Combine it with mixed member proportional representation and more or less you get STV: single transferable vote. In a perfect world I would do that or something cardinal instead of ordinal. (Obviously fptp has got to go)
It's an obvious improvement. Almost any change to our current system would improve it. The European Union model for legislators is waaay ahead of the US. Even better, DIRECT DEMOCRACY ran through blockchain living vote. Living meaning you can change your vote anytime.
The Heritage dude doesn’t like it because it cost his party a seat. His candidate lost in Maine. Your vote doesn’t get thrown out. Your next choice is counted. If you don’t make a second or third choice that’s on you.
The Election Center yeah but the same happens in Texas and California every 4 years, roughly a third of the votes are thrown out because they re are states.
@@back1879 Yeah, they get 'thrown out' in the same way that every vote for someone that doesn't win gets 'thrown out'. The only difference is that some of these people didn't choose to use their 2nd or 3rd vote, an option that doesn't even exist with the current first past the post system.
We use this voting system in Northern Ireland for our devolved assembly, to say voters find it “too complex and confusing” is really condescending and just not true.
@Bob Smith The Northern Irish Assembly electoral system is known as the Single Transferable Vote in multi member constituencies and is a form of ranked choice voting which is a type of proportional election. It is very similar to the system which has been used in the rest of Ireland since the 1920s. Irish people find it very straightforward to use and referendums in the Republic in the 20th century have twice rejected attempts by the then largest party to move back towards first past the post voting (the normal US system). It is the unfamiliarity of a new voting system which allows opponents to claim that it is too complicated to be understood. It is the single member element of ranked choice voting, as often proposed, which means that it is only a minor improvement and has no proportional effect.
That's just an excuse used by the democrats and the Republicans because they're the only people that wouldn't benefit. They're also the only ones that do benefit from the current system, and conveniently for them, they're the only ones that can do anything about it.
"It favors progressive ideas." If your complaining that the system that guarantees the most popular position wins favors a particular position, you have no interest in democracy. If it favors progressive ideas, that means progressive ideas are more popular.
It's such a blatantly politically biased reason for opposing it that I feel like CNBC was straw-manning. Even if some people in the RNC secretly oppose it for that reason, nobody with an ounce of political sense would _say_ they opposed it for that reason. I also don't see exactly how it favors progressive ideas. It's not as if they named any person or organization who use that argument, either.
Stopping vote splintering would probably hurt Republicans in a state like Maine but so be it. Then maybe Republicans should campaign better for voters.
@@Knightmessenger I am excited to see how the vote goes there. If I lived there, I might vote differently because I have the freedom of knowing my vote will still count even if my first choice does not win.
In Australia, they picked up a version of this because at one point there were two conservative parties and because they took the votes off each other, the progressive party won the majority, so they enacted numbered voting.
*YES* It is so stupid having to choose your candidate strategically: _Having to choose a terrible candidate over the one you want to make sure a Horrible candidate doesn't win IS NOT A WORKING SYSTEM._
There is just one thing .... with the rise of social media influence and such ... there can be candidates who are indecisive in their policies and just stand still ... or move very slowly ... just to please the 3rd and 4th group and so on vice versa .... its what concerns me a little .....
@@hemantsarthak yes, thats a very valid concern, nice to see educated voters out there. I think Kamala is a bit like that in terms of medicare for all and really most of her positions where she goes with what everyone wants her to agree with rather than what she actually agrees with. The same could be said for trump. Candidates like Sanders have had long records of consistent voting even if you dont agree with him, you have to admit its a respectable quality.
Voting isn't the problem. The problem is that the entire system is openly corrupt. The few who don't take the bribes are character assassinated by the deep state.
I disagree, this has nothing to do with trump. a huge problem with us politics is that it's a 2 party system, the us is barely a Democracy, you really only get us or them. I think this would help fix that aswell it is a more fair and just way to vote
The guys against ranked choice are so obviously just trying to protect the industry and establishment . Go to your retirement home already and let America be a true democracy
@DonCervantes When Jackie Perez said true democracy, she was referring simply to a system where the collective of people actually hold the power. There are currently 20 countries classified by the democracy index as true democracies, which are, ordered from most to least democratic: Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Canada, Finland, Australia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, Austria, Mauritius, Malta, Spain, and Costa Rica. Your claim that true democracies do not exist is categorically false. There are 20 of them. You should notice the absence of the US from this list, but also notice that many nations with higher quality of life and more acceptance of minorities are included in this list. Your neighbor to the north is tied with Ireland for 6th most democratic nation in the world. Canada has more freedom than the US and is more accepting of minorities. True democracy does exist. Americans are just bitter about being taken off that list a few years back for the horrible corruption that their system includes. The US is classified as a flawed democracy, 25th in the world. The US could improve. The country is nearly identical to Canada economically and culturally. With true democracy, Hispanics would not get deported, their power would increase because their vote would matter and republicans wouldn't be able to disenfranchise them nearly as effectively as they do now.
@DonCervantes First of all, I would like to mention that I'm an American citizen. Now, fair, the democracy index is about practicing democratic principles but I would like to point to how they name categories. The fact that they refer to these countries as democracies should tell you something. Making your requirement for democracy being that you can gain dictatorial power by gaining a majority of a nation's support is absurd. This has happened to no actual democracy in history. The closest thing to it was the Weimer republic and Hitler, but even Hitler didn't gain a majority ever. "Democracy" is a greek word stemming from "Demos" meaning people, and "Cratos" meaning power or the government. Democracy simply means a form of government where the high power is vested in the citizens of the nation. I think that you believe that only direct democracies are true democracies. But what matters here is not at all what you consider a democracy, but what the original commenter means when saying true democracy. They clearly meant that they want America to be a true democracy in the way that the Democracy Index defines the term. America does hold a lot of these values. Free speech is a distinctly democratic idea for example. Even if you do not consider representative democracies to be democracies, that doesn't matter. When the original commenter said they wanted true democracy, they meant they wanted their impact as a voter and citizen to matter. The term we throw onto this doesn't matter. What matters is what we do about it. You are arguing against a strawman of what you believe people mean by democracy. Also lets talk about England. I live in Canada, a country with a parliamentary system identical to the UK's. No one I have ever met has ever referred to Canada as not being a democracy. Canada has elected representatives and democratic principles. You would consider this being a republic. Except, Canada is not remotely a republic by any stretch. We have a queen. Canada is a constitutional monarchy. You made another mention of saying that it's only existed in communist countries? No communist nation in the history of the world has ever been democratic under any definition. None. Not a single one. The first known democracy, and the one that invented the word, was Athens, which wasn't communist. Athens was not a great place, and did have a lot of the problems you mention though, so I at least see where you're coming from. Unfortunately for you, parts of Switzerland actually use that exact system. There aren't towns in Switzerland with dictators, but there are towns in Switzerland where citizens vote on all legislation and by simply getting a majority, you can get a law passed. While Switzerland does have a constitution which protects minorities, that doesn't make a country not democratic. Finally, if a country has democratic principles, acts upon these, and attempts to be democratic, while succeeding in each of these fronts, isn't it fair to call that democracy? The word democracy is just a word. Arguing semantics is pointless. What matters is what is actually being pushed for, in this case having your vote count. Saying that "democracy" is bad, then talking about democracy in an entirely different way from what they are talking about isn't a good argument.
RCV works best when you have, like the examples, more than 3 candidates. In a low population state like Maine we generally do not have more than 3 for any one office. Because you can’t mark only one candidate and the third candidate is eliminated in the first round, you’ve ended up voting for the second choice candidate when you really didn’t want to see them in the office. Our first attempt at RCV ended horribly when the AG misinterpreted the rules of RCV and as soon as the votes put Jared Golden over the 50% mark they stopped counting which left out a huge portion of the northern part of our state giving them no vote in the matter. I’m hoping voters have gotten educated about RCV and it works better this time around. Don’t misinterpret my meaning here please, Jared has done okay but he is a rubber stamp for the Dems, much the same as Poliquin would have been for the GOP. I’m an independent voter that would love to see some better balance in how votes are handled.
Flarelia it also somewhat disarms the “electability” concern, allowing people to more freely vote their heart rather than gauge that on how they think other people will vote.
Agreed, but some alternative systems are better than others. I support STAR Voting, which isn't as vulnerable to strategic voting as RCV. In RCV, it isn't always safe to mark your favorite candidate first. www.equal.vote
As a Mainer I can assure everyone how easy it is to vote this new way. Now, we don't worry about spoilers and know that the person elected has a majority of the votes.
@Hybrid Theory They didn't get played, they got a voting system that works better for them. It's not Mainer's fault that the Republican candidate didn't run a good campaign.
Yep. I'd go a step further and say that if a person doesn't have the time to pick up a free voter ID, then they didn't have the time to inform themselves about the candidates or issues and, like the confused voter, should stay home.
