators of this system think voters are so stupid that theyd only vote that way because they might think theyre being granted 5 votes. In reality, RVC removes no less than 80% of your effective voting power.
No! The first vote is ALL that matters. You must distribute the loser vote EVENLY. Any preferential adding to any candidate is preferential and is CHEATING.
Find out who is representing the area where you live in your state congress and write to them telling them you want ranked choice voting. That's a start anyway.
You are WRONG--the person with the most votes--meaning the majority of votes--does win in the first tier/round. Most candidate, if he does not win with the majority is not representative of the populous. RCV also takes power away from money fed candidates'/incumbents' loyalty to corp $$$ and weakening Congress's dead roots dug deep into Capitol Hill. RCV should be a national voting method.
Ranked choice has existed in Australia since 1918, Ireland since 1922 and New Zealand since 2004. It has worked quite well. The established parties that court their base slavishly, but have little appeal to others, hate ranked choice voting. Because they want to win based on less than 50% support. To decide elections based on plurality is to foster voter suppression and gerrymandering. Ranked choice is not such an oddity, but I get it that people are wary of change. The Dems and Republican Parties have elected their leaders based on types of ranked choice in the past. And for some time - way back in 1860, Lincoln emerged as the Republican candidate due to a ranked choice. Here Seward and Chase were the top 2 candidates but both were considered polarizing figures. Lincoln's strategy was to present himself as the compromise candidate to "...leave them (supporters of Chase and Seward) in a mood to come to us if they shall be compelled to give up their first love".
Lincoln started the Republican Party. And he was a liar. He was one of the first presidents to campaign based solely On lying and telling people what they wanted to hear. His train allowed him to lie all over the place.
For Ranked Choice Voting to work meaningfully, a voter must be granted the privilege of asserting their vote at every round of tabulation. Simply put, to not be allowed to choose your desired candidate across all choices is ballot manipulation.
@@pandora3224 exactly. It’s manipulation to get a desired outcome. If you get to change something to suit you what’s stops someone else? The cycle repeats. These people think they are smarter than the founding fathers.
So if I only vote for one individual, and that individual is eliminated...how does my vote count? Please explain this to me. If i support candidate C and despise A and B, under no circumstances do I ever want A and B to have my vote. How does this not lead to my vote not counting.
The problem you described can exist in both the first past the post system of voting and the ranked choice system of voting. It's not a problem inherently caused by either system; It's a problem caused by the nonexistence of a 'no vote' option. if I sent in a completely blank ballot or didn't vote at all then it would be interpreted as _"I don't care who wins."_ and not _"I don't want anyone on the ballot to win."_ Ideally, a ranked choice ballot should also have a 'no vote' option on the ballot. If that option has the majority, then the election should be postponed and held at a later date *_OR_* determined by some other means.
_(Note: The state of Nevada _*_does_*_ actually have a "None of These Candidates" option on their ballots, but filling out that option is still interpreted as _*_"I don't care who wins."_*_ and not _*_"I don't want anyone on the ballot to win."_*_ Hilariously, the option has won five times throughout several elections in Nevada's history, but the second-place winner was declared the winner of the election.)_
This is NOT complicated. Why do you think your primary audience struggles with the concept of most favorite to least favorite? People have lots of reasons for not voting, from not being able to vote (paperwork problems, jim crow laws, transportation, work, prison time, etc.) to not believing they will be served by the govt, regardless of which candidate wins. Please show your audience more respect.
I think in the short term ranked choice voting would favor transversal parties like the greens. Nobody would choose them as first but rather than chiosenyour enemy for second the green candidate might seem like a valid alternative for both the dems and reps. Longer term, it should lead to less polarization and more “we are all in this together” thinking. Which is good, really good. Heck, it may even force media to change, like media had forced politics to change in the last 30 years.
Their are a lot of people on both sides that rather have the 3rd party vs picking of the 2 evil but don't want their vote to be wasted as their is the notion that the third party candidate will not win. You can pick your 3rd party candidate as number one but if they don't get enough votes your second choice is the vote. By the way green party is not the only 3rd party and most republicans wouldn't vote for the green party candidate. But the true collective candidate would win also their isn't a need for a run off.
If people are concerned that their vote will only matter if they put down more than one choice, then why not just make it compulsory to fill out all five choices on the sheet (and say that anyone who doesn't choose five parties will have their vote made invalid)?
