God help us all: Ranked Choice Voting will be on the ballot in Massachusetts this November

[clubgop]

I’m a 3rd Party candidate. A LOT of people say they’d like to vote for me but they don’t want to risk losing; a bird in the hand situation. If there was rank-ordering, I’d get tons of 2nd choice votes even though I was really the 1st choice.

p.s. I’ve never won anything by popular vote in my life, so I’m talking out of my ass here. Maybe people are just being nice when they tell me that.

Lots of 2nd choice votes wouldn't matter. If you were last in first place votes in the initial round you would be eliminated.

we've had 3rd party candidates in elections. They end up getting maybe 10% of the vote. In ranked choice they would still get eliminated. The only difference would be where their 10% would get divided up between the D and R.

Imagine how many people didn’t vote 3rd party because it was ‘wasting their vote’. They’d be choosing the 3rd party instead.

I think the results could be rather shocking to establishment toadies, like ClubGOP.

Imagine how many people, like you, would vote for the establishment party number 1, cause you are a special kind of stupid, and think your 2nd or 3rd choice will mean anything. That would be actually wasting their vote.
I won't be shocked at how people like you react, still have no earthly idea how it works got all pissed about it and then turn around and blame me as if it is my fault somehow. Same as it ever was. This system manufactures and fabricates majorities that favors two establishment parties. The only thing that will get reported and the big headlines will be the final result the 3rd party won't even get the recognition of their first round result.

[PartyOf5]

They can have that now under the current system. Yet any 3rd party candidate never gets more than 10% of the vote.

No, because it’s always a ‘wasted vote’, or ‘helping the other side’.

Do you have any evidence that ranked choice will end up with 3rd party candidates getting more votes than either of the main party candidates?

[SuburbanFarmer]

They can have that now under the current system. Yet any 3rd party candidate never gets more than 10% of the vote.

No, because it’s always a ‘wasted vote’, or ‘helping the other side’.

Do you have any evidence that ranked choice will end up with 3rd party candidates getting more votes than either of the main party candidates?

What kind of ‘evidence’ would you accept, given that we’ve never done it?

Best available would be the fact that third-party candidates always poll significantly higher than the final tallies.

[SuburbanFarmer]

Lots of 2nd choice votes wouldn't matter. If you were last in first place votes in the initial round you would be eliminated.

we've had 3rd party candidates in elections. They end up getting maybe 10% of the vote. In ranked choice they would still get eliminated. The only difference would be where their 10% would get divided up between the D and R.

Imagine how many people didn’t vote 3rd party because it was ‘wasting their vote’. They’d be choosing the 3rd party instead.

I think the results could be rather shocking to establishment toadies, like ClubGOP.

Imagine how many people, like you, would vote for the establishment party number 1, cause you are a special kind of stupid, and think your 2nd or 3rd choice will mean anything. That would be actually wasting their vote.
I won't be shocked at how people like you react, still have no earthly idea how it works got all pissed about it and then turn around and blame me as if it is my fault somehow. Same as it ever was. This system manufactures and fabricates majorities that favors two establishment parties. The only thing that will get reported and the big headlines will be the final result the 3rd party won't even get the recognition of their first round result.

Rest assured that while you feverishly yank that lever for Jesus and TrickleDown Socialism, my first vote would never - ever - go to a D or R.

[clubgop]

They can have that now under the current system. Yet any 3rd party candidate never gets more than 10% of the vote.

No, because it’s always a ‘wasted vote’, or ‘helping the other side’.

Do you have any evidence that ranked choice will end up with 3rd party candidates getting more votes than either of the main party candidates?

Certain localities have it and it only really "works". when it is a one party monopoly. In a toss up area it does nothing, those 3rd party votes just get tossed out and reported as if they never happened.

[clubgop]

Imagine how many people didn’t vote 3rd party because it was ‘wasting their vote’. They’d be choosing the 3rd party instead.

I think the results could be rather shocking to establishment toadies, like ClubGOP.

Imagine how many people, like you, would vote for the establishment party number 1, cause you are a special kind of stupid, and think your 2nd or 3rd choice will mean anything. That would be actually wasting their vote.
I won't be shocked at how people like you react, still have no earthly idea how it works got all pissed about it and then turn around and blame me as if it is my fault somehow. Same as it ever was. This system manufactures and fabricates majorities that favors two establishment parties. The only thing that will get reported and the big headlines will be the final result the 3rd party won't even get the recognition of their first round result.

