The 2022 election politics

623

How in the world do you reach that conclusion?!?!?!? No matter what system used, their chosen candidate wouldnt have won. If you only rank one candidate, it’s no different than casting a traditional vote, either your guy wins or he doesnt. The only way you can disadvantage your chosen candidate is if you simply do not vote for them - which is something that voters actually are forced to do way too often in our traditional system.

And your response has absolutely nothing to do with your claim that it allows for cheating.

If you dont have a second choice, then once your candidate is eliminated you have no more role in the final outcome. That isnt a problem or a flaw, it’s the voter’s choice if they want to go all in on one candidate, as opposed to a traditional election where everyone is forced to go all in on one candidate.

Here’s the difference - in 2024, lots of people are going to vote for Trump because they have no choice, voting for another Republican will only split the vote and allow the Democrats to keep the White House. With ranked choice, a voter can say they like DeSantis and hope he wins, but if he doesnt they’d still prefer Trump over Biden. That’s it. That is the entire difference. (of course, this is hypothetical since we dont know where the Republican nomination will go. The names are interchangable, so dont make that the focus of your reply.)

No, because unless that third party has critical mass, everyone knows that a vote for that candidate is only splitting the support for one of the major candidates, allowing the opposition candidate to win instead. It’s a throw-away vote. The current system does the exact opposite of what you are claiming, it supresses third parties, while ranked choice actually does what you are claiming. Reality only confirms this, as even “independent” candidates have to affiliate with one of the two major parties to stand a chance at being elected.

Again, saying it’s so doesnt make it so. I laid out rather concisely how it is pretty simple. Unless you are intentionally trying to make it seem otherwise. How is it complex? Tabulating the final tally takes a bit more effort, but that has nothing to do with the voter.

It almost sounds like you seem to think that by a “second round”, the totals are re-tallied using everyone’s second choice. Which isnt correct. The candidate with the least votes is eliminated, and only those who voted for that person have their second choice added to the totals of everyone else’s first choice. Regardless, your arguments make it clear you either dont understand the ranked choice process, or you havent thought through the effects and are just blindly buying into the propaganda.

2 Likes
624

To clarify the discussion let’s give a simple numerical example. Suppose you have four candidates, two Democrats, d1 and d2, and two Republicans, r1 and r2. Suppose in the first round d1 gets 25% d2 gets 24% r1 gets 26% and r2 gets 25%. No one wins the majority so we go to the second round.

The Republicans voted on election day at the polling place and they were in a hurry after standing in line for hours due to voting machine malfunctions and did not vote for more than one choice.

The Democrats’ ballots were harvested by helpful SEIU members who made sure that each ballot had a democrat second choice.

So on the second round, the d1 would have 49% and Republicans would remain the same. The results would not change in future rounds so d1 would win.

Tell me that is not a perverse result.

Edit. You may say that is the Republicans’ fault but that is a built-in feature of rank choice voting. We have to take into account human foibles and use systems that are simple and less prone to failure.

With the current system r1 and d1 would advance to the general election ballot and the voters could then make a simple informed decision.

625

Its rather funny how you instead expect these Republicans who are in too big of a hurry to mark two names on one ballot, to instead show up twice to go through the process of filling out two separate ballots on two separate days (and somehow be more informed, to boot). History says it is pretty clear most simply dont show up for the primaries, at which point r1 and d1 are being shoved down their throats by power brokers and special interests. And you then have to vote for the chosen candidate, or else the other side will win. Resulting in an even more perverse result on all sides, because relatively few voters are truly casting their informed vote (instead, they’re casting the vote they were forced to cast).

It’s no coincident that you labeled the percentages as you did - you fully intended to imply r1 would’ve won in a traditional election, which is the only reason you think the result is perverse. That’s not how it works, one result does not beget the other. There are tons of equally perverse possibilities in a traditional election, once of which I laid out in detail. If you are going to fearmonger, lets be sure to rally the fear fairly in all regards and not just to favor one side.

A ranked choice election allows everyone the freedom to cast their informed vote as they wish. Our current system dictates and restricts how much freedom it wants to give (or not give) each voter to vote as they wish, no matter how informed they are.

2 Likes
626

Here in California, we have a jungle primary system where every candidate for an office office is thrown into one long list for the primary. Fortunately we have a primary and general election so I just have to vote for one candidate in each election.

Even though I am a well-informed voter I have no idea who most of the candidates on the list are. If you ask me to rank the candidates down to 10 levels in one election as was required in Oakland I would have no idea how to do it.

I think that is the same for almost all voters. Rank choice voting assumes perfect knowledge on the part of the voters. This is a fairy tale assumption. It is not correct and leads to worse candidates being elected than the current system as experience has shown. Two examples are Soros district attorneys Chesa Boudin and George Gascon in San Francisco and Los Angeles

2 Likes
627

Except it was not required. If you have no preference beyond the first 2 or 3, then you dont list any more. The “10 rounds” were to eliminate candidates, your second choice is only relevant if your first choice is one of those who are eliminated. And your third choice is only relevant if your first and second choices are eliminated.