Every state needs to adopt ranked-choice voting for national elections. It may be the only thing that can save our representative democracy at this point. The two-party system is broken and corrupt. Our educational system and election boards need to step up if the biggest downside is it ''might be confusing'' for voters. I would argue that it would increase voter turnout because it is inviting to those that think for themselves and don't like voting down party lines. They often don't vote because they know the outcome will always be a red or blue candidate that they don't want to support. And, if they vote 3rd party, they are just splitting the vote for what would have gone to the lesser of the two evils between red and blue. The current commonly utilized voting system is really unhealthy for a democracy.
Intelligence and competence should be a barrier to entry at a certain point. If the concept of ranked choice voting (ranking candidates in preferred order) is too confusing, then I would contend that they are too stupid to vote with any sense and therefore should not be voting. That barrier to entry protects the system from anomalous results.
A good summary, but more fair to compare to a top-two primary system which we replaced. Two rounds of voting is "easier" on voters because they will focus their attention on the final two candidates for their final vote. And unfortunately Minneapolis and Saint Paul have eliminated the helpful primary to reduce the field and focus attention on a smaller number of candidates. Also, one ballot RCV risks losing your vote, if you fail to rank between the final two candidates in the runoff process, and this is more likely if there are a dozen or more choices running. If there are just 4 candidates running, RCV in one election is probably fine. But if there are more than 4 candidates, having a RCV primary is valuable, and you can set a threshold of viability rather than just top-2, like 20% of the vote in the primary, and all candidates above 20% deserve equal access to debates. You can also lose your vote in a 20% primary, but you'll know you only need to rank deeply enough to get ONE preference above the 20% threshold, compared to 50% threshold needed in one election to pick a winner. And for statewide partisan elections, a RCV primary in fact takes away the need for undemocratic party primaries, and while parties can endorse a candidate, or even two candidates, an open RCV primary lets ALL voters decide who moves forward.
Better yet, How about congress changes & updates laws too limit presidential powers and update/disband the electoral college thats 200+ yrs old, so that every vote truly counts im presidential elections???
Serious question: are there no beautiful women over the age of 21? The Tiffany's & Co. advertisement preceeding this youtube segment sports a super sexy young woman who doesn't look a day over the age of 16. I am not engaged in a crusade about "sexualization" or "grooming" or other politicized issues. It is concerning, however, that Tiffany's would use a woman who is too young to buy their jewelry, and it is problematic that they would use her as a model of sexual seduction. To whom do they think they're messaging is targeted? A man rich enough to buy this girl jewelry from Tiffany's & Co. is probably a man who needs an ankle bracelet from Sherriff & Co.
"If you're too dumb to figure out ranked choice voting, you shouldn't vote." Um, COMPULSORY VOTING, anyone? And if you mess up the ballot, it won't be counted. Works in Australia, where they vote in right wing government more often than not.
ranked voting undermines voters choice. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS SYSTEM if you love democracy, because your democratic choice will be undermined in ranked voting.
Sorry for the 2 year late comment, but we are a Republic. Not a democracy, in the end the electoral college is the deciding factor of our presidents. What our vote is meant to do, is be a guideline for our electoral representatives.
Interesting how the most truly favored candidate picked by the people is not just the Mayor. ''I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating - (Boss Tweed who ran a political machine)
![Noob To Max With DRAGON REWORK In Blox Fruits [FULL MOVIE]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/LnBMOinoOvA/mqdefault.jpg)
If you can't figure out someting as easy as ranked voting tjan maybe you shouldn't vote
literally the only con is people are too lazy to check three boxes.
Or too lazy to put the very small amount of effort necessary to understand how it works.
Frankly, the more realistic issue is that people are already so uninformed because they're not doing the research that we should all do when it comes to candidates. It's part of why we're stuck in the current system where we're given two 'choices', when it should be significantly more.
Anyone who doesn't have the cognitive ability to understand the simplicity of three choices is not qualified to vote.
Ok you're using a tactic that was implemented by southern racists back in jim crow with "literacy tests"
Yeah who wants literate voters
Oooo, careful. I feel 'voter suppression' allegations might be in your future. "Not smart enough. You're out." Yikes, this could start another riot or worse.
@@wfmcfp1 Haha, well written, that's possible.
@@btw3344but he speaks the truth. Actually, it probably hasn’t been explained well. Also - the ending - if you can’t figure it out then just pick your favorite then it is , more or less, just like regular voting for you. Finally, if we didn’t live in this stupid two party system this would make a whole lot more sense.
