1887
Comments (156)
sorted by:
60
Trump2k20 60 points ago +61 / -1

Wtf is that.

53
DrCowboyPresident 53 points ago +56 / -3

It's supposed to encourage voting for third parties. In practice it's an incomprehensible clusterfuck.

41
BrakeRemovalMechanic 41 points ago +41 / -0

Yes. But it is not strictly in violation of any laws or the constitution. So, nothing Barr can do in this scenario. Now if a person could somehow prove the Democrats were being funny with the numbers and not allocating votes to where they were supposed to go, then you'd have something.

18
DeadOverRed 18 points ago +20 / -2

Yes, there is. States are guaranteed a republican form of government. Easy to argue that the representatives weren't picked by the people.

6
AceOfTrumps 6 points ago +8 / -2

How so? If implemented properly, your vote can only be reallocated to another person you voted for.

16
DeadOverRed 16 points ago +16 / -0

2 Things: 1. Nobody voted for the winner - he came in 2nd and 3rd more than everyone else. 2. "if implemented properly." - This system is even easier to cheat than 'guy with most votes wins'

8
Vir4030 8 points ago +10 / -2

Look at it this way. If everyone who was a Trump voter thought that they could do a better job, they could vote for themselves first and Trump second. Assuming none of them actually got enough votes, they would all go to their second choice. They will have voted for Trump, the winner. Second choice, schmecond choice. How about my first choice, super-first choice, and super-duper-first choice? You have complete control over how many candidates you wish to rank, up to the limit they allow. If your candidate is determined to be unviable (i.e. in last place among votes), then your vote goes to your next choice. It's simple, it's easy, and it completely undermines our two-party system. We need this.

7
DeadOverRed 7 points ago +7 / -0

We do need to undermine the two-party system, that's for sure.

5
WinstonSmith1984 5 points ago +5 / -0

Good explanation but not necessarily a good thing.

3
MAGA-Man 3 points ago +3 / -0

All the votes have to be counted at a central location at one time. To do this on a large scale has logistical problems and is open for corruption and take forever.

It is very old the US has used it in the founding. It’s used in Australia. Utah Republicans tried it and dropped it, MIT tried and dropped it. It is meant to prevent run offs but has resulted in runs offs many times. Look into it’s use by the democrats in the primaries in 4 states it was a shit show. Read up on places where they use or have used it and the issues. Our current system is better. There are other alternatives beside rank choice too.

3
AceOfTrumps 3 points ago +4 / -1
  1. you'd have to have like half a dozen legit candidates for that to start becoming a possibility

  2. it really shouldn't be. Hello, you could even use it as a spring board to set up a requirement for multiple independent verifications that would make cheating harder than the current system

4
DeadOverRed 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm not completely opposed to exploring the idea if done right. I kind of like the requirement to get a majority in the current system, though.

2
kesquare2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Glad this comment is highly voted.

The "BARRRR" line every time something doesn't go our way is getting old.

17
JackOfDiamonds 17 points ago +17 / -0

What is so complicated about ranking your choices in order and having the election counters throw out the bottom choice and recount? This isn't rocket science. A high schooler doing a civics project could figure it out.

4
DemRefugee007 4 points ago +4 / -0

We literally used this system to choose the class turtle's name in 5th grade.

3
Varangian 3 points ago +3 / -0

Was he named Mitch?

1
DemRefugee007 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sheldon

1
MAGAbetterargument 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hahaha

1
Titanium 1 point ago +1 / -0

The best part of this is all the votes need to be present before you can count them, so no ballots are 'found' the next day.

11
top_eagle 11 points ago +11 / -0

Do have any evidence of cluster fuckery? I am not saying it lacks cluster fuckertude, but I want to see evidence. I would like to find a voting method other than first past the post. FPTP leads to a two party system every time. Using a two party system leads to divisiveness.

9
DrCowboyPresident 9 points ago +13 / -4

It's easier to cheat or other shenanigans in a system like this, because instead of simply counting the votes, you have to run them all through a mysterious computer algorithm that counts votes differently depending on the ranking order.

And I doubt that algorithm will be open source.

Voting integrity isn't about finding proof of fraud. It's about a clear chain of custody and a reviewable, open process from beginning to end.

6
wehavetogoback 6 points ago +7 / -1

why should it be a mysterious algorithm? it seems like it should be simple.

4
AceOfTrumps 4 points ago +6 / -2

Mysterious to people that can't read code... Or acknowledgement that government seems to create the most retarded set ups imaginable. I'd think it would only need a recursive loop a paragraph or so long to calculate, but I don't that's what you'd get.

6
wehavetogoback 6 points ago +6 / -0

yeah unfortunately that probably is true, I personally would like to see no computers used in the process at all if possible

1
DrCowboyPresident 1 point ago +2 / -1

And I doubt that algorithm will be open source.

Read, I already answered your question.