@Bob Smith Proportional representation>Ranked choice voting>First past the post. Due to the rigid nature of the U.S. Constitution, the best we're gonna get is ranked-choice for now. Ideally in the future the U.S. Senate will be abolished and the House will be elected using MMP or PR.
ever since we were children we've known how to rank things from our most favorite to our least favorite. If that concept is confusing, then I don't know what to tell you. As someone who lives in a place with ranked voting, I will say the most difficult part of it all is doing research on so many candidates to really decide who I like the most to least. Thankfully California makes that easy by sending out a book of information on every candidate and ballot initiative, but I can say a lot of other places I live, this would be a more involved process.
How exactly is ranked choice voting "confusing"? It's so simple that 2nd graders do this when they pick their favorite to least favorite colors.. Hell, that ballot was even color coded with pictures for adults to understand at the most basic levels!!
Yeah I never heard somone choosing or ranking something with more than 2 choices. *YT tier list, top 10 videos and every choice made ever except for voting in e.g. The US running towards me *
Some of the people who argue that this is difficult to understand are conflating two issues: 1) Understanding how to vote 2) Understanding how to count votes. #1 is easy to understand. Pretty much anyone understands the concept of ranking choices. #2 is hard to understand (I'm giving politicians the benefit of the doubt). That being said, the difficulty of understanding #2 is irrelevant; voters don't need to understand #2 in order to vote. All a layperson really needs to know is that voting strategically is unnecessary...and those voters who mistakenly vote strategically under the new system aren't making things worse than they were under first-past-the-post.
@Bob Smith I very much care if a voting system is confusing, because a confusing voting system means that people who do not understand the voting system are not fairly represented. For the record, I don't consider RCV to be confusing.
Approval voting is simpler and has all the same benefits as ranked voting. All you need to change is allow people to vote for more than one candidate, you can keep counting the same way, but the whole system changes to much more fair (plus it reduces incentives to fight between candidates)
It's not confusing _per se,_ but only in comparison to the popular system of voting only for a favorite. It also suggests that you should be familiar with all of the candidates rather than just one, so it requires a bit more research unless you'd rather vote like a moron.
Anony Mouse “Em Dashes as Parentheses or Commas (Most Common) The em dashes set this clause aside as something of an afterthought, not essential to the meaning or grammar of the clauses surrounding it. When a pair of em dashes is used to set off a parenthetical phrase or clause, they are interchangeable with commas and parentheses.” _www.eliteprep.com/blog/2017/9/25/whats-the-deal-with-dashes_
@Bob Smith Why does letting more people than only the top 2 parties' candidates possibly ever have a minuscule chance of winning an election shut out views?
Because there could be 50 candidates in the ballot and there might be up to 49 voting rounds. And that winner might have gotten only five percent during the first round. So how is that democratic? Better to vote the lesser of two evils than to get close to nothing in RCV.
Because it can be manipulated by running a lot of sacrificial lambs, whose presence on the ballot is to gather a boatload of next-to-last or higher votes which will go to a higher-ranking candidate who wouldn't win otherwise. That's what happened in Maine last election. Ranked-choice voting invites corruption.
Also, RCV will make candidates LAZIER because they only need say 20 percent to win which is why in Burlington VT the mayor there is unpopular. Less effort to appeal to the majority.
@@unknownunknowns You don't need 20% to win. You need 50% +1 vote to win. You still need a majority of people to vote for you. Also, the chance of someone getting 5% in the first round and winning the overall vote is basically impossible. It wouldn't happen. FPTP is a clearly inferior voting method. Ranked choice is superior as it remove the spoiler effect meaning you vote for who you want to win without risking your vote causing the person you least want to win winning.
@@grizzlygrizzle Ranked choice voting does not invite corruption. Its is a much better system than FPTP as the candidate voters want to elect will actually win.
Yeah, that argument was dumb. If someone finds ranked choice voting confusing, he or she can simply vote for their favorite candidate and be done with it.
Thank you for giving us in Australia a mention. Indeed, we have a "single transferrable voting system" which works well. We also have an independent umpire, The Australian Electoral Commission which sets electoral boundaries, limited government reimbursement of electoral spending and compulsory voting. It HAS NOT broken the duopoly in the lower house but a few independents do get elected. The big difference is in the Senate where governments generally lack a majority. This enables the Senate to be an effective house of review. This has often served to moderate the more doctrinaire proposals, among other things. Like many people, I put the major parties near the bottom of the ballot, hoping that these parties will begin to learn. Unfortunately, at this stage, the big donors continue to be well served. We live in hope.
The reason that you still have a two-party duopoly in the House is because you use STV in the Senate, and IRV in the House. IRV is the system being proposed in the US because they know it won't actually fix anything.
STV and IRV are two very Different systems, IRV has essentially all the same issues as FPTP (Including two party system) but just removes the spoiler effect, Personally STV is far Superior than IRV, but IRV is still better than FPTP.
@Jason H - I feel that looking at the individual, if they belong to a major party is pointless. In the late 19th century W.S. Gilbert summed it up in the words he gave to "Private Willis of the Coldstream Guards" in Iolanthe. ...but then the prospect of a lot of dull M.P.s in close proximity, all thinking for themselves, is more than man can face with equanimity. So let's thank God with loud Fala, That every boy and every girl that's born into the world alive, Is either a little liberal or else a little conservative... Note, please the absence of capitalisations - A necessary qualification in Australia, where the Liberal party has been described as "Authoritarian Right."
Mirza Ahmed that’s the point. That you can still vote for your preferred candidate and have your more likely candidate as a backup. It allows third parties to gain steam.
@@johnmoore1495 and thats why it will probably never happen, because Democrats and Republicans will do whatever they can to keep third parties as small as possible so it's just them
@@blackout07blue >funded elections with federal tax revenue >tax money going to policy you don't agree with >this will also mean higher taxes i don't le think so
They are right where they want to be. The salary the people involved get is very high, so just riding it out for a year or two will ensure a comfortable early retirement. No change needed, just keeping the position
@@CamAlert2 Our overly expensive current donation system takes what, 8 Billion q year? Do you honestly think the cost of corruption and incompetence that happens because we have an uneven playing field is worth less than that?
Unfortunately in Australia we still seem to be stuck in a duoploly, specifically in the lower house, at least the senate gets more diversity in terms of political standings. Something bigger needs to happen for ultimate change
@@djt6012 hehe after commenting I actually thought to myself "well hopefully it's because they're taking their time to perfect it before releasing it like Apple, because most Australians don't even know how it works and we end up with a duopoly"
@@eyescreamcake they have IRV in the their commons and STV in the senate. They just need to adopt STV for the lower chamber of parliament and it would work
@@eyescreamcake Ranked Choice Voting isn't suppose to eliminate the two party system. It allows for third party voters to influence the outcomes of the election and for the two major parties to consider their policies. If RCV was enacted in the 2000 U.S. Election, Gore definitely would of been elected in 2000 via Ralph Nader (Green Party) support.
I love this quirky proposal where he raises the presidential salary, but also bans them from profiting in the future through exec positions and speaking fees, effectively closing that revolving door. www.yang2020.com/policies/prevent-regulatory-capture-and-corruption/
Bob Smith, just the opposite in fact. With this voting system, it’s more true to democracy since those who are not having their voices heard will if their candidate is unpopular
Bob Smith wouldn’t it promote voters being more informed of who they’re voting for? Even if you hate yang, that would mean that you’d have to learn more about his and other candidates policies before making any decision. I’m sure you don’t believe one candidate is the end all be all savior of government and would like to know your options before making the choice on who makes our laws
476 Anno Domini well yeah I mean but they’re often based on coalition which implies multiple and wide ranging views which would often be ignored if not for the system
"Washington is broken!" "Ok, so we're gonna make political reforms like stopping gerrymandering, repeal electoral college, restricting lobbying, etc?" "No"
What exactly do you dislike about the electoral college--the winner-take-all aspect of it, the way that electors are divided among the states, or something else?
The electoral college is the equalizer when 40% of the population lives in one state and ensures that one state can’t determine the presidential election
Keep the electoral college. I dont know if you can fully end gerrymandering but not having politicians draw their own districts is a good start. Also, they probably shouldnt have over 10 sides on a polygon as these are supposed to be disrticts, not avant garde abstract 2 dimensional shapes.
I see nearly 100% of the comments pointing out two things that are true: ranking on a ballot is pretty easy, and it does result in someone getting elected so it works. But zero or near-zero of anyone seems to even have started asking whether the tabulation process actually is good. Everyone just assumes that once the information about preferences is entered, the system will just deliver good results from that info. Too bad that it fails to do that in some too-common cases. The tabulation process completely ignores some of the preferences. As just one example, the most popular overall candidate will get eliminated if most people have them as 2nd choice, and then when other candidates are eliminated, those voters' 2nd choices ARE NOT COUNTED because their 2nd choice candidate was removed already. The crappy tabulation leads to still having spoilers and other problems, and the worst part is that everyone believes that these things are solved, so they have bad intuitions about whether this is a good system.
you are making good points. instand runoff is the worst (or second to worst) ranked voting system. And people discuss it, as if it was the only ranked voting system in town. But here is a point you did not consider: Y would you go for a single winner system at all, when it comes to electing a parliament.