Doesn't this low turnout be the effect of voters feeling that there vote doesn't matter? It is more complex than fptp but still fairly easy. If we are so affraid that people find this difficult, then why are we trusting them with kitchen knives or cars?
Ranked-choice elections would help break up the 2-party strangle hold in the US. People are way more willing to support 3rd parties that actually represent their values better if they can still have a say in which 2 parties they prefer. I.e, tons of people would have voted Jill Stein in 2016 but were so concerned about Trump winning they instead voted for someone they mostly hated (Hillary). And tons of people would have voted for Gary Johnson if they weren't so scared of Hillary and therefore forced to vote Trump.
The electoral college is what keeps third parties out of office. Ranked choice voting wouldn't fix that
@@grod805 What do you think ranked choice voting would replace?
This is exactly me! I could have voted for jill...
With the 2 party system also comes a very toxic “us vs them” mentality. If you disagree with a democratic view, you’re automatically a Republican. And if you disagree with a republican view, you’re automatically a democrat. And if you say your don’t identify , or refuse to identify, with either party you’re accused of being passive.
@@tylerswint2695 Jesus Christ! Holy shyte no. Omg some of these comments are absolutely ridiculous. Wtf is wrong with you?
The woman in red is genuinely trying to make it more difficult than it is. Vote for the person you want in you’re number one slot. Then for the second person you want, then vote for the third person you want. If you don’t want the second or third person don’t vote for them. Now if your first choice wins yay if not you had a voice in the second or not. This is simple
It can sometimes be more difficult, for example in Alaska’s last congressional elections, there was Mary Peltola (Dems), Sarah Palin, and another moderate Rep, Nick Begich.
Nick Begich got eliminated first, with 27.8% of the votes against 30.9% for Palin and 39.7% for Peltola.
Second round, Peltola got elected. It seems many Begich voters favored Peltola over Palin.
However, the fairness of the result can be questioned. All Palin’s voters would have preferred Begich over Peltola. If he had made the second round, he would have won against Peltola. And he was close to make the second round.
Next time Palin’s voters will have to think strategically, and give their first vote to Begich if they want a Republican congressman. It’s not as easy as “simply ranking your votes and the results will be fair”.
@@RalfAnodin- But of course don’t forget many people win with a small plurality of votes. Like the Chicago mayors race in 2018 where she won with only 17% of the vote because it was split by so many other candidates. Same thing when Larry Krasner was voted in as district attorney in Philadelphia.
But I would presume that you already know this because you seem to be knowledgeable on the subject. But other people who read your comment might not quite understand the reason so many people are pushing for this rank choice voting but you’re correct that any voting system can have some abnormality, but I’m thinking that rank choice voting would really be needed right now. And it would be good. I don’t tend to think most voters are going to end up in a situation where One candidates voters hate the other voter of the same party, but it’s untrue the other way around. Usually if voters that support one candidate hate the other candidate then it’s gonna be the same both ways.
Though do we have any information that would say your assumptions are correct? Could it be that both sets of Republican voters both hated the other one and would have preferred the Democrat?
@@iMatti00 I am not a fan of ranked-choice voting (nor of any other single-winner electoral system, nor of presidential systems overall) but in the context of the United States I support establishing it because the current system does obviously create tensions. Although we still need to see the effects it produces before hailing RCV: political science theory always comes with a lot of unexpected surprises when applied…
On the long run it may lead to other changes that I would like to see, like electing proportional governing councils instead of a single governor, like in Swiss cantons where the councils have 5 or 7 members - combined with proportionally elected houses.
I just think that it never hurts to point to its limits, defenders of ranked-choice voting will be better prepared this way.
My assumption over what voters of Peltola / Begich / Palin would have preferred is speculative. But it seemed obvious to me that Palin’s voters would have preferred Begich, a Republican, than Peltola, a Democrat. But I may very well be completely wrong, I don’t know much about Alaska’s political scene.
@@iMatti00 I am not a fan of ranked-choice voting (nor of any other single-winner electoral system, nor of presidential systems overall) but in the context of the United States I support establishing it because the current system does obviously create tensions. Although we still need to see the effects it produces before hailing electing governors with RCV: political science theory always comes with a lot of unexpected surprises when applied…
On the long run it may lead to other changes that I would like to see, like electing proportional governing councils instead of a single governor, like in Swiss cantons where the councils have 5 or 7 members - combined with proportionally elected houses.
