Pros and cons of ranked-choice voting

Pros and cons of ranked-choice voting

[fobbitguy]

If you can't figure out someting as easy as ranked voting tjan maybe you shouldn't vote

[EcoNeato]

Anyone who doesn't have the cognitive ability to understand the simplicity of three choices is not qualified to vote.

[scottcromwell]

"The best argument against democracy is a 5-minute conversation with the average voter" ~ Winston Churchill

[gorkyd]

Ranked-choice elections would help break up the 2-party strangle hold in the US. People are way more willing to support 3rd parties that actually represent their values better if they can still have a say in which 2 parties they prefer. I.e, tons of people would have voted Jill Stein in 2016 but were so concerned about Trump winning they instead voted for someone they mostly hated (Hillary). And tons of people would have voted for Gary Johnson if they weren't so scared of Hillary and therefore forced to vote Trump.

[greatcesari]

Rank your choices from 1 to X number of candidates, it's that simple. You don't need to know the algorithm, not that the algorithm is that complicated. The number of first choice votes shouldn't matter anyways. This eliminates the "vote for the lesser evil" idea, and promotes other parties.

RCV ultimately gives voters more strategy and choice, and it challenges people in power.

[jannoottenburghs]

Doesn't this low turnout be the effect of voters feeling that there vote doesn't matter? It is more complex than fptp but still fairly easy. If we are so affraid that people find this difficult, then why are we trusting them with kitchen knives or cars?

[pendragonshall]

The woman in red is genuinely trying to make it more difficult than it is. Vote for the person you want in you’re number one slot. Then for the second person you want, then vote for the third person you want. If you don’t want the second or third person don’t vote for them. Now if your first choice wins yay if not you had a voice in the second or not. This is simple

[alexanderhilliard]

literally the only con is people are too lazy to check three boxes.

[BenjaminFunklin]

it's not just the green party vote, what about these primaries where we had 10 dems running? Rank voting would have helped us so much to get the right person advancing in the primary this November. Even for the republicans, i doubt trump was everyones first choice as a R back in 2016, and then they just got stuck with him

[therdeye]

You are WRONG--the person with the most votes--meaning the majority of votes--does win in the first tier/round. Most candidate, if he does not win with the majority is not representative of the populous. RCV also takes power away from money fed candidates'/incumbents' loyalty to corp $$$ and weakening Congress's dead roots dug deep into Capitol Hill. RCV should be a national voting method.

[dweller]

Ranked choice has existed in Australia since 1918, Ireland since 1922 and New Zealand since 2004. It has worked quite well.
The established parties that court their base slavishly, but have little appeal to others, hate ranked choice voting. Because they want to win based on less than 50% support. To decide elections based on plurality is to foster voter suppression and gerrymandering.
Ranked choice is not such an oddity, but I get it that people are wary of change.
The Dems and Republican Parties have elected their leaders based on types of ranked choice in the past. And for some time - way back in 1860, Lincoln emerged as the Republican candidate due to a ranked choice. Here Seward and Chase were the top 2 candidates but both were considered polarizing figures. Lincoln's strategy was to present himself as the compromise candidate to "...leave them (supporters of Chase and Seward) in a mood to come to us if they shall be compelled to give up their first love".

[spacecaptain]

This is NOT complicated. Why do you think your primary audience struggles with the concept of most favorite to least favorite? People have lots of reasons for not voting, from not being able to vote (paperwork problems, jim crow laws, transportation, work, prison time, etc.) to not believing they will be served by the govt, regardless of which candidate wins. Please show your audience more respect.

[nattalete]

One possible con of ranked choice voting: what is there to stop the democratic or republican parties from having 2 or more candidates?

[jeremyhyde]

Stopping you at 2:45, because it seems your support person is not going to challenge your biased framing of ranked choice balloting.

The reality is that there is no winner until a majority of votes are earned. To say that there is a winner of a first round vote is not accurate, and is in fact purposely misleading; an attempt to monger fear that winning candidates will be systematically cheated by ranked choice voting.

The first choice votes in favor of each candidate are counted. If necessary [if no candidate has earned more than 50% of total votes cast] then the person with the least votes is eliminated from the contest and those votes are reassigned to the voters' second choice candidates.

Stop fear mongering. Stop being dishonest.

[responsumestxlii]

Intelligence and competence should be a barrier to entry at a certain point. If the concept of ranked choice voting (ranking candidates in preferred order) is too confusing, then I would contend that they are too stupid to vote with any sense and therefore should not be voting. That barrier to entry protects the system from anomalous results.

[Turk-tfvp]

"yes the person with the most votes could lose"

[broark]

The possibility of overlap in how we vote in RCV might actually help us depolarize politically.

[PatzyBeats]

bro, its so easy basically the only argument against is "were too dumb to understand it"

[xombified]

I thought the background said KAREN BREAKING THE NEWS

[matteotroni]

I think in the short term ranked choice voting would favor transversal parties like the greens. Nobody would choose them as first but rather than chiosenyour enemy for second the green candidate might seem like a valid alternative for both the dems and reps. Longer term, it should lead to less polarization and more “we are all in this together” thinking. Which is good, really good. Heck, it may even force media to change, like media had forced politics to change in the last 30 years.