@@MusikCassette well, the U.S. (the focus of this video) doesn't have a parliament. I do agree with you that single-winner elections are often a poor approach in themselves. The multi-winner version of instant-runnoff, Single Transferable Vote, has the exact same problem I described above. And proportional-representation isn't perfect. For example, geographic districts done fairly (not Gerrymandered) at least encourage representatives to get out and connect with specific real people in a place. Making the voter pool much larger but using proportional representation has benefits but also has trade-offs. I'm convinced that lottery (no voting, random people called like to jury service) has merit, as in Citizen Assemblies. If we're going to stick to either proportional multi-winner voting or single-winner, STAR Voting is the system I'd most support. Approval Voting is worthwhile too if only for its utter simplicity while being a huge improvement over choose-one. Having said all that, I am *more* concerned about people believing false things about instant-runoff than about instant-runoff itself. Every aspect of every discussion and concern needs to start with getting the facts clear enough and at least accepting ignorance or agnosticism around things we don't know. We can't even discuss instant-runoff when almost all the supporters and media describe it with core misunderstandings.
@@nphony the U.S. [...] doesn't have a parliament. what about the house of representatives? And you do have parliaments and councils on all levels of legislation. About your concern for local representation: There are at leas 3 methods to get local representation into PR and at least 2 methods for personalizing the vote (should I elaborate on those?). I would not agree, that STV s problems are quite on the same level as the problems dependent on the version. But it does import single winner problems into a Situation, where PR would be an option. And its quality can be measures in how closely it resembles PR. That is why I don't really sea a point STV. About Star voting (weird name btw) Well it gets around the Arrow paradox and for true single winner situations meddling with from the back end is out of the picture. It does not get rid of the necessity for strategic voting and worse: If you use it to vote for parliaments and such with one candidate for each district and star voting for those the hole gerrymander problematic comes back in. However, for true single winner situations you are probably right. Approval voting is star voting with 2 stars. So same applies. Although it the tactical problems get a bit reduced. your voting weight is not reduced in the inbetweeners because there are no inbetweeners. In case single winner votingsystems here is a little (noncomplete) list a friend of mine wrote a few years ago of systems and of criteria to judge them by: www.file-upload.net/download-14993921/single_winner.pdf.html
Your sarcastic comment that uses caveman drawings was wrong at the time (none of those three were third-party or independent candidates) and even wronger just a few months later.
The Heritage Foundation guy says this doesn’t work because in Maine the candidate who won the plurality vote didn’t win???? That’s the whole point!!! If he had won more than 50% he would have won, but he didn’t so that means more people did NOT want him to win. That is democracy working.
3:20 Right here! If we had ranked choice voting in US federal elections, votes for Jill Stein wouldn't have essentially been thrown away In 2016. In 2024, we're still dealing with the same problem.
That's not why you're voting! You're supposed be voting for who you want to represent you in office. Ranked voting is only for doing away with the best candidates so the middle of the road candidates can be manipulated by leftists.
I actually am a bit surprised. I thought they were simply a conservative organization and RCV does not inherently benefit Democrats or Republicans over the other. I guess they don't like a marketplace of ideas.
Democratic National Committeeman: "It can't be perfect, so let's never strive to make it better. No upgrading from 'awful' to 'Meh.' Unacceptable!" Of course the people with all the power are dismissive of ideas that would strip them of some of that power. And yet the Democratic Party says they're "for the people." Pfft. The Republican Party is just as bad. They're only in it for themselves. Legal analyst: "America is too dumb to count above the number 2. ...1...2 ...🐄."
Politicians: “it’s broken!” Customer Support: “Have you checked to see if it’s plugged in?? I’m sorry ma’am but you have to plug it in, in order for it to work...”
"Maine had the first congressional electronic using ranked choice voting, that race showed that it doesn't work because the person who got the most first choice votes didn't win" THATS THE POINT. Just because someone got most first choice votes doesn't mean they have the widest support.
I would've picked Bernie back in 2016, but he got picked over by Hillary. And there's no way in hell I was letting her become President. So I picked Trump since he was my second choice. This year, it's Bernie, Tulsi, Trump and Andrew. I wish the rank choice voting was out for the entire country. This would've been very epic to see the country's choices.
Ranked Choice is the easiest thing we can do to start to save our democracy. The two party system we have is a corrupt monster and needs to be stopped.
The problem is not only there. Check out California, they have democrats running everything and they can't accomplish nothing! I hate the party system but I don't see ranked choice as the answer.
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.
A sincere cuisine survey Scored: Italian 78%, Chinese 71%, Mexican 70%, American 65%, Thai 64%, Japanese 63%, Indian 55%. [Italian, American, Mexican, Japanese] resulted from sincere Ranked Choice simulation without runoff. Eliminating Italian completely, resulted in [Chinese, American, Thai] after three rounds. [Italian, Thai, Mexican, Japanese] resulted from straight Borda ranking, but [Italian, American, Chinese, Japanese] with (1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4) Nauru weighting. Simulations of Approval voting, based on score cutoffs, produced [Italian, Mexican, Chinese, Thai]; [Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Thai]; and [Italian, Mexican, American]. The results are similar above, but Approval Voting is most straight forward, Nauru Borda is reasonable, RCV is insanely convoluted.
Ranked Choice Voting can also work through a proportional system too, it’s single transferable vote (STV). Where you still rank your candidates in order of preference and like instant runoff voting they do eliminate candidates with the least support & there votes are redistributed. But STV has another vote transfer which is surplus vote which means; whenever a candidate has too many votes than he needs to win than his surplus votes get transferred to other candidates that’s marked #2 on those candidates ballot. STV voting system produces a more proportional system and works well with multi member districts that elects more than 1 member.
Like I support the Green party, but I'm sorta forced to be on the side of Democrats all the time because I have to sacrifice my beliefs for someone who will win.
I believe the reason for Government unresponsiveness is America's plurality win first-past-the-post system. Under such a system, a candidate who gets as little as 34÷ of the vote wins, and the votes of people who select, 3rd, 4th or 5th place candidates carry no weight. Ranked Choice Voting, Proportional Representation, or even a system requiring run-offs, all allow the people voting for 3rd, 4th or 5th place candidates have some impact in determining the winner. The effect of the current system is to turn elections into twiddle dee/tweedle dum contests.👎
"Voting is a meaningless exercise. I'm not going to waste my time with it. These parties, these politicians are given to us as a way of making us feel we have freedom of choice. But we don't. Everything is done to you in this country." - George Carlin
I support this so much. It is so funny that every reason they give for not doing it is the exact reason we should be doing it. For example, them saying Maine being an example because the guy who won round 1 didn't win the final vote. True, but more people supported the candidate who did win in the end.
Just my take on it for all the People Bashing it: Cons: - it still perpetuates the two party system - it is still gerrymanderable Pros: - No spoiler effect When compared against ONLY First past the post, its a better system, so between IRV and FPTP IRV wins But when compared to some of the other major voting reform Proposals like STV, MMP it falls flat.
As an Australian I love this style of election because it's what we use. Also every other English speaking nation also uses this system and in the end it's more fair and democratic and means that the most "accepted" candidate wins and has a clear popular mandate.
How about voting on issues separately from the politicians ? - Vote for or against Health Care Reform, Abortion, Climate Change Initiatives, Universal Basic Income, Free Educations, etc - then vote for a politician who is mandated to champion for the winning issues. The agenda is defined by the people through votes. Voting for a politician then becomes a job interview.
If everyone votes for the same person as their #2, that person is the first one dropped because they would be the least popular "first round" person. So the "safe backup" everyone perceives, is at a greater disadvantage than the first round #3. RCV sounds "more fair" but mathematically it's not. Rather, each vote should be scored and one tabulation should be made. A first choice can count for 3 points, a second choice 2 points, a third choice 1 point, etc. RCV is so complicated it sounds more fair, and it's not. If everyone chooses the same person as their second choice, they are guaranteed to not win.
First of all, if your first round person is still in the race, the only time your second round person matters is if you go into round three with your first round person losing. Having 3 rounds before getting to 50% is highly dependent on the number of candidates so your point could be irrelevant. What you are describing for the second part is a type of approval voting, which I wouldn't say is necessarily better than ranked choice voting.
@@polarbear1713 The person with the lowest accumulated votes is dropped each round. You're voting out the least popular each time, not electing the most popular. It's possible to have no one reach 50% after several rounds. If everyone (most) puts the same person as their #2 choice, it's probable they would be eliminated in round 1, thus the 2nd most popular candidate for most people would be eliminated. It's not a good system, IMO.
@@johnmarkharris Don't get me wrong. I don't claim it is perfect and has it's own issues. I am saying the chances of that happening aren't high. I would be perfectly happy with approval voting instead of ranked choice voting. Just as long as we get rid of plurality voting. I prefer using condorcet voting. I am not well versed on how to declare a winner when there are ties but there are ways like the Schulze method or the Ranked Pairs that could be agreed upon and chosen.