9
DonJr2032 9 points ago +12 / -3

It's also notable that the left has been pushing hard for this over the past few years. Anything the left pushes hard for can be assumed to be for the socialist takeover of the United States and for the accelerated destruction of our great Constitution, as this is their track record in the Trump era.

14
BrianFL 14 points ago +14 / -0

No, it's really just about breaking the 2 party system and allowing more candidates to be heard. A lot of far right libertarians such as myself have been advocating for this for over a decade. It's the only way to get libertarian candidates like Jo Jorgensen and Gary Johnson any traction.

Also, ranked choice voting in primaries could allow some states to get rid of the RINOs in the House and Senate.

10
RememberSethRich 10 points ago +11 / -1

It's the only way to get libertarian candidates like Jo Jorgensen and incompetent nincompoops like Gary Johnson any traction.

FTFY

9
BrianFL 9 points ago +9 / -0

Lol, I'm really not advocating for Gary in these posts.

Here's the thing though, if we had ranked choice voting in 2016 and you only like Trump, you don't have to put down any alternatives. You can still essentially vote Trump or bust and then your vote isn't any different.

But consider this. Right now, with a candidate like Trump to vote for, you have nothing to gain from ranked choice voting. But remember very recently when the GOP establishment screwed us all and made RINO Romney the Republican candidate? Remember a little bit before that when they screwed us and made Globalist John McCain the Republican candidate? They basically gave Obama both terms by doing that. Ranked choice voting protects your right to vote from being squandered on your behalf by incompetent or corrupt party leaders.

6
Snarfbot 6 points ago +6 / -0

Ron Paul 2008 and 2012, imagine what a difference that would have made.

1
RememberSethRich 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sure, agreed. I don't have a problem with ranked choice, just with Gary Johnson. :)

-4
DonJr2032 -4 points ago +3 / -7

It's the only way to get libertarian candidates like Jo Jorgensen and Gary Johnson any traction.

This is not true. We do have a 2 party system, so if they want traction, they can join one of the 2 parties. They will gain lots of traction this way, if people like them.

The problem is the candidates in my opinion. People don't like Gary Johnson. He wants there to be essentially no borders. He wants them to be completely open, passing through freely at will. This, along with many other reasons, are why they don't gain traction with Americans.

4
BrianFL 4 points ago +4 / -0

Yes, we do have a 2 party system. But, and here's the thing, we are not supposed to have a 2 party system. Founding fathers didn't want parties at all.

I agree with your statement on Gary Johnson's border and immigration policies, but his policies were the libertarian way. Under ranked choice voting, if those policies are a deal breaker for you, you can demote him to a rank below Trump, making Trump your #1 and your vote will never be reranked. Anyway, libertarians have a much stronger candidate now, Jo Jorgensen.

-2
DonJr2032 -2 points ago +3 / -5

It doesn't mean that a 2 party system didn't develop at the earliest stages of our nation and isn't valid and more than functional.
The founding fathers developed parties.

18
KAG4Life2020 18 points ago +18 / -0

The current "first past the post" or "winner takes all" discourages third parties because people fear "wasting their vote". So this allows you to "rank" your choices. If your first choice doesn't receive enough to count, it rolls down to your second choice and so on. I honestly don't have a problem with it as I suspect the Republican party will soon split and we'll need these kinds of tools to keep Trumps vision alive.

10
YoYoYoWhatsGoinOn 10 points ago +10 / -0

Agreed.

I think it paves the way for the parties to split, and more parties to get involved, as seems to have happened with other republican forms of government.

Frankly I think it's a good thing - I think we have more than 2 prevailing styles of opinion in this country, and all should be represented.

3
Vir4030 3 points ago +3 / -0

Glad to see informed people about this. This is a key weapon in our fight against the two-party system that enables all of this corruption.

5
HiddenDekuScrub 5 points ago +5 / -0

I'm not thinking it's so much about the republican party splitting as the likelyhood of other parties gaining ground that was impossible before.

We have to remember that the Republicans replaced the "Whigs" long ago. I think it's past time for the Democrats to be replaced by something else.

1
KAG4Life2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

You should be. What happens when Trump creates the Lion Party and leaves the GOP to the never trumpers. Whoever controls the Republican brand will continue to win elections as long as our current voting method exists.

1
NewUser101 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes, this is actually something we need in order to break the two "party" stranglehold which is actually two faces of the same coin.

Career politicians need to never be a thing, and with first past the post you end up winning by dividing the populace on issues you never intend to actually address.

5
kickascii 5 points ago +6 / -1
  1. put votes into a computer algorithm behind a curtain
  2. ????
  3. our guy won!
1
DonJr2032 1 point ago +2 / -1

Just like BCS for College Footbal

4
fskfsk 4 points ago +4 / -0

Suppose you want to support the Libertarians, but also prefer Trump to Biden.

