Maine residents, I need your opinion

HomelessJoe

Unknown User
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,960
Reaction score
544
Points
113
Location
MA
MA doesn't have ranked choice voting. There was an initiative on the ballot this year to enact it but it got voted down.

Maine has it though if there are any Maine residents here
 

Undertaker #59*

Car'a'carn
Staff member
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
25,004
Reaction score
1,974
Points
113
It is a subject that I always mean to read more about and learn. On the surface, my knee jerk thought is favoring it, but I'd also like to hear opinions on both sides of it.
 

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
It is a subject that I always mean to read more about and learn. On the surface, my knee jerk thought is favoring it, but I'd also like to hear opinions on both sides of it.
While knowing very little about how the process would work, do you think it would help and if so how? It does not seem like a bad thing, I guess I am wanting to know how it would improve things as they are now.
 

TipRoast

Recall all the dreams that you once used to know
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
8,557
Reaction score
1,287
Points
113
Location
A little maze of twisting passages, all different.
It is a subject that I always mean to read more about and learn. On the surface, my knee jerk thought is favoring it, but I'd also like to hear opinions on both sides of it.
Ranked choice voting systems have been a focus of academic study for a while. One place to start is Arrow's Impossibility Theorem.
 

Grandmaster B

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
659
Reaction score
113
Points
43
Location
The Happy
It's a pretty interesting proposition.

I think the biggest impact would be in the primaries. If there had been ranked choice in 2016 in every state, I don't know that Trump even gets the nomination. It doesn't really matter if you got the most #1 rankings if that was like 30%. If everyone else rates you last, you're going to struggle.

Same with the Dem primary this year. Bernie was "leading" with like 25% of the vote. If there was ranked voting, it appears Biden would have always led, since everyone else's voters moved to him when they dropped out,
 
OP
AkPatsFan

AkPatsFan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
936
Points
113
Location
Eagle River, Ak
I'm curious what they'd do if people only voted for one candidate, personally I'm skeptical on who this really helps. I guess we'll find out in 2022.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
I did some research on it since we had a ballot question for it this year, and I voted in favor of it.

Having said that, I would caution against making any blanket decision on "ranked choice voting". Really, the devil is in the details and how it is implemented....it can have dramatically different impact on elections depending on the fine print, even if it all falls under the "ranked choice voting" umbrella.....read the fine print.

I actually laid out a set of cards and pretended they were candidates...J,Q,K, and A,2, and 7.

I pretended the J, Q, and K each got 20,30, and 40% respectively, the A got 1%, and the 2 got 2%, and the 7 got 7%, and I played out how ranked choice would affect that sort of election. (I had to randomly assign the A,2,and 7 as second choice candidates to J,Q, and K)

It sounds silly and coimplicated, but it worked to help me wrap my mind around how it would work in real life.
 

Grandmaster B

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
659
Reaction score
113
Points
43
Location
The Happy
I'm curious what they'd do if people only voted for one candidate, personally I'm skeptical on who this really helps. I guess we'll find out in 2022.
It helps to get the -most acceptabe candidate- for the most people.

It would be really difficult for someone loved by 25% of the people and hated by the other 75% to get through.

Someone loved by 20%, liked by 30%, considered OK by another 20%, etc... would probably come out on top.
 

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
It helps to get the -most acceptabe candidate- for the most people.

It would be really difficult for someone loved by 25% of the people and hated by the other 75% to get through.

Someone loved by 20%, liked by 30%, considered OK by another 20%, etc... would probably come out on top.
I guess like Ak, I am wondering what does it help. I always have to have a reason for something to be done not just do it for the heck of it. So you think it helps get the most acceptable? is this a problem right now with how things are currently done, as in, is that not happening?
 

Grandmaster B

Active member
Joined
Jun 22, 2012
Messages
659
Reaction score
113
Points
43
Location
The Happy
I guess like Ak, I am wondering what does it help. I always have to have a reason for something to be done not just do it for the heck of it. So you think it helps get the most acceptable? is this a problem right now with how things are currently done, as in, is that not happening?
It's a problem when there are two many candidates and no one definitively rises to the top. There's no real acceptable solution that resolves the voter choice.