@@polarbear1713 Yes, I think that's where RCV gets most of the people saying "this is great!" in that the "likely scenario" is usually all that is presented. Most of the time, it would be fine... until it isn't. I could see it really take a sideways turn in a very polarized situation where people absolutely love or hate one or two of the candidates... kinda like now in the US. I'd prefer a simple straightforward election where one candidate must win 50% +1. That's standard parliamentary procedure. When we start calculating what the votes would be, I think that's where trouble starts. If there's an election and no one reaches 50% +1 then anyone who doesn't reach a minimum threshold (maybe 10%?) is eliminated and you vote again. Each race is different. I think that's how it should be. It's like people saying one presidential candidate "won the popular vote." This isn't true, there is no popular vote. Millions of people in states like Texas or California don't vote because they know which way their state is going to go. We shouldn't extrapolate votes, we should have real elections. But, that's my opinion. We also should have to vote in person, on election day, and prove who we are. Fixing our voting processes isn't hard, but politicians want to win more than get an accurate count of the votes.
@@johnmarkharris You seen like a nice person who is genuine and not trying to "get one up on me" or some other internet nonsense. So I hope this doesn't come off as rude, that's not my intention. When you say someone doesn't get 50% + 1 votes and then we hold a second election, that is called a runoff election. Ranked choice voting is also called instant runoff voting because it does the exact same thing as holding a second election where the least liked candidate is dropped or it can pit the two strongest candidates against each other with the same ballots or drop off all candidates that dont meet a minimum percent, like you said. A new election wouldn't be necessary if we had ranked choice voting because we would have the information needed already. I disagree that we need to all vote on election day and in person with ID, other than a voting registration card. I brought identifying things to get my voter registration card and I don't see an issue with mail-in ballots. But I don't really want to argue about that. Let me just ask you one thing about your view, do you think Election Day should be a national holiday if you want over 250 million people to vote within about 12 hours?
3rd party candidates are not spoilers! People assume that if you didn't have the option to vote third party then you would vote for candidate A or B. But maybe people just wouldn't vote, and whose to say your vote for Jill Stein means you would vote for Hillary. It's nonsense and bring pushed by both parties as they have the most to lose.
I love how they put excuses to ever try to change their system, like 'it's confusing'. Well, if you find that confusing, probably you are incredibly stupid and it's better if you don't vote at all.
Sounds very reasonable! Having more choices than just the two is good. The main obstacle to third-party growth is clearly the spoiler effect, and ranked-choice voting removes that obstacle. I hope it happens soon.
@@theyoungcentrist9110 Unfortunately that's a myth. RCV does not fix the spoiler effect, or the fear of wasting your vote. It considers some voters' preferences while discarding others, which is why it can eliminate the most-preferred candidates when people vote honestly.
@@pacoramirez7363 Sure but American's probably won't see it that way. They like the spectacle of the presidential campaign. Americans already don't vote in very large numbers and I think that by taking away the opportunity to vote for president, many more will stay home.
Thank you! This system is called STV (Single Transferrable Vote). This is a better voting system than even the popular vote. Bipolarism is a consequence of fear of a wasted vote.
Do you support ranked-choice voting? Let us know below.
Oh yeah! One of the big policy positions! #Yanggang
No, it's a fake reform that just perpetuates a polarized two-party system. There are much better voting systems like STAR, Score, Approval, etc.
Combine it with mixed member proportional representation and more or less you get STV: single transferable vote. In a perfect world I would do that or something cardinal instead of ordinal. (Obviously fptp has got to go)
We've all seen the CGP Grey videos 🙄
It's an obvious improvement. Almost any change to our current system would improve it. The European Union model for legislators is waaay ahead of the US. Even better, DIRECT DEMOCRACY ran through blockchain living vote. Living meaning you can change your vote anytime.
“Washington is broken!”
Have you tried turning it off and on again?
A recession reboot?
I think they have tried this already, it's called the government shutdown.
@@anshumann739 We had one of those in 2008 guess what washington is still broken.
You win today 😂
The government shutdown didn't do all that much
The Heritage dude doesn’t like it because it cost his party a seat. His candidate lost in Maine. Your vote doesn’t get thrown out. Your next choice is counted. If you don’t make a second or third choice that’s on you.
Uhohhotdog Gaming yep.
Technachly ballot we thrown out, becuase those ballots didn't list a second choice and thus weren't counted.
The Election Center yeah but the same happens in Texas and California every 4 years, roughly a third of the votes are thrown out because they re are states.
The Election Center a ballot doesn’t need to have a second choice. Don’t think you understood anything I said
@@back1879 Yeah, they get 'thrown out' in the same way that every vote for someone that doesn't win gets 'thrown out'.
The only difference is that some of these people didn't choose to use their 2nd or 3rd vote, an option that doesn't even exist with the current first past the post system.
We use this voting system in Northern Ireland for our devolved assembly, to say voters find it “too complex and confusing” is really condescending and just not true.
LMAO you overestimate the intelligence of the average human being
@@crazymonky256 the average american*
It seems really simple.
@Bob Smith The Northern Irish Assembly electoral system is known as the Single Transferable Vote in multi member constituencies and is a form of ranked choice voting which is a type of proportional election. It is very similar to the system which has been used in the rest of Ireland since the 1920s. Irish people find it very straightforward to use and referendums in the Republic in the 20th century have twice rejected attempts by the then largest party to move back towards first past the post voting (the normal US system). It is the unfamiliarity of a new voting system which allows opponents to claim that it is too complicated to be understood. It is the single member element of ranked choice voting, as often proposed, which means that it is only a minor improvement and has no proportional effect.
That's just an excuse used by the democrats and the Republicans because they're the only people that wouldn't benefit. They're also the only ones that do benefit from the current system, and conveniently for them, they're the only ones that can do anything about it.
"It favors progressive ideas."
If your complaining that the system that guarantees the most popular position wins favors a particular position, you have no interest in democracy. If it favors progressive ideas, that means progressive ideas are more popular.
It's such a blatantly politically biased reason for opposing it that I feel like CNBC was straw-manning. Even if some people in the RNC secretly oppose it for that reason, nobody with an ounce of political sense would _say_ they opposed it for that reason. I also don't see exactly how it favors progressive ideas. It's not as if they named any person or organization who use that argument, either.
It favors diversity. Some people might have a problem with that.
Stopping vote splintering would probably hurt Republicans in a state like Maine but so be it. Then maybe Republicans should campaign better for voters.
@@Knightmessenger I am excited to see how the vote goes there. If I lived there, I might vote differently because I have the freedom of knowing my vote will still count even if my first choice does not win.
In Australia, they picked up a version of this because at one point there were two conservative parties and because they took the votes off each other, the progressive party won the majority, so they enacted numbered voting.
*YES*
It is so stupid having to choose your candidate strategically: _Having to choose a terrible candidate over the one you want to make sure a Horrible candidate doesn't win IS NOT A WORKING SYSTEM._
Australia has a working system of democracy despite having had this system of voting for over 100 years.
@B EXACTLY...
such a stupid social construct and I'm glad its finally being opposed
There is just one thing .... with the rise of social media influence and such ... there can be candidates who are indecisive in their policies and just stand still ... or move very slowly ... just to please the 3rd and 4th group and so on vice versa .... its what concerns me a little .....
One of the main reasons I support Yang is ranked choice Voting
@@hemantsarthak yes, thats a very valid concern, nice to see educated voters out there. I think Kamala is a bit like that in terms of medicare for all and really most of her positions where she goes with what everyone wants her to agree with rather than what she actually agrees with. The same could be said for trump.
Candidates like Sanders have had long records of consistent voting even if you dont agree with him, you have to admit its a respectable quality.
Confusing?.. what are you talking about... rank voting please
Confusing for Idiots who live under a rock....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting Easier and gives basically the same results.
Voting isn't the problem. The problem is that the entire system is openly corrupt. The few who don't take the bribes are character assassinated by the deep state.
Scott Humphreys I laughed at this at first presuming it was a joke, but then i realized that you might actually mean it. And that scares me.
People aren't the brightest haha.
How could you not like this? It is a more fair and democratic form of democracy
Very true to be honest it is more fair system I hope Florida can have this
The only reason people want this, is because the Democrats have realized that they won’t be able to beat Trump in the 2020 election.
More democratic doesn't mean better. But it doesn't mean worse either. Its merit as a policy is dependent on its results, not "democracy".
I disagree, this has nothing to do with trump. a huge problem with us politics is that it's a 2 party system, the us is barely a Democracy, you really only get us or them. I think this would help fix that aswell it is a more fair and just way to vote
@@owlblocksdavid4955 I think more democratic does mean better, we should have the most fair and democratic voting system possible, this system is that
The guys against ranked choice are so obviously just trying to protect the industry and establishment . Go to your retirement home already and let America be a true democracy
@DonCervantes ok awesome but how does that refute the idea of ranked choice voting
You idiot, The United States is a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
Go back to civis class and pay attention.
Morons like you shouldn't be allowed to vote.
@DonCervantes When Jackie Perez said true democracy, she was referring simply to a system where the collective of people actually hold the power. There are currently 20 countries classified by the democracy index as true democracies, which are, ordered from most to least democratic:
Norway, Iceland, Sweden, New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland, Canada, Finland, Australia, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Germany, the United Kingdom, Uruguay, Austria, Mauritius, Malta, Spain, and Costa Rica.