In a normal election, you have to either "waste" your vote on a Libertarian, or vote for Trump even though Libertarian was your first choice. ("strategic voting")

In ranked choice, you rank all the candidates. So you can list Libertarian #1 and Trump #2. On the first counting, the Libertarian gets your vote. Then, with the fewest votes, the Libertarian is eliminated, and your vote counts for Trump.

It actually isn't complicated, but some people have trouble understanding because it's different.

Ironically, American Idol uses a version of ranked choice. They have multiple rounds of voting, and after each round, the least popular candidate is eliminated. If you can understand American Idol voting, you can understand ranked choice.

3
HuggableBear 3 points ago +5 / -2

It's a way to reallocate Green party and Libertarian party votes to the Democrats without having to hold a runoff.

7
Keiichi81 7 points ago +7 / -0

I think Libertarians might be more inclined to put a conservative in their #2 slot at this point. There's nothing liberal about the modern left anymore.

25
Dumdum 25 points ago +26 / -1

The uniparty will win at all costs

23
DamSon 23 points ago +24 / -1

Rank choice is literally what allows you to vote third party without having to worry about the dem candidate beating the RINO.

4
MAGA-Man 4 points ago +4 / -0

Rank choice votes have to be counted at a central location. Takes forever and open to ballots getting “lost” en route.

Rank choice has been around for a long time. US had used it in the past, states and counties have used it, MIT has used it and they all got rid of it. It’s like communism, people talk about it in theory but not the real world use of it.

2
Yeti2 2 points ago +2 / -0

I knew there was a trick somewhere! Excellent post, thanks.

1
StumpSmasher2 1 point ago +2 / -1

It's also what allows you to protest-vote Libertarian while still voting against Orange Man. They wouldn't be pushing this if it didn't benefit them.

2
Vir4030 2 points ago +2 / -0

So? Let them do that. Trump is still going to beat Biden. Unless at least half of those Biden voters put Jo first, and then Trump will beat Joe after beating Biden. Nobody's Trump votes are changed, and I highly doubt many Trump voters are going to put Jo first if given the choice.

Also, this is only Maine. This is why we have the electoral college. It is highly unlikely this will even change the result of Maine, mind you.

1
meatthesoyboi 1 point ago +1 / -0

We have RINOs because you know when you vote third party, you're helping the Democrats win if your second choice is Republicans. In four years after Trump's out of office, I want to vote for the Lion party, but don't want to help the Democrats. The ranked voting system helps me do that.

The first past the post system is awful. If we don't wanted ranked voting, O.K., but we should at least be discussing what changes should be made.

16
dupin 16 points ago +16 / -0

I thought this was Rank voting was good. What am I missing?

3
Johnfox13 3 points ago +3 / -0

Depends on the implementation

3
MAGA-Man 3 points ago +3 / -0

All votes counted at 1 location. Opens it up to fraud and takes forever. Read up on the historical use of it. Australia uses it currently. US used it at the founding. MIT used it and got rid of it. Utah Republicans used it and got rid of it. The Dems used it for primaries in 4 states for the presidential election and it was a shit show. It sounds nice but our current system is still better.

1
DonJr2032 1 point ago +5 / -4

There certainly needs to be more education on the topic, but know this, the left has pushed very hard for this since the Trump era, and anything they've pushed hard for in the Trump era is for a reason, the accelerated destruction of our Constitution. Don't trust them

3
Vir4030 3 points ago +3 / -0

The left isn't pushing hard for this. It hurts the Democrat party as much as the Republican party, in the long-run it's devastating to both. Would Ross Perot have won the Presidency in 1996 if people were allowed to vote for him and choose whether their vote would go to Clinton or Dole if Perot didn't get enough votes? I think he would have, to be quite honest.

Also, this is a good thing. Don't do what they do. Trump said he should have said, "we won't build the wall under any conditions," because of the blind opposition. Don't be blind opposition. Ranked Choice Voting is a good thing for this country, and a bad thing for our two political parties and corruption in America.

3
DonJr2032 3 points ago +4 / -1

The left isn't pushing hard for this

They are. /r/politics and many leftists media sites have been pushing this over the past few years. Here is one example, but it's been a theme from the left: https://old.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/b3sl8a/if_were_abolishing_the_electoral_college_lets/

1
Vir4030 1 point ago +1 / -0

Those are the voices the Democrat party is trying to keep quiet. That shoe swings to both feet.

1
MAGA-Man 1 point ago +1 / -0

When the Virginia legislature was taken over by democrats it was one of the first things they pushed and got approved for local elections and stopped on statewide.

The democrats used rank choice in 4 states for the presidential primaries and they were a shit show. Utah Republicans used rank choice for and dropped it.

It’s being pushed by the democrats now but for what purpose? To weaken their power? More likely that they are salivating at the idea of having all ballots counted in 1 location being transferred all over the state to be counted on new voting machines.

Research the historical use of rank choice, it’s been around for hundreds of years. There are other alternatives to our current system.

