Jump to content
270soft Forum

Could Jorgensen theoretically win Maine?


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 post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

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 e

Ross Perot could have done that in 1992.

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 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ross Perot could have done that in 1992.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 Iā€™d like to see the RNC adopt it. But we all have dreams šŸ˜‰Ā 

I donā€™t see either of the two major parties actively supporting a policy which jeopardizes their power.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

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

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

Link to post
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 post
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 disturbingĀ 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 post
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 disturbingĀ 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 conductĀ 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 post
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 conductĀ 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 suffrageĀ 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 post
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 conductĀ 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.

The only reason I would dislike MMP is because of aloofness to voters. However, that's already a fact in most single-member districts. I'd prefer a PR system of list voting like in Germany, with some representative districts as well. I simply don't think that Reps/Senators are accountable to their people at all, and certainly don't act like it anymore.Ā 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2020 at 5:49 PM, Reagan04 said:

And Iā€™d like to see the RNC adopt it. But we all have dreams šŸ˜‰Ā 

I donā€™t see either of the two major parties actively supporting a policy which jeopardizes their power.

If you believe this policy could jeopardize yourĀ party's success and subsequentlyĀ their power, why do you support this policy?Ā 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

If you believe this policy could jeopardize yourĀ party's success and subsequentlyĀ their power, why do you support this policy?Ā 

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

Link to post
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 debateĀ 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 wayĀ when the wrong party is put into power. By saying that I don't even speak of the US solely.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Absolutely. I don't think the nation on the whole profits in any wayĀ 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 sureĀ 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 post
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 sureĀ 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.Ā 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...