Your claim that true democracies do not exist is categorically false. There are 20 of them. You should notice the absence of the US from this list, but also notice that many nations with higher quality of life and more acceptance of minorities are included in this list. Your neighbor to the north is tied with Ireland for 6th most democratic nation in the world. Canada has more freedom than the US and is more accepting of minorities. True democracy does exist. Americans are just bitter about being taken off that list a few years back for the horrible corruption that their system includes. The US is classified as a flawed democracy, 25th in the world. The US could improve. The country is nearly identical to Canada economically and culturally. With true democracy, Hispanics would not get deported, their power would increase because their vote would matter and republicans wouldn't be able to disenfranchise them nearly as effectively as they do now.
@DonCervantes First of all, I would like to mention that I'm an American citizen.
Now, fair, the democracy index is about practicing democratic principles but I would like to point to how they name categories. The fact that they refer to these countries as democracies should tell you something. Making your requirement for democracy being that you can gain dictatorial power by gaining a majority of a nation's support is absurd. This has happened to no actual democracy in history. The closest thing to it was the Weimer republic and Hitler, but even Hitler didn't gain a majority ever.
"Democracy" is a greek word stemming from "Demos" meaning people, and "Cratos" meaning power or the government. Democracy simply means a form of government where the high power is vested in the citizens of the nation.
I think that you believe that only direct democracies are true democracies. But what matters here is not at all what you consider a democracy, but what the original commenter means when saying true democracy. They clearly meant that they want America to be a true democracy in the way that the Democracy Index defines the term. America does hold a lot of these values. Free speech is a distinctly democratic idea for example. Even if you do not consider representative democracies to be democracies, that doesn't matter. When the original commenter said they wanted true democracy, they meant they wanted their impact as a voter and citizen to matter. The term we throw onto this doesn't matter. What matters is what we do about it. You are arguing against a strawman of what you believe people mean by democracy.
Also lets talk about England. I live in Canada, a country with a parliamentary system identical to the UK's. No one I have ever met has ever referred to Canada as not being a democracy. Canada has elected representatives and democratic principles. You would consider this being a republic. Except, Canada is not remotely a republic by any stretch. We have a queen. Canada is a constitutional monarchy.
You made another mention of saying that it's only existed in communist countries? No communist nation in the history of the world has ever been democratic under any definition. None. Not a single one. The first known democracy, and the one that invented the word, was Athens, which wasn't communist. Athens was not a great place, and did have a lot of the problems you mention though, so I at least see where you're coming from. Unfortunately for you, parts of Switzerland actually use that exact system. There aren't towns in Switzerland with dictators, but there are towns in Switzerland where citizens vote on all legislation and by simply getting a majority, you can get a law passed. While Switzerland does have a constitution which protects minorities, that doesn't make a country not democratic.
Finally, if a country has democratic principles, acts upon these, and attempts to be democratic, while succeeding in each of these fronts, isn't it fair to call that democracy? The word democracy is just a word. Arguing semantics is pointless. What matters is what is actually being pushed for, in this case having your vote count. Saying that "democracy" is bad, then talking about democracy in an entirely different way from what they are talking about isn't a good argument.
True democracy would be pure majority rule and citizens voting on every single law
"Ranked vote is bad because in Maine election the candidate that got the most votes in first round was ultimately not elected"
THAT'S THE POINT!
He didn't have true majority.
@@mitingant yup
@@mitingant Exactly!
RCV works best when you have, like the examples, more than 3 candidates. In a low population state like Maine we generally do not have more than 3 for any one office. Because you can’t mark only one candidate and the third candidate is eliminated in the first round, you’ve ended up voting for the second choice candidate when you really didn’t want to see them in the office. Our first attempt at RCV ended horribly when the AG misinterpreted the rules of RCV and as soon as the votes put Jared Golden over the 50% mark they stopped counting which left out a huge portion of the northern part of our state giving them no vote in the matter. I’m hoping voters have gotten educated about RCV and it works better this time around. Don’t misinterpret my meaning here please, Jared has done okay but he is a rubber stamp for the Dems, much the same as Poliquin would have been for the GOP. I’m an independent voter that would love to see some better balance in how votes are handled.
Yes it has
You only be represented in the volumen the voters vote
CGP Grey approves this message.
As does Queen Lion.
Same goes for Andrew Yang
I was so excited to see Single Transferable Voting endorsed beyond him. Maybe it is a real possibility in the American voting system.
As do I.
Intentionally Left Blank Who?
Anything alternative is better than first-pass-the-post at this point
V D Instant Runoff is not perfect and has many of the same Flaws at First Past the Post, but NO SPOILER EFFECT. So yes its better,
Flarelia it also somewhat disarms the “electability” concern, allowing people to more freely vote their heart rather than gauge that on how they think other people will vote.
It's still FPTP
Agreed, but some alternative systems are better than others. I support STAR Voting, which isn't as vulnerable to strategic voting as RCV. In RCV, it isn't always safe to mark your favorite candidate first. www.equal.vote
Annie Kallen, you’re a joke.
9:51 Total misrepresentation of what happened in Maine.
Yo Mr. Beat. I'm still waiting on that video comparing Maryland V Virginia. Get on it my man.
Also, good point.
Mr.Beat lives in a shoebox on the moon eating mince and mice for tea.
As a Mainer I can assure everyone how easy it is to vote this new way. Now, we don't worry about spoilers and know that the person elected has a majority of the votes.
@Hybrid Theory They didn't get played, they got a voting system that works better for them. It's not Mainer's fault that the Republican candidate didn't run a good campaign.
But we are in electoral voting not majority votes.
How are the Somalis handling it?
@Metasyn You sure put a lot of power in your single vote!
@@chriss6840 State voting is not done with an electoral college. Read more books please.
Andrew Yang is for Ranked-Choice Voting
#YangGang2020
Yang 2020
Andrew 'The Uniter' Yang for Potus 2020
@@Nachrichten420 love it!
@Bob Jones does any candidate support that? It would remove the voice of rural areas.
If you find something simple as ranking candidate confusing, stay home and don't vote
Good point!
Yep. I'd go a step further and say that if a person doesn't have the time to pick up a free voter ID, then they didn't have the time to inform themselves about the candidates or issues and, like the confused voter, should stay home.
@Bob Smith ok boomer
@Bob Smith Proportional representation>Ranked choice voting>First past the post.
Due to the rigid nature of the U.S. Constitution, the best we're gonna get is ranked-choice for now. Ideally in the future the U.S. Senate will be abolished and the House will be elected using MMP or PR.
ever since we were children we've known how to rank things from our most favorite to our least favorite. If that concept is confusing, then I don't know what to tell you. As someone who lives in a place with ranked voting, I will say the most difficult part of it all is doing research on so many candidates to really decide who I like the most to least. Thankfully California makes that easy by sending out a book of information on every candidate and ballot initiative, but I can say a lot of other places I live, this would be a more involved process.
How exactly is ranked choice voting "confusing"?
It's so simple that 2nd graders do this when they pick their favorite to least favorite colors..
Hell, that ballot was even color coded with pictures for adults to understand at the most basic levels!!
Yeah I never heard somone choosing or ranking something with more than 2 choices.
*YT tier list, top 10 videos and every choice made ever except for voting in e.g. The US running towards me *
Some of the people who argue that this is difficult to understand are conflating two issues:
1) Understanding how to vote
2) Understanding how to count votes.
#1 is easy to understand. Pretty much anyone understands the concept of ranking choices.
#2 is hard to understand (I'm giving politicians the benefit of the doubt).
That being said, the difficulty of understanding #2 is irrelevant; voters don't need to understand #2 in order to vote. All a layperson really needs to know is that voting strategically is unnecessary...and those voters who mistakenly vote strategically under the new system aren't making things worse than they were under first-past-the-post.
@Bob Smith I very much care if a voting system is confusing, because a confusing voting system means that people who do not understand the voting system are not fairly represented. For the record, I don't consider RCV to be confusing.
Approval voting is simpler and has all the same benefits as ranked voting. All you need to change is allow people to vote for more than one candidate, you can keep counting the same way, but the whole system changes to much more fair (plus it reduces incentives to fight between candidates)
It's not confusing _per se,_ but only in comparison to the popular system of voting only for a favorite. It also suggests that you should be familiar with all of the candidates rather than just one, so it requires a bit more research unless you'd rather vote like a moron.
Ironically, both Pepsi and Coke bottle Dr. Pepper
hey mr beat!
Hello Mr Beat
mr beast pls give me 1 millon dollars
This makes way too much sense to ever get passes
@Bob Smith Ur a scam.
Bob Smith
I don't think yiu know what a scam is
Fight for it on the local level!
"WASHINGTON IS BROKEN"
HAVE YOU TRIED FLEX TAPE!!
omkar chauhan
?*
You’re posing a question, not exclaiming.
Minien
You're posing a question- not exclaiming*
You're coming to an abrupt stop to say something- not describing something or etc.
Anony Mouse
Arrant nonsense. That’s purely a matter of preference-not an objective assertion.