I just think that it never hurts to point to the limits of RCV, its defenders will be better prepared this way.
My assumption over what voters of Peltola/Begich/Palin would have preferred is speculative. But it seemed obvious to me that Palin’s voters would have preferred Begich, a Republican, than Peltola, a Democrat. But I may very well be completely wrong, I don’t know much about Alaska’s political scene.
There are unexpected consequences of RCV we may discover: for example under plurality vote, it is clear and known to everyone when a governor is unpopular and elected by few.
This is important, because even is a governor has legally the same powers, in practice a governor badly elected won’t be able to act too obviously against the oppositions.
Under RCV, this becomes less visible and it is less clear what is the actual legitimacy of an elected governor. This may give the winner a pass to do what they want…
And it is not always possible to have a “consensual” winner: when society is divided no single individual can be representative, and negotiation should take time. Plurality vote does not solve the problem but it makes it visible. I am not sure RCV can solve the problem: we will see.
Anyhow, right now there’s no place in the world were the executive is directly elected and where it does not create tensions, apart from Switzerland’s cantons where the elected executive are councils. Parliamentary systems obviously produce more consensus, but we have to deal with the US system as it is.
Stopping you at 2:45, because it seems your support person is not going to challenge your biased framing of ranked choice balloting.
The reality is that there is no winner until a majority of votes are earned. To say that there is a winner of a first round vote is not accurate, and is in fact purposely misleading; an attempt to monger fear that winning candidates will be systematically cheated by ranked choice voting.
The first choice votes in favor of each candidate are counted. If necessary [if no candidate has earned more than 50% of total votes cast] then the person with the least votes is eliminated from the contest and those votes are reassigned to the voters' second choice candidates.
Stop fear mongering. Stop being dishonest.
@mighty mouse you need to define, "padding votes", and provide an example, or else you haven't really said anything.
If you can't be more specific, I will give myself the victory in this mini debate of minimal consequence.
Yes, centrist Dems are horrible, but they resist Ranked Choice Voting because they realize it is the first step to their power being undone by popular opinion.
Please, expand your thought about padding votes. If you convince me I might no longer support RCV.
@mighty mouse
Look at Maine's 2nd district race; Poliquin and Golden. Explain to me how votes were padded.
If you think it unfair that Golden had more 2nd and 3rd choice votes leading to his victory [fewer first choice votes than Poliquin] then the solution is to field a wider range and larger number of conservative candidates.
You seem to understand that the Dem party is in a civil war [corporatists v progressives], so how are you confused with the outcome in RCV in maine? The Democrat ended up winning, but progressives gave their first and second votes to the more populist progressive candidates, therefore Poliquin had more first choice votes, or as biased corporate media would frame it, "Poliquin won the first round of voting"
The reason Poliquin had fewer 2nd and 3rd choice votes [I bet close to zero] was because he was the only conservative in the race. No option for Republican voters in this race.
it's not just the green party vote, what about these primaries where we had 10 dems running? Rank voting would have helped us so much to get the right person advancing in the primary this November. Even for the republicans, i doubt trump was everyones first choice as a R back in 2016, and then they just got stuck with him
Not stuck with him, privileged to have him.
@@zoch9797 Yes he wasn't a 2nd choice. Trump was one of the greatest presidents, ever
Rank your choices from 1 to X number of candidates, it's that simple. You don't need to know the algorithm, not that the algorithm is that complicated. The number of first choice votes shouldn't matter anyways. This eliminates the "vote for the lesser evil" idea, and promotes other parties.
RCV ultimately gives voters more strategy and choice, and it challenges people in power.
The reason that people cant vote for their candidate across all choices is because the creators of this system think voters are so stupid that theyd only vote that way because they might think theyre being granted 5 votes. In reality, RVC removes no less than 80% of your effective voting power.
No! The first vote is ALL that matters. You must distribute the loser vote EVENLY. Any preferential adding to any candidate is preferential and is CHEATING.
"The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter" ~ Winston Churchill
This type of disdain for the average voter was the breeding pit for Ranked Choice Voting.
How do you make your state change?
It’s very easy you just need a walk in
Find out who is representing the area where you live in your state congress and write to them telling them you want ranked choice voting. That's a start anyway.
