Steve Kornacki Breaks Down Numbers In NYC primary | MSNBC

NBC News' National Political Correspondent Steve Kornacki joins Morning Joe to break down the latest numbers in the Democratic primary for New York City mayor.

About: MSNBC is the premier destination for in-depth analysis of daily headlines, insightful political commentary and informed perspectives. Reaching more than 95 million households worldwide, MSNBC offers a full schedule of live news coverage, political opinions and award-winning documentary programming -- 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter: MSNBC.com/NewslettersYouTube

Steve Kornacki Breaks Down Numbers In NYC primary | MSNBC

[Who-vtoh]

Ranked choice voting is simply better. It's not perfect, but no election system is.

[imremonzon]

So the Democratic Primary is almost over, which in NYC is called 'the election'.

[teardowndan]

Calling ranked-choice voting complicated is an insult to intelligence. It is simpler, cheaper, faster and more reliable than having run-off elections.

[julieleawong]

NOBODY BECOMES A MILLIONAIRE OR A BILLIONAIRE BY WORKING FOR OTHERS AND DEPENDING ON THEM, GOOD INVESTMENT BRING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND CONSISTENCY BRING BILLIONS, THE MARKET IS ALL ABOUT BTC AT THE MOMENT NOW.

[alonberkman]

Should that noted that Yang and Garcia formed a pact two days before the election, so many of Yang's 12 percent support could ultimately go to her. Not enough to put her over the top, but an advantage nonetheless

[xrotor]

Why does he keep saying it is
extremely complicated Ranked Choice voting seems totally straight forward Repeatedly calling it "extremely complicated" seems to undermine the process.

[alm]

Actually, ranked choice voting isn't all that complicated. It's been working really well in the Twin Cities for years. It's great for voters because you get to vote 1st for who you really want instead of who you think will win. If you're candidate loses, you know that your second choice will then count. If you don't like the system, you have the option of voting for only your favorite candidate (I rarely choose more than three). It's true that a candidate can come from behind when more 2nd and 3rd choice votes are added to their tally, but in the end the most overall popular candidates will rise to the top. Ranked choice voting is only complicated for the media because it's a PITA for those looking for instant results.

[TVFILMBUFF]

Every time an American media outlet describes the rank choice vote they always harp on about how complicated it is.
It's not.... but Americans seem to be so impressionable by the media, they need to stop saying it. My country uses this for our state and federal elections. We can get most of the results out by the end of the night. Why they are saying its going to take a week is insane.

[mksd]

The Aussies call that style of counting votes ‘preferential’, and it is much better than ours. They use it for all elections. It means voters do not elect someone the majority of them do NOT want… in other words they do NOT elect someone they dislike or distrust the most. The election chooses the candidate that has the ‘highest’ level of support. Aussies also have mandatory voting… I feel is a good thing too; is only a small fine if you don’t vote, but it means you get the most accurate decisions with big turnouts.

[parslowpongbert]

Surely once the mail in ballots come in trump can incite another insurrection, claiming “where did all these votes come from?”

[joshgarland]

Love me some Steve Kornacki in the morning

[benwalter]

I think this should be the way we should vote for all elections. Get rid of the electoral college and just use the popular vote. Much easier and smarter than the current system and way of doing things. There would be less chances of an error if we switch systems and our way.

[LittleB]

lol Most of the comments here are about how the system is NOT complicated

[prakharisfine]

I love the fact that the democratic primary is basically the general election here in nyc. Stay blessed NYC.

[jameswilliamsjunior]

it's not that complicated. but they'll keep saying it I'm sure

[ichabodnoodle]

“ranked choice voting” is not complicated - Hare Clark is complicated. Modified d’Hont is complicated. but Preferential is pretty simple and obvious and widely used in actual democracies.
it will be interesting to see the Yang preferences flow
does anybody know if any of the candidates were directing preferences?
as you get more used to the system, that strategy and those deals become more and more important

[iampk]

I'm surprised to see Yang come in fourth here. Could this be because of some anti-Asian sentiment?

[nowshipping]

Yang is a total disappointment. That’s why he ended up where he did.

[joelrunyan]

A retired cop is the last person who should be mayor

[davidengel]

We have had this system in Australia, where it’s called preferential voting, at federal level for our House of Representatives since 1925. We’ve managed just fine. It’s not complicated.

We also have mandatory voting, an independent electoral commission to define electoral boundaries and otherwise regulate elections, and voting on Saturdays, along with absentee voting, postal ballots, etc. All this means that virtually everyone votes and gerrymandering is now virtually impossible, and that we end up with the least unpopular government among the options on offer.

We still suffer from having the same unrepresentative system as the US when it comes to our Senate, which is elected using a modified version of preferential voting, and in which the number of senators for each state is the same regardless of population. The conservative parties have also legislated easier means for undisclosed private political donations. And like Americans, we suffer dreadfully from the poisonous presence of Rupert Murdoch in our body politic.

All this means that our federal and state parliaments still have their fair share of idiots (especially in the Senate), including some people who would fit right into the contemporary GOP. Our current government, for example, is an embarrassment in many ways, especially on energy policy. Few established democracies in the world could have as dreadful a deputy prime minister as the one we’ve just had reimposed on us. We are proof that no electoral system, no matter how good, always produces good, rational outcomes.

But preferential voting and the other elements of our system at least virtually guarantee that our chances of being governed by a corrupt, moronic psychopath are virtually nil, despite Rupert’s best efforts to ensure otherwise.