0
Phaedrus_Wolfe 0 points ago +3 / -3

Its great for Parliamentary systems, but horrible for two party republics.

5
BrianFL 5 points ago +6 / -1

We aren't supposed to have parties at all, much less only 2 of them. Ranked choice voting is a push to allow more parties to get involved.

1
SadPangolin 1 point ago +1 / -0

The problem is that you still get the same two parties winning. It's just the party that wins isn't anyone's first choice.

1
Phaedrus_Wolfe 1 point ago +1 / -0

That will be a worse clusterfuck than France.

3
Vir4030 3 points ago +3 / -0

Good. We do not want a two-party system. It breeds corruption.

1
Phaedrus_Wolfe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you know of any system that does not breed corruption?

1
Vir4030 1 point ago +1 / -0

not yet

15
TheBaraclough 15 points ago +15 / -0

Essentially it's how some European parliamentary elections are done. Although I think it's normally multiple elections to determine people's second choice. Progressives like to fetishize Europe as "ahead of us" in a few ways so it is probably an exercise of imitation.

6
HuggableBear 6 points ago +6 / -0

And it only works in parliamentary systems, not in winner-take-all systems.

4
ApprenticeParty 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly! If only progressives knew how weird their toilets were or how bad their wall sockets are... or that they don't even know what ranch dressing is. Europe is truly a disaster.

2
Phaedrus_Wolfe 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would have agreed a few years back, but now with all the SJW rioting and civil war in progress, I'm not so sure its a disaster in Europe. They've survived for thousands of years, and I am not so certain about American survival now. It all depends on Trump. Go Trump!

2
ApprenticeParty 2 points ago +2 / -0

Key difference between Americans and Europeans. Europeans Survive, American's THRIVE. GO TRUMP!

1
Phaedrus_Wolfe 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hope you are correct. But 250 years of thriving don't speak much to long-term survival. My best wish is for America to MAGA into a long lasting and stable government. So far in history, there is not much to show on this front for any country.

1
ChinaFlu 1 point ago +1 / -0

Europeans Were, Are, and Always will be Serfs. They can't break that mindset. Americans are freedom given physical form.

14
DamSon 14 points ago +14 / -0

In general, this is a good system because it fixes having to vote for the slightly less shitty major party candidate.

You know, when there is one based independent candidate, a RINO and a shitlib running for the Dems and you have to vote RINO currently because otherwise the shitlib wins? Rank choice allows you to vote independent, RINO, shitlib, with the lowest rank essentially being not a vote at all. Australia does it in their federal parliament elections and they got a conservative surprise last year.

2
HuggableBear 2 points ago +8 / -6

4 candidates on the ballot.

A) Conservative Republican

B) Liberal Democrat

C) Commie Green party

D) Stoner Libertarian

Vote is held. Stoners vote for D, but say "If he doesn't win, I'd still prefer B". Commies vote C but say the same thing.

Results:

A) 47%

B) 37%

C) 8%

D) 8%

C and D are eliminated, meaning their votes are now cast for their second choice, leaving the final tally as:

A) 47%

B) 53%

C) 0%

D) 0%

Liberal Democrat wins.

Ranked choice voting doesn't encourage more third parties. It functionally eliminates them. You aren't "not voting for the less shitty major party candidate".

You are literally voting for that person, but virtue signalling that you don't like it.

14
JackOfDiamonds 14 points ago +16 / -2

You seriously think 100% of Libertarians would pick the Dem as their #2 choice? The majority of them would lean R, and there's a lot more of them than Greens.

And if I'm wrong, then the Republican doesn't deserve to win. The purpose of an election is to survey what the public wants. We should be running elections in a way that accurately captures that, and Republicans should win by being the more attractive candidate to the greater number of people. We don't design election rules around "What gets the Republican elected." We do it around fairness.

4
HuggableBear 4 points ago +5 / -1

The majority of them would lean R, and there's a lot more of them than Greens.

You're confusing libertarians with Libertarians. The Libertarian party for decades has been occupied almost entirely by stoners whose only issue is legalization.

Yes, most of them would vote Democrat.

Most libertarians (small L) already ignore the Libertarian party and vote Republican.

Besides which, the actual numbers don't matter, it's a demonstration of why the system is retarded. Rather than have a runoff and force those people to reconsider whether they really would like to vote for either of the major party candidates, it just throws their vote to one of those candidates anyway.

2
Vir4030 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agreed. I am a libertarian.

7
DamSon 7 points ago +7 / -0

Your example does not actually show how voting third party is discouraged.

5
HuggableBear 5 points ago +5 / -0

Many people vote third party to send a message to "their" major party that if they don't listen, they're going to lose elections because people are going to vote third party instead of voting for them.

This completely eliminates that. The two major parties in ranked choice elections get to completely ignore any third party positions because they know those votes are going to them anyway. That eliminates any functional effect of third parties and reduces their significance to nothing more than a virtue signal.

