Jump to content
270soft Forum

Could Jorgensen theoretically win Maine?


ThePotatoWalrus
 Share

Recommended Posts

So I see Maine is doing ranked choice voting this year, and I may not be 100% sure on how this works, but if every voter had her as her second choice, would she finish ahead of the less popular candidate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThePotatoWalrus said:

So I see Maine is doing ranked choice voting this year, and I may not be 100% sure on how this works, but if every voter had her as her second choice, would she finish ahead of the less popular candidate?

No, second choice votes don't count unless the first choice is eliminated by finishing last in the state.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ross Perot could have done that in 1992.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

No, second choice votes don't count unless the first choice is eliminated by finishing last in the state.

Thanks. I still dont fully understand the system but I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Thanks. I still dont fully understand the system but I like it.

I am a huge fan of it. It definetly could help 3rd parties win which is why I like it, just not in the way you describe. But RCV alleviates the biggest roadblock for third party support: the spoiler effect. The more voters that understand that they can vote 3rd party, guilt free of "handing the election to the greater of two evils", the more people actually will vote 3rd party.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I am a huge fan of it. It definetly could help 3rd parties win which is why I like it, just not in the way you describe. But RCV alleviates the biggest roadblock for third party support: the spoiler effect. The more voters that understand that they can vote 3rd party, guilt free of "handing the election to the greater of two evils", the more people actually will vote 3rd party.

Massachusetts has a ballot question for it this year, and most people seem to support it. But it doesn't extend to Presidential elections...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I am a huge fan of it. It definetly could help 3rd parties win which is why I like it, just not in the way you describe. But RCV alleviates the biggest roadblock for third party support: the spoiler effect. The more voters that understand that they can vote 3rd party, guilt free of "handing the election to the greater of two evils", the more people actually will vote 3rd party.

Just watched some vidyas explaining it and I totally get it now. Obviously it works better if there's more candidates but it'd be cool.

It'd be especially awesome if the Libertarians, Greens, and maybe Constitutionalist party got the same levels of support the GOP and Democrats had. If the Democrats became the classical liberal party and the progressives like Warren, Sanders and AOC took over the Greens and made it the Social Democratic party they're trying to do, Republicans became the fiscal conservative party and the Libertarians and Constitution guys were relevant it'd be a dream come true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd really like to see the DNC adopt Ranked Choice Voting into their platform. Not only is it something that increases the validity of voting 3rd party, but it might also increase support for the Democrats, as someone who might usually vote Libertarian or Green could consider voting for the Dems in the meanwhile to make their chosen 3rd party more valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, superezione said:

I'd really like to see the DNC adopt Ranked Choice Voting into their platform. Not only is it something that increases the validity of voting 3rd party, but it might also increase support for the Democrats, as someone who might usually vote Libertarian or Green could consider voting for the Dems in the meanwhile to make their chosen 3rd party more valid.

And I‚Äôd like to see the RNC adopt it. But we all have dreams ūüėȬ†

I don’t see either of the two major parties actively supporting a policy which jeopardizes their power.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Ranked choice voting is absolutely stupid. Chose a candidate and vote for them. Giving some people a second option is ridiculous.

More (and better) choices of candidates (a la, the breaking of the Duopoly) might make that idea more palatable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

Ranked choice voting is absolutely stupid. Chose a candidate and vote for them. Giving some people a second option is ridiculous.

Yikes, and I thought you supported liberty and breaking the duopoly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Patine said:

I definitely do, but I don't think ranked voting goes nearly far enough to achieve that.

Do you at least support it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Do you at least support it?

I think it works well for a legislative body - that's effectively the foundation of the MMP system that statistical majority of national legislative bodies in the world with any sort of contested elections use. I am uncertain just how it would end up playing out, in practice, for a Presidential election. I can see the possibility for some wonky, even disturbing scenarios, and Machiavellian power plays and intrigues based on dishonesty about whose nomination really represents whose party, especially if the EC was preserved. Let's just say, it's untested ground for a Presidential election (flat-out two rounds are more common elsewhere), and I would have concerns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Patine said:

I think it works well for a legislative body - that's effectively the foundation of the MMP system that statistical majority of national legislative bodies in the world with any sort of contested elections use. I am uncertain just how it would end up playing out, in practice, for a Presidential election. I can see the possibility for some wonky, even disturbing scenarios, and Machiavellian power plays and intrigues based on dishonesty about whose nomination really represents whose party, especially if the EC was preserved. Let's just say, it's untested ground for a Presidential election (flat-out two rounds are more common elsewhere), and I would have concerns.

I dislike MMP personally, I believe firmly in single-member districts as the basis of legislatures. But I think that the instant runoff capabilities which RCV presents are the best way to conduct a free and fair election in a timely manner. I understand having concerns but I think it's ultimately the best way to conduct an election, including a Presidential, and is actually the most democratic. You'd have to elaborate on your concerns of impropriety because I must admit I don't yet see your point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

I dislike MMP personally, I believe firmly in single-member districts as the basis of legislatures. But I think that the instant runoff capabilities which RCV presents are the best way to conduct a free and fair election in a timely manner. I understand having concerns but I think it's ultimately the best way to conduct an election, including a Presidential, and is actually the most democratic. You'd have to elaborate on your concerns of impropriety because I must admit I don't yet see your point.

Single-member district legislative electoral systems, an invention an innovation of the originally very elitist and restricted suffrage early Parliament of Britain, has long been the tool of malrepresentation and legislative tyranny based distorted voter support bases. I live in Alberta. Believe me, I know this well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/24/2020 at 5:49 PM, Reagan04 said:

And I‚Äôd like to see the RNC adopt it. But we all have dreams ūüėȬ†

I don’t see either of the two major parties actively supporting a policy which jeopardizes their power.

If you believe this policy could jeopardize your party's success and subsequently their power, why do you support this policy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

If you believe this policy could jeopardize your party's success and subsequently their power, why do you support this policy? 

Nation above party, perhaps? Although that concept seems to be something you rarely get behind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Patine said:

Nation above party, perhaps? Although that concept seems to be something you rarely get behind.

It still seems up for debate to me when someone advocates for his party to adopt a stance which hurts them.

Absolutely. I don't think the nation on the whole profits in any way when the wrong party is put into power. By saying that I don't even speak of the US solely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Absolutely. I don't think the nation on the whole profits in any way when the wrong party is put into power.

Thank-you, Big Brother. It's good to know you're watching, and are OBJECTIVELY, AS FACT telling us which parties are WRONG or not. I'm sure Schuschnigg, or even that other, better known far-right-wing leader born in Austria, would commend you for your views on choice of party and the validity of voters to vote by their conscience freely. :S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Patine said:

Thank-you, Big Brother. It's good to know you're watching, and are OBJECTIVELY, AS FACT telling us which parties are WRONG or not. I'm sure Schuschnigg, or even that other, better known far-right-wing leader born in Austria, would commend you for your views on choice of party and the validity of voters to vote by their conscience freely. :S

Wrong party from what I believe is right. However, that doesn't mean others can't have another opinion on that very issue. I am still inclined to improve the lifes of all people and yes I believe the policies I support might reach that goal more universal and faster. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Wrong party from what I believe is right. However, that doesn't mean others can't have another opinion on that very issue. I am still inclined to improve the lifes of all people and yes I believe the policies I support might reach that goal more universal and faster. 

I'm going to be perfectly frank, and give a non-partisan statement. There is not a single political party on Earth who is out to make, and has a realistic and viable plan with any chance of success, to make the lives of EVERYONE in their jurisdiction they operate within "better," wouldn't you agree, in all honesty?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...