The path the Democrats were on early on, was that Bernie would "win" but with at most, around 60% of the necessary delegates or something.

Rather than leaving these scenarios to superdelegates, why not just have the voters resolve it themselves?
 

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
It's a problem when there are two many candidates and no one definitively rises to the top. There's no real acceptable solution that resolves the voter choice.

The path the Democrats were on early on, was that Bernie would "win" but with at most, around 60% of the necessary delegates or something.

Rather than leaving these scenarios to superdelegates, why not just have the voters resolve it themselves?
Yeah I see that. There is just so little moderates anymore. Its really one way or the other and extreme directions.
 

johnlocke

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
9,901
Reaction score
1,965
Points
113
Age
48
Location
Salisbury, NH
There is a right and many wrong answers but middle is always evil as it holds little principle.

Black and white.
 
OP
AkPatsFan

AkPatsFan

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
6,918
Reaction score
936
Points
113
Location
Eagle River, Ak
I think it's going to be too confusing for a lot of people to understand and may cause them to not vote, that's my fear. The reason I bring this subject up is because our state voted to use ranked choice, we voted no and a lot of people I know also voted no but it still passed. I'm going to have to learn more about it so I know wtf I'm doing when the time comes.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
I guess like Ak, I am wondering what does it help. I always have to have a reason for something to be done not just do it for the heck of it. So you think it helps get the most acceptable? is this a problem right now with how things are currently done, as in, is that not happening?

The answer to this is that a lot of people actually like 3rd party candidates, and independents, but they don't vote for them because they feel like it is a wasted vote. We have a "most votes win" system. But, with this, you need to get over 50%...which means if you have a strong 3rd party candidate, that gets like 10%, that person is actually viable, because a lot of people will vote for main party candidates, so their vote is not wasted, but add the candidate they actually like best as second choice.

So, what you get is nobody gets 50%, you go to round two, eliminate the 1%'rs, but then the 10% person suddenly jumps to 30%, and may survive the next round, and climb further, and theoretically actually win. I way oversimplified it, but essentially that's it. Imagine, for example, you have three 1% folks who get cut, and that 3% goes tot eh 10%...plus all the second choice votes for the primary parties....then you could end up with say, a 33% split 3 ways...and so on.

It kind of encourages alternative choices. It's a move toward parliamentary politics, albeit a small one.
 

Inspector_50

Active member
Joined
Oct 30, 2020
Messages
877
Reaction score
94
Points
28
Location
California
The answer to this is that a lot of people actually like 3rd party candidates, and independents, but they don't vote for them because they feel like it is a wasted vote. We have a "most votes win" system. But, with this, you need to get over 50%...which means if you have a strong 3rd party candidate, that gets like 10%, that person is actually viable, because a lot of people will vote for main party candidates, so their vote is not wasted, but add the candidate they actually like best as second choice.

So, what you get is nobody gets 50%, you go to round two, eliminate the 1%'rs, but then the 10% person suddenly jumps to 30%, and may survive the next round, and climb further, and theoretically actually win. I way oversimplified it, but essentially that's it. Imagine, for example, you have three 1% folks who get cut, and that 3% goes tot eh 10%...plus all the second choice votes for the primary parties....then you could end up with say, a 33% split 3 ways...and so on.

It kind of encourages alternative choices. It's a move toward parliamentary politics, albeit a small one.
Yeah it seems like any more if you are an independent voter, you end up either not voting or just voting for the two that are there. From that standpoint it does not sound bad.
 

Baron Samedi

Russian Bot 762X54R
Joined
Feb 14, 2007
Messages
28,979
Reaction score
2,305
Points
113
Age
52
Location
Framingham
I looked up who opposed it elsewhere, and it was all party establishment, so that sealed my decision.
 
Top