People may still vote third party, but it has no impact at all. It currently has very little impact, but it has enough impact where the major parties have to take it into account. With ranked choice, third parties are nothing more than a bumper sticker.

3
DamSon 3 points ago +3 / -0

That makes sense now. Obviously some joke candidate like Gary Johnson would not have any real chances. You would require a strong 3rd party candidate to start putting pressure on the two party system. Somebody like Ross Perot in 1992.

The problem is that with the current system,voting for a strong third party candidate is effectively the same as voting for the party less hurt by the third party candidate. Ross Perot lead to Bill Clinton in 1992.

2
HuggableBear 2 points ago +2 / -0

That is absolutely true, but it is part of the calculus and kinda the whole point I'm making.

Right now, if a third party candidate comes along and makes headway, it's because one or both of the parties aren't matching up with what the people want. The threat of a strong green party candidate against a moderate Dem (LOL like those exist) keeps the party swinging left to try to keep their voters from breaking away and costing them the seat. That gives the third party the only real power they have in politics.

Ranked choice voting removes even that.

1
quietam_uxorem 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is pretty much exactly what happened in the midterms. The incumbent Republican congressman got the majority of the votes in round one, but was declared the loser after round two.

edit: this system is actually unconstitutional under Maine's constitution, and so not used in elections for Gov or State legislature.

1
Nancypelosisoldliver 1 point ago +2 / -1

so basically your telling my that it allows you to vote multiple times which is illegal. If you vote for trump and he loses, I don't want my vote going for anyone else and I dont want it to be that way for any democrats either.

Basically its a funnel. So as long as you vote at all, they'll be able to move your vote to someone else. That should be guantanomo Bay torture level treason if you ask me. 1 person, 1 vote. You cast your vote and if that person wins, cool. If they lose, cool. Thats how it should be.

What theyre doing is trying to play that shuffle game with the cups. Since you can't vote twice, theyre going to use your one vote and shuffle it around until they get the person they want to win, to win.

2
MoonLevelStop 2 points ago +2 / -0

so basically your telling my that it allows you to vote multiple times

...sorta? Functionally it'd be like having a voting day with a yuge list of candidates on Oct 31st. Everyone votes, weakest candidates get eliminated. Rinse and repeat for the next two days, and by Nov 3rd it is narrowed down to the two most palpable candidates. Ranked Choice basically tells you to number the boxes and get the whole process done on Election Night instead of taking an Election Week.

1
DonJr2032 1 point ago +3 / -2

So essentially all the fragmented sections on the left will be swept into the Democrat candidate's vote? No more Green Party votes taking away from the Dems?

The problem you are describing has an existing solution, it's called a primary election. It's when voters of their party elect a candidate to be on the ballot. If there is a RINO on the ballot, it's because that party wanted the RINO on the ballot.

5
DamSon 5 points ago +5 / -0

If primaries were the solution, Bernie would have been the nominee in 2016.

Libertarian is the most important 3rd party nationwide, likely to prefer GOP over Dem as second rank pick. Even larger in Maine. Trump might have won the full state in 2016 with rank choice.

1
DonJr2032 1 point ago +3 / -2

Primaries in states involve voting for a candidate, with the one with the most votes being put on the ballot.
The process the Democrats use to nominate a candidate for their party is totally different. It's full of crazy rules and open in many ways for corruption.

4
DisgustedByMisleadia 4 points ago +4 / -0

No, it's not the same.

California is using the "jungle primary" voting to exclude candidates from non-Democrat parties. In ranked voting, each party is still represented. The difference is that someone can specify a second choice.

Yes, it means that the fragmented left will likely vote for a Democrat. But, it also means that the fragmented right will likely vote for a Republican. Libertarians tend to lean right (some political scientists think the Republican party is the closest party to classic liberalism, since Reagan), and there have been other parties on the right like the Constitution Party.

11
deleted 11 points ago +18 / -7
31
DrCowboyPresident 31 points ago +31 / -0

That's different, actually. What CA did was make the primaries different. The top 2 vote getters go to the general, regardless of party. Then the Dems just make sure to stack the primary so Republicans aren't the first 2.

10
deleted 10 points ago +10 / -0
7
DonJr2032 7 points ago +8 / -1

This is correct. Ranked-Choice voting is something completely different than what he is describing in California.

9
Burt_Williams 9 points ago +9 / -0

Uh....this actually is a really good thing guys. The computer doesn't need a fancy algorithm if your number one vote doesn't win the majority you go to number 2, then 3, then 4, then 5, etc, etc. ad nauseum. You could just vote for 1 guy if you wanted (Which in 2020 is pretty obvious). Election fraud is something that will occur in any sort of system....so lets just pick a better one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

Link to a guy named CGP Gray, he has great videos with tons of info on all sorts of things. All methods of voting are fallible, but this is a simple way to give better proportional representation to a citizenry. First past the post voting will ALWAYS degrade to a 2 party system, it just wasn't understood at the time of founding.