You are WRONG--the person with the most votes--meaning the majority of votes--does win in the first tier/round. Most candidate, if he does not win with the majority is not representative of the populous. RCV also takes power away from money fed candidates'/incumbents' loyalty to corp $$$ and weakening Congress's dead roots dug deep into Capitol Hill. RCV should be a national voting method.
Ranked choice has existed in Australia since 1918, Ireland since 1922 and New Zealand since 2004. It has worked quite well.
The established parties that court their base slavishly, but have little appeal to others, hate ranked choice voting. Because they want to win based on less than 50% support. To decide elections based on plurality is to foster voter suppression and gerrymandering.
Ranked choice is not such an oddity, but I get it that people are wary of change.
The Dems and Republican Parties have elected their leaders based on types of ranked choice in the past. And for some time - way back in 1860, Lincoln emerged as the Republican candidate due to a ranked choice. Here Seward and Chase were the top 2 candidates but both were considered polarizing figures. Lincoln's strategy was to present himself as the compromise candidate to "...leave them (supporters of Chase and Seward) in a mood to come to us if they shall be compelled to give up their first love".
Lincoln started the Republican Party. And he was a liar. He was one of the first presidents to campaign based solely On lying and telling people what they wanted to hear. His train allowed him to lie all over the place.
For Ranked Choice Voting to work meaningfully, a voter must be granted the privilege of asserting their vote at every round of tabulation. Simply put, to not be allowed to choose your desired candidate across all choices is ballot manipulation.
@@pandora3224 exactly. It’s manipulation to get a desired outcome. If you get to change something to suit you what’s stops someone else? The cycle repeats. These people think they are smarter than the founding fathers.
NZ has rcv?
So if I only vote for one individual, and that individual is eliminated...how does my vote count? Please explain this to me. If i support candidate C and despise A and B, under no circumstances do I ever want A and B to have my vote. How does this not lead to my vote not counting.
The problem you described can exist in both the first past the post system of voting and the ranked choice system of voting. It's not a problem inherently caused by either system; It's a problem caused by the nonexistence of a 'no vote' option. if I sent in a completely blank ballot or didn't vote at all then it would be interpreted as _"I don't care who wins."_ and not _"I don't want anyone on the ballot to win."_ Ideally, a ranked choice ballot should also have a 'no vote' option on the ballot. If that option has the majority, then the election should be postponed and held at a later date *_OR_* determined by some other means.
_(Note: The state of Nevada _*_does_*_ actually have a "None of These Candidates" option on their ballots, but filling out that option is still interpreted as _*_"I don't care who wins."_*_ and not _*_"I don't want anyone on the ballot to win."_*_ Hilariously, the option has won five times throughout several elections in Nevada's history, but the second-place winner was declared the winner of the election.)_
"yes the person with the most votes could lose"
bro, its so easy basically the only argument against is "were too dumb to understand it"
This is NOT complicated. Why do you think your primary audience struggles with the concept of most favorite to least favorite? People have lots of reasons for not voting, from not being able to vote (paperwork problems, jim crow laws, transportation, work, prison time, etc.) to not believing they will be served by the govt, regardless of which candidate wins. Please show your audience more respect.
I thought the background said KAREN BREAKING THE NEWS
The possibility of overlap in how we vote in RCV might actually help us depolarize politically.
One possible con of ranked choice voting: what is there to stop the democratic or republican parties from having 2 or more candidates?
I think in the short term ranked choice voting would favor transversal parties like the greens. Nobody would choose them as first but rather than chiosenyour enemy for second the green candidate might seem like a valid alternative for both the dems and reps. Longer term, it should lead to less polarization and more “we are all in this together” thinking. Which is good, really good. Heck, it may even force media to change, like media had forced politics to change in the last 30 years.
Their are a lot of people on both sides that rather have the 3rd party vs picking of the 2 evil but don't want their vote to be wasted as their is the notion that the third party candidate will not win. You can pick your 3rd party candidate as number one but if they don't get enough votes your second choice is the vote. By the way green party is not the only 3rd party and most republicans wouldn't vote for the green party candidate. But the true collective candidate would win also their isn't a need for a run off.
If people are concerned that their vote will only matter if they put down more than one choice, then why not just make it compulsory to fill out all five choices on the sheet (and say that anyone who doesn't choose five parties will have their vote made invalid)?
The problem with this is the person with the most votes can still lose. That’s insane. And just wrong.