Anony Mouse
You’re posing a question-not exclaiming.*
Erroneous punctuation.
Furthermore, I caution you to refrain from redundancies.
Anony Mouse
“Em Dashes as Parentheses or Commas (Most Common)
The em dashes set this clause aside as something of an afterthought, not essential to the meaning or grammar of the clauses surrounding it. When a pair of em dashes is used to set off a parenthetical phrase or clause, they are interchangeable with commas and parentheses.”
_www.eliteprep.com/blog/2017/9/25/whats-the-deal-with-dashes_
One of the many reasons why I support Andrew Yang who’s made this one of his main policies!
I'm with YangGang
Andrew 'The Uniter' Yang for Potus 2020
Don't understand why he doesn't bring it up more often
Bruno Kallas
He’s not going to win; he doesn’t have the votes. Move on.
Yang gang
It's interesting to see the heritage foundation guy basically be like ... We can't cheat anymore hence it won't work.
@Bob Smith Why does letting more people than only the top 2 parties' candidates possibly ever have a minuscule chance of winning an election shut out views?
Yes. Why wouldn't you do ranked choice voting? Current way makes no sense and isn't anywhere close to "democratic"
Because there could be 50 candidates in the ballot and there might be up to 49 voting rounds. And that winner might have gotten only five percent during the first round. So how is that democratic? Better to vote the lesser of two evils than to get close to nothing in RCV.
Because it can be manipulated by running a lot of sacrificial lambs, whose presence on the ballot is to gather a boatload of next-to-last or higher votes which will go to a higher-ranking candidate who wouldn't win otherwise. That's what happened in Maine last election. Ranked-choice voting invites corruption.
Also, RCV will make candidates LAZIER because they only need say 20 percent to win which is why in Burlington VT the mayor there is unpopular. Less effort to appeal to the majority.
@@unknownunknowns You don't need 20% to win. You need 50% +1 vote to win.
You still need a majority of people to vote for you.
Also, the chance of someone getting 5% in the first round and winning the overall vote is basically impossible. It wouldn't happen.
FPTP is a clearly inferior voting method. Ranked choice is superior as it remove the spoiler effect meaning you vote for who you want to win without risking your vote causing the person you least want to win winning.
@@grizzlygrizzle Ranked choice voting does not invite corruption.
Its is a much better system than FPTP as the candidate voters want to elect will actually win.
How is this even complicated. Australia had this system for like forever???
It's not. That's a lie told by people who won't benefit from RCV.
"confusing", okay boomer
In Maine where ee implemented it the silent generation in the greatest generation are large voting Block and truly it is confusing to a lot of them.
Yeah, that argument was dumb. If someone finds ranked choice voting confusing, he or she can simply vote for their favorite candidate and be done with it.
@Bob Smith boomer
@Bob Smith What's the best thing about Boomers?
More and more die with each passing day.
@Bob Smith ok boomer
Hey Andrew yang is promising this
#YangGang
The president doesn't control this though. Each individual state government does.
Bernie Sanders , Elizabeth Warren.
Don’t believe anything he says
@@blackout07blue I'm pretty sure Yang is the only one who put it into his policies.
Thank you for giving us in Australia a mention. Indeed, we have a "single transferrable voting system" which works well. We also have an independent umpire, The Australian Electoral Commission which sets electoral boundaries, limited government reimbursement of electoral spending and compulsory voting.
It HAS NOT broken the duopoly in the lower house but a few independents do get elected. The big difference is in the Senate where governments generally lack a majority. This enables the Senate to be an effective house of review. This has often served to moderate the more doctrinaire proposals, among other things.
Like many people, I put the major parties near the bottom of the ballot, hoping that these parties will begin to learn. Unfortunately, at this stage, the big donors continue to be well served.
We live in hope.
The reason that you still have a two-party duopoly in the House is because you use STV in the Senate, and IRV in the House. IRV is the system being proposed in the US because they know it won't actually fix anything.
Well at least you have hope. People living under first past the post only dread their elections
STV and IRV are two very Different systems, IRV has essentially all the same issues as FPTP (Including two party system) but just removes the spoiler effect, Personally STV is far Superior than IRV, but IRV is still better than FPTP.
@Jason H - I feel that looking at the individual, if they belong to a major party is pointless. In the late 19th century W.S. Gilbert summed it up in the words he gave to "Private Willis of the Coldstream Guards" in Iolanthe.
...but then the prospect of a lot of dull M.P.s in close proximity,
all thinking for themselves,
is more than man can face with equanimity.
So let's thank God with loud Fala,
That every boy and every girl that's born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal or else a little conservative...
Note, please the absence of capitalisations - A necessary qualification in Australia, where the Liberal party has been described as "Authoritarian Right."
Compulsory voting is ridiculous.
Ranked choice really should be the way to vote
not for parliaments (house of representatives and so on) that should be PR.
Then I can vote Libertarian as first choice and Republican as second.
Mirza Ahmed that’s the point. That you can still vote for your preferred candidate and have your more likely candidate as a backup. It allows third parties to gain steam.
@@johnmoore1495 and thats why it will probably never happen, because Democrats and Republicans will do whatever they can to keep third parties as small as possible so it's just them
@@MochiMac17 not if Andrew Yang can help it!
The sooner you realize BOTH Democrats and Republicans are the enemy, the soon this country will move towards a better future.
Cringe, but sure
"Washington is broken"
Maybe if yall in Washington would have taken better care of your things you wouldn't be here, now would you.
Ranked Choice Voting and Public Funding of Elections is the only thing that can save our democracy from the Oligarchs.
@@blackout07blue >funded elections with federal tax revenue
>tax money going to policy you don't agree with
>this will also mean higher taxes
i don't le think so
They are right where they want to be. The salary the people involved get is very high, so just riding it out for a year or two will ensure a comfortable early retirement. No change needed, just keeping the position
@@CamAlert2 Our overly expensive current donation system takes what, 8 Billion q year? Do you honestly think the cost of corruption and incompetence that happens because we have an uneven playing field is worth less than that?
They are not paid to do that, they ate paid by Lobbyists to get elected and help them.
America is like Apple:
*Australia* has had preferential voting since forever.
*America* is marketing it like it's groundbreaking! Never before seen!
Unfortunately in Australia we still seem to be stuck in a duoploly, specifically in the lower house, at least the senate gets more diversity in terms of political standings. Something bigger needs to happen for ultimate change
@@djt6012 hehe after commenting I actually thought to myself "well hopefully it's because they're taking their time to perfect it before releasing it like Apple, because most Australians don't even know how it works and we end up with a duopoly"
Australia is still two-party dominated. RCV doesn't work.
@@eyescreamcake they have IRV in the their commons and STV in the senate. They just need to adopt STV for the lower chamber of parliament and it would work
@@eyescreamcake Ranked Choice Voting isn't suppose to eliminate the two party system. It allows for third party voters to influence the outcomes of the election and for the two major parties to consider their policies.
If RCV was enacted in the 2000 U.S. Election, Gore definitely would of been elected in 2000 via Ralph Nader (Green Party) support.
Knowing this is in Andrew Yangs proposal, my vote literally just changed
He’s also for things like proportional rep and setting congressional term limits, he’s ranked #1 by equalcitizens in his democracy reform plans 👍
I love this quirky proposal where he raises the presidential salary, but also bans them from profiting in the future through exec positions and speaking fees, effectively closing that revolving door.
www.yang2020.com/policies/prevent-regulatory-capture-and-corruption/
Bob Smith, just the opposite in fact. With this voting system, it’s more true to democracy since those who are not having their voices heard will if their candidate is unpopular
Bob Smith wouldn’t it promote voters being more informed of who they’re voting for? Even if you hate yang, that would mean that you’d have to learn more about his and other candidates policies before making any decision. I’m sure you don’t believe one candidate is the end all be all savior of government and would like to know your options before making the choice on who makes our laws
@Bob Smith having more choices is "anti democracy?" Looks like you need a refresher on the definition of democracy
if it’s too confusing how do entire nations employ it successfully?
i knew a kid who talked about stuff like this 10+ years ago in high school and everyone called him weird. wonder what he's doing now.
Perhaps running a think tank or maybe has become a futurologist?
He’s making RUclips videos by the name CGP GREY
andrew yang is running with this as one of his policies!
Bob Smith He's actually pretty great, have you listened to any of his interviews?
isn't this just called the preferencial voting system? Australia has been doing this for years, but it still does nothing.
But doesn't Australia have a lot more parties?
Edit: yes I think it's the same thing.
Andrew Gisler multiple parties don’t matter because it always ends up with the government coalition and opposition
Actually their senate has a quite diverse number of parties. And it’s more than two parties in the house of reps.
476 Anno Domini well yeah I mean but they’re often based on coalition which implies multiple and wide ranging views which would often be ignored if not for the system
This is the biggest thing the US political system needs.
no it need proportional Representation.
Instant runoff and Ranked pair voting are the best preferential voting systems, both definitely better than plurality voting.
Single transferable vote is the best. It’s actually proportional.