It's not so much that it encourages voting for 3rd parties, it encourages voters more so than first past the post system to get representation they want, and doesn't degrade to a guaranteed 2 party system. Term limits solve nothing if the GOP and DNC have an agenda different from the common man, this is a comfortable "Out" from a 2 party system.

1
ILearnedToCode 1 point ago +2 / -1

I dont want a computer "reallocating" my vote for me. One small bug and my vote (and thousands of others) are "accidentally" reallocated to a Democrat

4
Burt_Williams 4 points ago +4 / -0

Your argument is already invalid. Computers are already tallying votes and susceptible to electronic fraud. If that’s your only problem it has nothing to do with the voting system, just the means of counting. If 70 million people vote, would you trust a computer? Or 1000s of people who are just as easy...if not easier...to get on your side to illegally sway a vote.

Computers at least have the ability to be 100% unbiased if we instill that integrity into our process. There are many process we can use manually to secure this, including (but in no way limited to) voting receipts that you can check online to see how your vote was tallied.

2
ILearnedToCode 2 points ago +2 / -0

The danger comes into play when the computers are specifically programmed to change a vote to a different vote. This introduces an entire new layer of fraud potential, because you are actually writing code that is designed to change your vote to be for a different candidate

2
Burt_Williams 2 points ago +2 / -0

The danger comes into play with ballot harvesting, the danger comes into play when you have coded voting machines, the danger comes into play with hanging Chads, the danger comes in when you have someone from the other party physically counting votes, the danger comes into play when you let the serfs choose their own destiny.

Every system has problems, every single one involved with any process in anything that happens that is man made. The point is being able to vote for multiple people gives better representation in a government for the people by the people.

I agree that electronics can be taken advantage of, as I agree people could just at some point lie about numbers somewhere or vote multiple times or An honest mistake in counting. The “Algorithm” in no way needs to be complicated and should be public information.

Small example

If candidate 1 > 50% vote pick 1 If candidate 1 < 50% vote pick 2 If candidate 2 > 50% vote pick 2 If candidate 2 < 50% vote pick 3 Etc. (I know no coding languages but this is a very basic idea for a computer to handle)

It doesn’t need weighted variables, it doesn’t need to be anything crazy. It’s just making a machine count because people can’t do it as accurately or as quickly. Changing the voting method to provide proportional representation is the goal, then you sit down and solve the problems with that goal in mind (prior to implementation that is)

8
JackOfDiamonds 8 points ago +8 / -0

I don't really have a problem with ranked choice voting. It allows people to vote for their preferred candidate while still capturing their practical second choice. The Libertarians always get more votes than the Greens in every presidential election. This would be a net benefit for Republicans most likely.

2
somethinga9230k 2 points ago +2 / -0

I worry about the technical aspects and election fraud. Is it easier or more difficult to commit election fraud in this system, and if so, to which degree and in which aspects? And which actions can be taken if there is election? Etc. Since election fraud is a very, very real phenomenon in the USA in the past and present (and possibly future), with Biden's team hiring 600 lawyers and complete panic among leftists over RBG's death and other factors, I cannot help but get the impression that care will have to be taken reg. this.

5
knightofday 5 points ago +5 / -0

Ranked-choice voting is what allowed Democrats to unilaterally DOMINATE California. In many races a Republican doesn’t even make it on the ballot. It is a disaster

1
meatthesoyboi 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ranked choice voting has nothing to do with who makes it on the ballot. That's a specific implementation detail of California to benefit Democrats.

5
mrmrmrj 5 points ago +8 / -3

Rank voting would be a nice change. It would encourage more independent candidates.

6
Uzaka123 6 points ago +9 / -3

No it wouldn't. It would pump votes from third parties back to the Dems.

3
DisgustedByMisleadia 3 points ago +4 / -1

and to the Republicans.

-1
HuggableBear -1 points ago +4 / -5

4 candidates on the ballot.

A) Conservative Republican

B) Liberal Democrat

C) Commie Green party

D) Stoner Libertarian

Vote is held. Stoners vote for D, but say "If he doesn't win, I'd still prefer B". Commies vote C but say the same thing.

Results:

A) 47%

B) 37%

C) 8%

D) 8%

C and D are eliminated, meaning their votes are now cast for their second choice, leaving the final tally as:

A) 47%

B) 53%

C) 0%

D) 0%

Liberal Democrat wins.

Ranked choice voting doesn't encourage more third parties. It functionally eliminates them.

3
mrmrmrj 3 points ago +4 / -1

You are looking at it through the current lens. Ranked choice will change who runs for office. Lots of new people will try. This is a good thing.

4
LuvHarambe 4 points ago +4 / -0

While I like the idea of being able to have nuance in my vote to more accurately indicate my preferences, we already have a really hard time believing in the current system and how votes are counted. This would make things significantly more complicated, and in doing that I really fear that it opens some additional avenues for fraud which is already rampant.