Every state needs to adopt ranked-choice voting for national elections. It may be the only thing that can save our representative democracy at this point. The two-party system is broken and corrupt. Our educational system and election boards need to step up if the biggest downside is it ''might be confusing'' for voters. I would argue that it would increase voter turnout because it is inviting to those that think for themselves and don't like voting down party lines. They often don't vote because they know the outcome will always be a red or blue candidate that they don't want to support. And, if they vote 3rd party, they are just splitting the vote for what would have gone to the lesser of the two evils between red and blue. The current commonly utilized voting system is really unhealthy for a democracy.
Intelligence and competence should be a barrier to entry at a certain point. If the concept of ranked choice voting (ranking candidates in preferred order) is too confusing, then I would contend that they are too stupid to vote with any sense and therefore should not be voting. That barrier to entry protects the system from anomalous results.
So uhhh, you know why that was outlawed? Well mostly because it was used to stop black folk from voting.
A good summary, but more fair to compare to a top-two primary system which we replaced. Two rounds of voting is "easier" on voters because they will focus their attention on the final two candidates for their final vote. And unfortunately Minneapolis and Saint Paul have eliminated the helpful primary to reduce the field and focus attention on a smaller number of candidates.
Also, one ballot RCV risks losing your vote, if you fail to rank between the final two candidates in the runoff process, and this is more likely if there are a dozen or more choices running.
If there are just 4 candidates running, RCV in one election is probably fine. But if there are more than 4 candidates, having a RCV primary is valuable, and you can set a threshold of viability rather than just top-2, like 20% of the vote in the primary, and all candidates above 20% deserve equal access to debates. You can also lose your vote in a 20% primary, but you'll know you only need to rank deeply enough to get ONE preference above the 20% threshold, compared to 50% threshold needed in one election to pick a winner.
And for statewide partisan elections, a RCV primary in fact takes away the need for undemocratic party primaries, and while parties can endorse a candidate, or even two candidates, an open RCV primary lets ALL voters decide who moves forward.
Better yet, How about congress changes & updates laws too limit presidential powers and update/disband the electoral college thats 200+ yrs old, so that every vote truly counts im presidential elections???
The never mention Score Voting, which would conform better to the spirit of "one person, one vote" than the choose-one system or the ranking systems.
star system will also cause a spoiler effect. also different people consider different things 5 star or 1 star.
@@barnacles1352 What do you mean by "star system"? Do you mean STAR, Score Then Automatic Runoff?
Serious question: are there no beautiful women over the age of 21? The Tiffany's & Co. advertisement preceeding this youtube segment sports a super sexy young woman who doesn't look a day over the age of 16. I am not engaged in a crusade about "sexualization" or "grooming" or other politicized issues. It is concerning, however, that Tiffany's would use a woman who is too young to buy their jewelry, and it is problematic that they would use her as a model of sexual seduction. To whom do they think they're messaging is targeted? A man rich enough to buy this girl jewelry from Tiffany's & Co. is probably a man who needs an ankle bracelet from Sherriff & Co.
Con: there is no pro.
Pro: Nothing
News? Are you sure? That seemed exceedingly one-sided.
It might be better to understand the process yourselves, before you try to explain it to others.
Terrible reporting.
It's not complicated.
This was so ridiculously one sided as it was presented by the lady in the red shirt. Appreciated that the other host tried to balance it out.
can't we have normal news casters? why do always have to have weirdos like the one on the right shoved down our throats.
Dumbest idea ever
"If you're too dumb to figure out ranked choice voting, you shouldn't vote."
Um, COMPULSORY VOTING, anyone? And if you mess up the ballot, it won't be counted.
Works in Australia, where they vote in right wing government more often than not.
Only net taxpayers should be allowed to vote.
Everybody pays taxes.
ranked voting undermines voters choice. DO NOT SUPPORT THIS SYSTEM if you love democracy, because your democratic choice will be undermined in ranked voting.
Sorry for the 2 year late comment, but we are a Republic. Not a democracy, in the end the electoral college is the deciding factor of our presidents. What our vote is meant to do, is be a guideline for our electoral representatives.
Ridiculous just vote for the one you like period.
I won't ever vote again this is cheating
Explain exactly how its cheating
That androgynous co-newscaster is gross.
And this looks like affirmative action voting. Picking the best from the worst.
Why does being androgynous make someone gross?
but extra virtue points for the network
Interesting how the most truly favored candidate picked by the people is not just the Mayor. ''I don't care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating - (Boss Tweed who ran a political machine)