Benton County is going to use a ranked choice voting system: https://www.hcn.org/issues/52.4/what-works-can-a-new-voting-system-improve-our-fractured-democracy is this a case of 'ain't-broke-don't-fix'? I guess it would make primaries more interesting also, I'm not seeing much of an upside, but maybe I'm blind
The problem with that is the compatibility of the president and the vp. Can you imagine trump voted in as president and Mit Romney as VP? Now that I think of it, that might be fun, but it would get old listening to trump constantly complaining about his VP like he does anything or anyone that doesn't agree with him.
It's an interesting concept for sure. My main concern in voting is we need to get to a universal voting system and process. All states use the same method and equipment to tally the votes and I would encourage all states going to mail in ballots. That alone would encourage larger turnouts which leads to a more accurate picture of what the people want.
The upside is massive, in that it gives voters who might actually align better with a minor-party candidate an option to vote for one (or two), but then list the "lesser of two evils" as their third choice without "throwing away their vote"
Well, the VP would have to be someone who was competent and actually be a position of somewhat power. What exactly does a VP do of any clout?
I just skimmed over the article. How does a candidate get tallied? Do they use a point system for 1st, 2nd and third and then tally the points for the winner?
The article indicated that they tally all the "1st" votes. Then for any candidate who received 15% or less of the vote, those votes are then transferred over to that voter's 2nd choice, and then to their 3rd. Generally by that point, someone will have received 50% of the vote, and a winner will be declared. It is possible that someone's 2nd and 3rd choice will also have been someone who got less than 15% of the vote (which puts them in no worse position than they would have been). One argument against a system like this is that one candidate could be (say) 55% of people's 2nd choice, but not being enough people's 1st choice to survive to that point. But that hypothetical possibility is incredibly unlikely. My favorite version of this type of system is simply eliminating a single candidate with the fewest first-place votes rather than all under a certain threshold.
Anyone who wants to break the two-party stranglehold should be wildly enthusiastic about ranked choice voting. It's really the only way it happens. barfo
We have preferential voting in Australia. We have to rank each candidate from first to last. When votes are tallied, the votes for the candidate with the least amount of votes are distributed to the voters second choice, then again the votes for the candidate with the least amount of votes are distributed to the voters third choice, and so on, and so on, until their are only two candidates left, and one of them has over 50%. We also have compulsory voting. Yes, that's right it's against the law not to vote. Voting is not just our right, it's our responsibility. Because of these two factors rarely do we vote for who we want to win, we vote for the least worst option. It's a very different mindset. It is also a big reason why our governments, and politics in general are centrist. Because if either of the two main parties gets too extreme, the fact that everyone has to vote, and minor party preferences will see them defeated. Then there's some internal bloodletting, and the party returns closer to the centre. Also because everyone has to vote, we try to ease the pain for everyone. We hold all elections on Saturdays, to make it easier for everyone to attend. Polling stations are all at places like schools, churches, and community centres, who all have BBQ's and cakes stalls, and the like to raise money for their organisations. The big question is whether to eat your food before or after voting. Before gives you something to do whilst waiting in line, but I like to wait until after voting, to reward myself for doing my civic duty by stuffing my face.
I'm confused--where is the mechanic in this system to disenfranchise minority voters and dividing populations into arbitrary political units for convenience in getting more power from fewer votes? Is that before or after the cake? I do like the idea of cake.
It waters down the whole purpose and effect of voting, your vote for your interests, by encouraging the weaker candidates to be like the frontrunner to get that 2nd choice, leaving you with several competing candidates who have no discernible differences from each other past their hairstyles. You deserve a real choice, especially in the primary.
He looks important and rides around on an official airplane. He's useful in visiting factories and in ribbon cutting.
FWIW, I agree with Australia's approach. I think it would actually make things more democratic and possibly help curb voting fraud as well as voter suppression which is a real problem in the US.
The Australian Electoral Commission sends you a letter asking why you didn’t vote. If you have a good enough reason, then that’s the end of the matter. If you don’t have a good reason, or don’t respond, they send you a $70 AUD fine. If you don’t pay that, they send you a $135 AUD fine. If you don’t pay that, they take you to court. I’ve don’t know anyone who hasn’t voted. We have an over 90% voter turnout every election. Voting only took me 5 minutes last election, the longest it has ever taken me would be about 10 minutes. Technically we don’t have to actually vote, we just have to attend a polling place, get our name crossed off the list, and put the ballot papers in the boxes. They can’t make us fill out the ballot paper. But if you’re going to go through all that effort, you may as well put some numbers in the boxes. Also, as long as you number the boxes correctly, you can write/draw anything you like on the ballot paper, and your vote will be counted. Some people get very creative.