4
Shariablue_Sorosbots 4 points ago +6 / -2

A Republican got the most votes in ME-2 in 2018. The seat went a 'Rat because of this bullshit.

3
jealousminarchist 3 points ago +3 / -0

PSA:

VOTE STRATEGICALLY. PLACE BIDEN LAST or not at all (after yourself, your dog, your daughter's pet catterpillar). PLACE TRUMP FIRST.

How they gonna make rank-voting work with write-ins is really rocket surgery though.

3
CommunismSucks 3 points ago +3 / -0

Im confused. If there’s no majority, they prop up the second place person?

6
freedomconnoisseur 6 points ago +10 / -4

If someone ranked the candidates by preference D B A C and D was eliminated after the first tally, their vote would then go to B.

It's a way for the Maine political machine to get all the fringe retards voting Green Party back into the Democrat fold. Once the Jill Stein's are eliminated, or whichever mentally ill person they are running this time, those votes would go to Democrats.

This isn't an insignificant thing. Hillary would have won Pennsylvania in 2016 if this system was in place.

5
DisgustedByMisleadia 5 points ago +5 / -0 (edited)

Hillary would have won Pennsylvania in 2016 if this system was in place.

Oh, please. If you are going to make such an assertion, at least be honest or better-informed about it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Pennsylvania#Statewide_results

In PA, there were only 49,941 votes for Jill Stein. But, there were 146,715 votes for Gary Johnson and 21,572 votes for Darrell Castle (Constitution Party).

Those last two sets of voters are more likely to choose a Republican for #2.

0
freedomconnoisseur 0 points ago +1 / -1

If you think Libertarians are a slam dunk to rank Republicans second, then you haven't been paying attention to their platform. I was a registered Libertarian for lots of years and I can assure you that the influx of single issue pot head voters would rank Democrats second. Perhaps you need to better inform yourself.

3
DisgustedByMisleadia 3 points ago +3 / -0

I didn't write they would all vote Republican for #2. I wrote that they were more likely (as a group) to vote Republican. The distribution will almost be certainly be different, depending on where you live. In California, you'll get a different distribution than in Texas.

But given what you just admitted, your prior posting was fundamentally dishonest, not just uninformed.

Goodbye, and have a nice day.

1
freedomconnoisseur 1 point ago +1 / -0

As I just corrected you, they aren't more likely as a group to vote Republican. Anything better than 50/50 is a pipe dream. And what exactly did I just admit that makes my post dishonest?

1
CommunismSucks 1 point ago +4 / -3

That’s retarded and should not be allowed. You vote for who you vote for. It shouldn’t be recounted if the government isn’t satisfied with the result

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
5
Ex-libtard 5 points ago +5 / -0

Meaning theyve created a reason to have a set of single issue candidates

-2
HuggableBear -2 points ago +2 / -4

4 candidates on the ballot.

A) Conservative Republican

B) Liberal Democrat

C) Commie Green party

D) Stoner Libertarian

Vote is held. Stoners vote for D, but say "If he doesn't win, I'd still prefer B". Commies vote C but say the same thing.

Results:

A) 47%

B) 37%

C) 8%

D) 8%

C and D are eliminated, meaning their votes are now cast for their second choice, leaving the final tally as:

A) 47%

B) 53%

C) 0%

D) 0%

Liberal Democrat wins.

8
BrianFL 8 points ago +8 / -0

The vast majority of libertarians would have their second choice fall to the conservative, due to their positions on gun control. Libertarians are more pro gun than the Republicans, so this system would put extra pressure on conservatives to be more pro gun.

Also, you're forgetting some very recent history. It's easy to rally against ranked choice voting when you have a candidate like Trump to support. But, remember very recently when the Republican party screwed us and made RINO Mitt Romney the Republican candidate? Or a little bit before that, when the Republican party made globalist John McCain the Republican candidate? Ranked choice voting protects your right to vote from being squandered away on your behalf by corrupt or incompetent party leaders.

-1
HuggableBear -1 points ago +1 / -2

So your solution to bad candidates is throwing away the system rather than fielding better candidates next time.

Great plan, bro.

2
StumpSmasher2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Of course they're pushing it; it benefits their current situation. Ranked choice allows for protest voters to still vote for what they consider the lesser of two evils; considering the massive gulf in in-party approval and absolute hatred for the other party, this will primarily turn libertarian protest votes into Libertarian first, Biden Second votes. Libertarian first, Trump second votes are more likely to have ended up Trump votes.

2
SAW2TH 2 points ago +2 / -0

Democrats.

They can never win fairly.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
MichaelFiend 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hate to break it to you. Barr and Durham are looking more and more like Deep State incels. 4 years for Durham, and STILL no indictments, and 3 years for Barr, who says all the right things, but hasnt done jack shit in those 3 years. PROVE ME WRONG.