Rest assured that while you feverishly yank that lever for Jesus and TrickleDown Socialism, my first vote would never - ever - go to a D or R.

So you'll be wasting your vote either way. Voting for fantasies except this time you want more false hope and more work and we know your intellectually lazy ass won't do more work. Instead you'll be supporting a system in the final reporting that throws away your vote. Doesn't count it all. The final reporting will say this motherfucker got over 50% and therefore has a mandate to govern. And your little protest vote won't even be recognized. Your 2nd or 3rd round vote will count just as much as my 1st. So you'll be exactly what I say you are, a dishonest undercover hack bitch. Do the math, if the two major parties combined get 50+% you are out of luck, you won't win. The only thing that matters is who wins and when the two major parties get 90+% of the vote even if the other side doubles their support that is still a very low minority. You are a dumb ass in the minority and can't realize no matter the machinations that a minority you will remain.

[KerningChameleon]

I think some visual aids might help, people seem confused on the basic mechanics of alternative vote systems. The guy who did an essay/simulation for explaining game theory (The Evolution of Trust) did a similar thing to help illustrate how the various alternative vote systems work: To Build A Better Ballot. You can mess with the positions of candidates and voter pools and see how they affect the vote totals under various systems, which aside from RCV/IRV also examines Borda count, Condorcet, Approval voting, and Score voting. The sandbox mode even lets you post your constructed simulations for others to see to help you illustrate whatever argument you'd like to make about these systems.

Anyway, for something we can see from the comfort of these forums, here's a graph from that page showing roughly how the various systems stack up against each other in terms of simplicity and group satisfaction with election results:



Right end of the bars are if the voters are completely honest with their preferences, while the left sides are if everyone votes "strategically". Interesting, despite still being an improvement over First-past-the-post, RCV can be just as bad if not worse than FPTP if literally everyone votes pragmatically rather than honestly. Dude seems to think Approval or Score would be best (ever rated a product on Amazon out of five stars? Congratulations, you understand score voting).

As an aside, and this isn't really in defense or against any point in particular, I'd like to note Australia uses an RCV ballot for all of its elections, and notably you must rank all candidates on the ballot. Also, Australia is a compulsory voting country, so that's interesting too.

[SuburbanFarmer]

I think some visual aids might help, people seem confused on the basic mechanics of alternative vote systems. The guy who did an essay/simulation for explaining game theory (The Evolution of Trust) did a similar thing to help illustrate how the various alternative vote systems work: To Build A Better Ballot. You can mess with the positions of candidates and voter pools and see how they affect the vote totals under various systems, which aside from RCV/IRV also examines Borda count, Condorcet, Approval voting, and Score voting. The sandbox mode even lets you post your constructed simulations for others to see to help you illustrate whatever argument you'd like to make about these systems.

Anyway, for something we can see from the comfort of these forums, here's a graph from that page showing roughly how the various systems stack up against each other in terms of simplicity and group satisfaction with election results:



Right end of the bars are if the voters are completely honest with their preferences, while the left sides are if everyone votes "strategically". Interesting, despite still being an improvement over First-past-the-post, RCV can be just as bad if not worse than FPTP if literally everyone votes pragmatically rather than honestly. Dude seems to think Approval or Score would be best (ever rated a product on Amazon out of five stars? Congratulations, you understand score voting).

As an aside, and this isn't really in defense or against any point in particular, I'd like to note Australia uses an RCV ballot for all of its elections, and notably you must rank all candidates on the ballot. Also, Australia is a compulsory voting country, so that's interesting too.

200 posts in 3 years?? You are the King of Lurkers dude

[clubgop]

As an aside, and this isn't really in defense or against any point in particular, I'd like to note Australia uses an RCV ballot for all of its elections, and notably you must rank all candidates on the ballot. Also, Australia is a compulsory voting country, so that's interesting too.

What happens if you don't rank all the candidates? They throw the vote out?

[GloryofGreece]

It would allow Third Parties in.

All democracies fail before monarchies do. Lol. Let's all pretend people are all equal and have equal say in power politics. Bahahah.