No, Ranked Pairs is much better than Instant Runoff. Instant-Runoff is junk.
"Washington is broken!"
"Ok, so we're gonna make political reforms like stopping gerrymandering, repeal electoral college, restricting lobbying, etc?"
"No"
I agree with you but ranked choice voting is still a step in the right direction.
What exactly do you dislike about the electoral college--the winner-take-all aspect of it, the way that electors are divided among the states, or something else?
The electoral college is the equalizer when 40% of the population lives in one state and ensures that one state can’t determine the presidential election
Keep the electoral college. I dont know if you can fully end gerrymandering but not having politicians draw their own districts is a good start. Also, they probably shouldnt have over 10 sides on a polygon as these are supposed to be disrticts, not avant garde abstract 2 dimensional shapes.
I see nearly 100% of the comments pointing out two things that are true: ranking on a ballot is pretty easy, and it does result in someone getting elected so it works.
But zero or near-zero of anyone seems to even have started asking whether the tabulation process actually is good. Everyone just assumes that once the information about preferences is entered, the system will just deliver good results from that info. Too bad that it fails to do that in some too-common cases. The tabulation process completely ignores some of the preferences. As just one example, the most popular overall candidate will get eliminated if most people have them as 2nd choice, and then when other candidates are eliminated, those voters' 2nd choices ARE NOT COUNTED because their 2nd choice candidate was removed already. The crappy tabulation leads to still having spoilers and other problems, and the worst part is that everyone believes that these things are solved, so they have bad intuitions about whether this is a good system.
you are making good points. instand runoff is the worst (or second to worst) ranked voting system. And people discuss it, as if it was the only ranked voting system in town.
But here is a point you did not consider: Y would you go for a single winner system at all, when it comes to electing a parliament.
@@MusikCassette well, the U.S. (the focus of this video) doesn't have a parliament. I do agree with you that single-winner elections are often a poor approach in themselves. The multi-winner version of instant-runnoff, Single Transferable Vote, has the exact same problem I described above. And proportional-representation isn't perfect. For example, geographic districts done fairly (not Gerrymandered) at least encourage representatives to get out and connect with specific real people in a place. Making the voter pool much larger but using proportional representation has benefits but also has trade-offs. I'm convinced that lottery (no voting, random people called like to jury service) has merit, as in Citizen Assemblies. If we're going to stick to either proportional multi-winner voting or single-winner, STAR Voting is the system I'd most support. Approval Voting is worthwhile too if only for its utter simplicity while being a huge improvement over choose-one.
Having said all that, I am *more* concerned about people believing false things about instant-runoff than about instant-runoff itself. Every aspect of every discussion and concern needs to start with getting the facts clear enough and at least accepting ignorance or agnosticism around things we don't know. We can't even discuss instant-runoff when almost all the supporters and media describe it with core misunderstandings.
@@nphony the U.S. [...] doesn't have a parliament. what about the house of representatives? And you do have parliaments and councils on all levels of legislation. About your concern for local representation: There are at leas 3 methods to get local representation into PR and at least 2 methods for personalizing the vote (should I elaborate on those?). I would not agree, that STV s problems are quite on the same level as the problems dependent on the version. But it does import single winner problems into a Situation, where PR would be an option. And its quality can be measures in how closely it resembles PR. That is why I don't really sea a point STV.
About Star voting (weird name btw) Well it gets around the Arrow paradox and for true single winner situations meddling with from the back end is out of the picture. It does not get rid of the necessity for strategic voting and worse: If you use it to vote for parliaments and such with one candidate for each district and star voting for those the hole gerrymander problematic comes back in. However, for true single winner situations you are probably right. Approval voting is star voting with 2 stars. So same applies. Although it the tactical problems get a bit reduced. your voting weight is not reduced in the inbetweeners because there are no inbetweeners.
In case single winner votingsystems here is a little (noncomplete) list a friend of mine wrote a few years ago of systems and of criteria to judge them by:
www.file-upload.net/download-14993921/single_winner.pdf.html
"this duopoly prohibits independent candidates from achieving party success"
Bernie, Yang, Tulsi: 🙄
They are running in the Democratic primary.
@@Imjustasimpleman5310 Thise are all Democrats. The Duopoly is between Demsocrats and Republicans making it hard for an independent to stand a chance.
Your sarcastic comment that uses caveman drawings was wrong at the time (none of those three were third-party or independent candidates) and even wronger just a few months later.
Andrew Yang has this in his platform
Hell yeah 💪 #YangGang
i’ve been a supporter of this for a long time! glad to see it talked about, we need this!
The Heritage Foundation guy says this doesn’t work because in Maine the candidate who won the plurality vote didn’t win???? That’s the whole point!!! If he had won more than 50% he would have won, but he didn’t so that means more people did NOT want him to win. That is democracy working.
3:20 Right here! If we had ranked choice voting in US federal elections, votes for Jill Stein wouldn't have essentially been thrown away In 2016. In 2024, we're still dealing with the same problem.
This is why Andrew Yang NEEDS to be our next president.
Lmao he’s not though
The first past the post system is a disaster. Period!
We do this in Australia!! It really does work and really shows the full spectrum of people’s beliefs
That's not why you're voting! You're supposed be voting for who you want to represent you in office. Ranked voting is only for doing away with the best candidates so the middle of the road candidates can be manipulated by leftists.
We have this in Ireland, it's called the single transferrable vote, and it's absolutely fantastic.
does it make your coalition cooperate better since parties want to be ranked second if not first? how much is politics polarized?
@@snowdolphvov4193 politics isn't polarised the way it is in the US, people from different parties work together where they agree
Heritage foundation talking against RCV, where is the surprise here?
I actually am a bit surprised. I thought they were simply a conservative organization and RCV does not inherently benefit Democrats or Republicans over the other.
I guess they don't like a marketplace of ideas.
Democratic National Committeeman: "It can't be perfect, so let's never strive to make it better. No upgrading from 'awful' to 'Meh.' Unacceptable!" Of course the people with all the power are dismissive of ideas that would strip them of some of that power. And yet the Democratic Party says they're "for the people." Pfft. The Republican Party is just as bad. They're only in it for themselves.
Legal analyst: "America is too dumb to count above the number 2. ...1...2 ...🐄."
Politicians: “it’s broken!”
Customer Support: “Have you checked to see if it’s plugged in?? I’m sorry ma’am but you have to plug it in, in order for it to work...”
"Maine had the first congressional electronic using ranked choice voting, that race showed that it doesn't work because the person who got the most first choice votes didn't win" THATS THE POINT.
Just because someone got most first choice votes doesn't mean they have the widest support.
It helps moderate candidates have a chance to win
This needs to be talked about more
I would've picked Bernie back in 2016, but he got picked over by Hillary.
And there's no way in hell I was letting her become President. So I picked Trump since he was my second choice.
This year, it's Bernie, Tulsi, Trump and Andrew. I wish the rank choice voting was out for the entire country.
This would've been very epic to see the country's choices.
What is this Good reporting I'm seeing and how do I find more of it?
Ranked Choice is the easiest thing we can do to start to save our democracy. The two party system we have is a corrupt monster and needs to be stopped.
The problem is not only there. Check out California, they have democrats running everything and they can't accomplish nothing! I hate the party system but I don't see ranked choice as the answer.
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.
A sincere cuisine survey Scored: Italian 78%, Chinese 71%, Mexican 70%, American 65%, Thai 64%, Japanese 63%, Indian 55%.
[Italian, American, Mexican, Japanese] resulted from sincere Ranked Choice simulation without runoff. Eliminating Italian completely, resulted in [Chinese, American, Thai] after three rounds.
[Italian, Thai, Mexican, Japanese] resulted from straight Borda ranking, but [Italian, American, Chinese, Japanese] with (1, 1/2, 1/3, 1/4) Nauru weighting.
Simulations of Approval voting, based on score cutoffs, produced [Italian, Mexican, Chinese, Thai]; [Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Thai]; and [Italian, Mexican, American].
The results are similar above, but Approval Voting is most straight forward, Nauru Borda is reasonable, RCV is insanely convoluted.
The two old blokes are so clearly party puppets, the irony!
I have been pushing for Ranked Choice Voting since CGP Grey first uploaded his explainer video lol
Cgp grey made this video first
This would be good for single-winner elections but we need mixed-member proportional or party-list proportional representation in our legislatures.
That's true for the senate and the congress, but you can't do that for presidential elections, since there can only be one president. ;)
@Bob Smith ? lol
You have to make an argument if you want to troll, perferably a bad one. Otherwise it just doesn't work...
Ranked Choice Voting can also work through a proportional system too, it’s single transferable vote (STV). Where you still rank your candidates in order of preference and like instant runoff voting they do eliminate candidates with the least support & there votes are redistributed. But STV has another vote transfer which is surplus vote which means; whenever a candidate has too many votes than he needs to win than his surplus votes get transferred to other candidates that’s marked #2 on those candidates ballot. STV voting system produces a more proportional system and works well with multi member districts that elects more than 1 member.
I fully agree with the second half. But I don't think instand runoff is particular good for single winner either.