2
americai 2 points ago +2 / -0

additional tabulations, aided by computers. oh.. OK that makes it legit

2
TheWilderness 2 points ago +2 / -0

A "computer" aids in the choice. How obviously corrupt do things have to get before we the people string some of these fuckers up (figuratively not literally).

2
Cough 2 points ago +2 / -0

So the fucked up system Brits complain about is coming here. Lovely.

2
MoonLevelStop 2 points ago +2 / -0

C'mon people. Blanket First-Past-The-Post is horribly broken.

2
Hexagon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Barr doesn’t do much but talk.

2
Bubbahax 2 points ago +2 / -0

They way I read that, if you don't vote for the top guy, they'll change your vote. That cannot be legal. All it would take is one guy to sue the system for changing his vote.

2
Lurking-My-Life-Away 2 points ago +2 / -0

Just an FYI... This is how the republican mayor got elected in Espanola, NM.

2
Patriots_Spike 2 points ago +2 / -0

Am a Mainer, they are 100% trying to change the results. We had signatures to repeal RCV and they ignored it completely. We had it for our 2018 election and it was a cluster fuck. On election night candidate Moody (R) had won, but didn't have 50% of the votes. So after 5 days of calculation they finally came to the conclusion that Janet mills (D) magically had 30k extra votes somehow and won. It was a complete scam and anyone with eyes could see!

On the plus side, there's many Jo fans in my gun clubs who were only voting for her. Now they're saying they'll put Trump down second at least. But it's just another way for the Dems to steal the election if the voter fraud fails. There's more Trump support up here than I've ever saw in 2016, so can only hope they all turn out and vote!

2
bootyhole 2 points ago +2 / -0

THEY KEEP LOOKING FOR LOOPHOLES THEY CAN USE TO STEAL THE ELECTION

2
blueeyephoto 2 points ago +2 / -0

this has to be the dumbest idea of voting ever. I mean, how do you even VERIFY this? who was the lowest vote getter and who was the "2nd choice"? WTF?

1
VeneficusQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Honestly I think it’s an okay idea, but won’t work in practice because to be wayyy too much information and opportunity for bullshit

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
edxzxz 1 point ago +1 / -0

If there is no 3rd party running, wtf is the point of this? Is Kanye on the ballot in Maine or something?

1
geneticMessiah 1 point ago +1 / -0

So Maine will be going third party instead of Democrat?

1
Vir4030 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ranked Choice Voting is a great thing. It will not play into this election at all, as Trump will have a plurality of votes on his own. It is a key weapon in undermining the two-party system. Do not be fooled.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Yeti2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maga-man explains the problem in this thread: with rank choice, theres no way to tabulate the report of who won on the voting place level. Why? Because you don't know who got last place globally in order to reallocate his votes, and rrepeat until you get a winner.

So that means you need to transport all the votes to a central place and count there. Now you have many more chances to add ballots, lose ballots, etc, or cheat globally rather than ballot harvest in Broward County only.

There will be no partial results.

1
Staatssicherheit 1 point ago +1 / -0

10th amendment.

Barr can't make up law out of thin air. Do you think he is a Supreme Court Justice or something?

1
Roguepepe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maine has a split electoral count. This law won't have any effect on Trumps final EC tally.

1
Garidion 1 point ago +1 / -0

I'm a fan of the idea of Rank Choice voting and they have every right to try it. In theory it will help the true winner in the group come forward. Allowing people to throw out the wasted vote theory. I think this would lead to better candidates especially with state wide or national elections.

1
no_shoes_no_shirt 1 point ago +1 / -0

explaining the alternative vote https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE

1
NC4Trump2024 1 point ago +1 / -0

WtF??? They have more stuff in their bag. DAME DEMONS!!!

1
Nancypelosisoldliver 1 point ago +1 / -0

if someone "reallocates" my vote im going to reallocate their brains with a .45 to the noggin because that's what my consitution of freedom says Its my duty to do, to smoothbrain faggots that can't accept how big of losers they really are.

When I hire you for a job my first question is going to be "do we need an electoral college?" and thats the only question I'm going to have to ask to know if your mentally retarded and need a shortbus to come pick you up and take you home or not.

1
nowrongwrong 1 point ago +1 / -0

It has absolutely no effect on a two-party system such as currently the case in almost every national election.

But in theory, it allows you to vote for a third-party candidate while still having your vote count for the two-party candidate if the third-party candidate isn't viable.

I'm generally in favor of anything that gives people more choice. Consider this: what if Trump started his own America First party and we could all vote that as our number one choice will voting Republican second as our safety backup?

0
DeadOverRed 0 points ago +2 / -2

Ooh, a computer algorithm will pick our leaders. Computer algorithms are never wrong, nor programmed with the result the programmer wants.

-1
Gr4ck3L -1 points ago +1 / -2

Aided by computers. That's convenient.