Alaska’s system is current best in the US. It’s a Top 4 Advance Instant Runoff System. Would love to see this tried in all states.
I fully disagree with the people who disagree with this.
Like I support the Green party, but I'm sorta forced to be on the side of Democrats all the time because I have to sacrifice my beliefs for someone who will win.
Nothing could make me want Ranked-Choice Voting more than that one Heritage guy telling me "You're too stupid to understand how to rank your choices".
Dont forget the DNC guy also bashing it. Dont you just love "bipartisanship."
Does CNBC realize they just endorsed Andrew Yang?
@elijah mikle he's not a Republican.....
Incidentally I'd take Dr.Pepper over Coke or Pepsi anyday
I believe the reason for Government unresponsiveness is America's plurality win first-past-the-post system. Under such a system, a candidate who gets as little as 34÷ of the vote wins, and the votes of people who select, 3rd, 4th or 5th place candidates carry no weight. Ranked Choice Voting, Proportional Representation, or even a system requiring run-offs, all allow the people voting for 3rd, 4th or 5th place candidates have some impact in determining the winner. The effect of the current system is to turn elections into twiddle dee/tweedle dum contests.👎
They didn't add the "D.C." so I was really confused why they were blaming everything on the state of Washington!
"Voting is a meaningless exercise. I'm not going to waste my time with it. These parties, these politicians are given to us as a way of making us feel we have freedom of choice. But we don't. Everything is done to you in this country."
- George Carlin
If Rank choice voting is confusing, please dont ever vote, dont run for any position of power, dont influence politics in anyway
@Bob Smith no one is criticising proportional representation for being too confusing lmao
I support this so much. It is so funny that every reason they give for not doing it is the exact reason we should be doing it.
For example, them saying Maine being an example because the guy who won round 1 didn't win the final vote. True, but more people supported the candidate who did win in the end.
This is one of Andrew Yang's top policies!
Anyone else watching this video for debate?
Just my take on it for all the People Bashing it:
Cons:
- it still perpetuates the two party system
- it is still gerrymanderable
Pros:
- No spoiler effect
When compared against ONLY First past the post, its a better system, so between IRV and FPTP IRV wins
But when compared to some of the other major voting reform Proposals like STV, MMP it falls flat.
Yes, it still perpetuates the 2 party system but not as strongly.
This is on Yang's platform
@Bob Smith the virgin Bob Smith vs the chad Yang
6:15 which is a perfect description of our present voting system, First Past The Post.
a Literal Horse race.
But horse races have Place and Show. Politics doesn't.
As an Australian I love this style of election because it's what we use. Also every other English speaking nation also uses this system and in the end it's more fair and democratic and means that the most "accepted" candidate wins and has a clear popular mandate.
"Also every other English speaking nation also uses this system". I don't believe that's true, at least not based on the research I've done.
Both England & Canada still use FPTP
How about voting on issues separately from the politicians ? - Vote for or against Health Care Reform, Abortion, Climate Change Initiatives, Universal Basic Income, Free Educations, etc - then vote for a politician who is mandated to champion for the winning issues. The agenda is defined by the people through votes. Voting for a politician then becomes a job interview.
If everyone votes for the same person as their #2, that person is the first one dropped because they would be the least popular "first round" person. So the "safe backup" everyone perceives, is at a greater disadvantage than the first round #3. RCV sounds "more fair" but mathematically it's not. Rather, each vote should be scored and one tabulation should be made. A first choice can count for 3 points, a second choice 2 points, a third choice 1 point, etc. RCV is so complicated it sounds more fair, and it's not. If everyone chooses the same person as their second choice, they are guaranteed to not win.
First of all, if your first round person is still in the race, the only time your second round person matters is if you go into round three with your first round person losing. Having 3 rounds before getting to 50% is highly dependent on the number of candidates so your point could be irrelevant.
What you are describing for the second part is a type of approval voting, which I wouldn't say is necessarily better than ranked choice voting.
@@polarbear1713 The person with the lowest accumulated votes is dropped each round. You're voting out the least popular each time, not electing the most popular. It's possible to have no one reach 50% after several rounds. If everyone (most) puts the same person as their #2 choice, it's probable they would be eliminated in round 1, thus the 2nd most popular candidate for most people would be eliminated. It's not a good system, IMO.
@@johnmarkharris Don't get me wrong. I don't claim it is perfect and has it's own issues. I am saying the chances of that happening aren't high. I would be perfectly happy with approval voting instead of ranked choice voting. Just as long as we get rid of plurality voting.
I prefer using condorcet voting. I am not well versed on how to declare a winner when there are ties but there are ways like the Schulze method or the Ranked Pairs that could be agreed upon and chosen.
@@polarbear1713 Yes, I think that's where RCV gets most of the people saying "this is great!" in that the "likely scenario" is usually all that is presented. Most of the time, it would be fine... until it isn't. I could see it really take a sideways turn in a very polarized situation where people absolutely love or hate one or two of the candidates... kinda like now in the US. I'd prefer a simple straightforward election where one candidate must win 50% +1. That's standard parliamentary procedure. When we start calculating what the votes would be, I think that's where trouble starts. If there's an election and no one reaches 50% +1 then anyone who doesn't reach a minimum threshold (maybe 10%?) is eliminated and you vote again. Each race is different. I think that's how it should be. It's like people saying one presidential candidate "won the popular vote." This isn't true, there is no popular vote. Millions of people in states like Texas or California don't vote because they know which way their state is going to go. We shouldn't extrapolate votes, we should have real elections. But, that's my opinion. We also should have to vote in person, on election day, and prove who we are. Fixing our voting processes isn't hard, but politicians want to win more than get an accurate count of the votes.
@@johnmarkharris You seen like a nice person who is genuine and not trying to "get one up on me" or some other internet nonsense. So I hope this doesn't come off as rude, that's not my intention.
When you say someone doesn't get 50% + 1 votes and then we hold a second election, that is called a runoff election. Ranked choice voting is also called instant runoff voting because it does the exact same thing as holding a second election where the least liked candidate is dropped or it can pit the two strongest candidates against each other with the same ballots or drop off all candidates that dont meet a minimum percent, like you said. A new election wouldn't be necessary if we had ranked choice voting because we would have the information needed already.
I disagree that we need to all vote on election day and in person with ID, other than a voting registration card. I brought identifying things to get my voter registration card and I don't see an issue with mail-in ballots. But I don't really want to argue about that. Let me just ask you one thing about your view, do you think Election Day should be a national holiday if you want over 250 million people to vote within about 12 hours?
Very glad mainstream media channels are discussing alternative voting methods!
3rd party candidates are not spoilers! People assume that if you didn't have the option to vote third party then you would vote for candidate A or B. But maybe people just wouldn't vote, and whose to say your vote for Jill Stein means you would vote for Hillary.
It's nonsense and bring pushed by both parties as they have the most to lose.
YangGang
We need to call our senators and make petitions to get rank-choice voting.
I support this wholeheartedly
bernie and yang advocate for this!
Yes. I personally would love to have more of my voice heard in my votes at all levels of government. This is a simple way to do so.
I love how they put excuses to ever try to change their system, like 'it's confusing'. Well, if you find that confusing, probably you are incredibly stupid and it's better if you don't vote at all.
4:37 democracy is literally a perfect process wtf is this guy talking about
I think we need more support for ranked choice voteing
Sounds very reasonable! Having more choices than just the two is good. The main obstacle to third-party growth is clearly the spoiler effect, and ranked-choice voting removes that obstacle. I hope it happens soon.
It also removes voters fear of wasting their vote.
@@theyoungcentrist9110 Unfortunately that's a myth. RCV does not fix the spoiler effect, or the fear of wasting your vote. It considers some voters' preferences while discarding others, which is why it can eliminate the most-preferred candidates when people vote honestly.
Donno about Washington, but it would definitely save Israel!
A parliamentary system with proportional representation in the House would be ideal.
I like that idea but I worry that fewer people would vote. It is exciting to cast your vote for president. Not so much to just vote for your local MP.
@@robograham12 Countries that use the system don't have a problem with that. A vote for a local MP is a vote for their party for prime minister.
@@pacoramirez7363 Sure but American's probably won't see it that way. They like the spectacle of the presidential campaign. Americans already don't vote in very large numbers and I think that by taking away the opportunity to vote for president, many more will stay home.
Thank you! This system is called STV (Single Transferrable Vote). This is a better voting system than even the popular vote. Bipolarism is a consequence of fear of a wasted vote.
The most accurate use of the term STV would limit to multiwinner cases. Degrading STV to a single-winner election amounts to IRV.
This needs to be introduced in Canada
Yes, it's broken.
Yes, it can be fixed.
Yes, it has to be Andrew Yang (who's a big proponent of ranked-choice voting)
The arguments against some form of RCV are so weak. RCV is objectively superior. Implement it worldwide, now.
Sounds like a great way to vote
Would like to see it introduced more across the country
Broke: FPTP
Woke: Ranked
Bespoke: STAR
This doesn't work if only 2 candidates are on the ballot. The 2 parties won't allow a 3rd, 4th, or 5th party to run against them.