Your jungle primary system is the perverse system - Democrats arent even the ones choosing the Democrat candidate they’ll have to vote for in the general election.

628

Yes it is required if I want my vote to count. If I do not rank every candidate and my choices are “eliminated” then I have no vote in who gets selected to be the officeholder. I am losing my vote. That is unconstitutional under “one man one vote”.

Edit. I am not defending the jungle primary I am just giving it as an example of how tinkering with the traditional system can lead to perverse results. The Democrats and Schwarzenegger deliberately put it in to try to get an advantage.

And it works. Here in my far left Silicon Valley district almost all offices have two democrats opposing each other in the general election.

You may say that is what the majority wants but the constitution is in place to protect minorities from tyranny of the majority. With no Republican candidates there’s no chance for us to raise money and build an organization that may be able to win elections in the future

1 Like
629

And that is no different than what we have now. You are still welcome to go all-in on a single candidate in a ranked choice system, just like you do with the traditional system. What you describe is exactly why the ranked choice is more fair; it allows you to support third option candidates without “losing” your vote like you do in a traditional system.

And a ranked choice election is the perfect remedy to that situation. If, and only if (and this is where Alaska got it wrong), the free-for-all primary was just rolled into the ranked choice election instead of being held separately. You go into the election with 20 candidates and use ranked choice to narrow the field on the way to determining the winner, you dont narrow it in advance of the election.

630

Apparently you have some idea of what a ranked choice voting (RCV) system is but that is not what is necessarily implemented. You need to specify more precisely what you mean by an RCV system.

You are still welcome to go all-in on a single candidate in a ranked choice voting system, just like you do with the traditional system.

How do I do that with your definition of a RCV system? Suppose I want to make my one candidate be my choice for every round. How can I indicate that on my ballot in a case like Oakland where there were apparently 10 candidates? What would the ballot look like?

Edit. In the California jungle primary it is quite common to have 20-30 candidates for a single office. What would an RCV ballot look like in this case?

631

You list one name. Either that person wins or they dont. Just like now. That’s not my definition, that is how it works.

This is what you seem to be misunderstanding. Each “round” isnt a new vote. Each “round” is just eliminating the lowest-vote total, and moving to the next choice for those who had voted for that now-eliminated candidate. In the second round (and all proceding rounds), anyone who first choice is a candidate that is still alive is still voting for that candidate. The number you rank on your ballot has nothing to do with the number of rounds (unless you happen to keep picking the candidate with the lowest vote total). Each round is just the next step in a de facto primary to whittle the field down to the top two candidates.

Your second choice only comes into play when your first choice is eliminated. And if you’ve only selected one name and that candidate is eliminated, your vote isnt thrown away or being denied, your guy simply lost like any time you vote for a candidate who loses.

You would list your first choice from those 30 candidates as your first choice, your second choice from those 30 candidates as your second choice, etc. I guess conceivably you could rank all 30 of them if you really wanted to, but technical limitations could be set to a maximum of 8 or 10 and not have any material effect on the outcome (unless you were intentionally trying to vote for all the longshots).

632

You also write

And a ranked choice election is the perfect remedy to that situation. If, and only if (and this is where Alaska got it wrong), the free-for-all primary was just rolled into the ranked choice election instead of being held separately.

So yes, you do have a definition of what you claim to be a “true” RCV system. You need to provide a detailed description so we know what you are talking about.

Here’s a good argument against RCV made during the Maine election

If we want decisions guaranteed to be made by a majority, then a runoff is a better idea, because it allows voters to make a clear choice rather than the muddled, computer-run outcome of ranked-choice voting.[[11]]

Edit. If you want an example of how complex RCV is look at the example in the ballotpedia article for choice among five desserts. You basically have to make entries into a square matrix whose side is equal to the number of candidates. Imagine this with 10 or even 20 candidates. I think that is the reason the Alaska initiative went to the two-step system.

633

No, the ranked choice vote system is what it is. All I was comenting on is artificially curtailing the options available to be ranked. Which you agree with - Democrat verses Democrat isn’t a fair vote in any system.

As I’ve said, it’s only complex if you are intentionally trying to make it complex. In reality, you list your favorite option. Then you select your second favorite out of the remaining options. Then you select your third favorite out of the remaining options. It isn’t complicated.

Your jungle primary has 30 candidates as it is. It already requires a matrix who’s side is equal to the number of candidates.

Of course, because voters too busy or lazy to chose a second choice on a ballot they’re already filling out (your primary argument as to why it’s an unfair system) will find it far more convenient to show up for an extra election instead…

What this ignores is that the RCV system precludes a runoff because it consolidates all votes with the top two choices by design, which is what a runoff is designed to do. Besides, very few places require a majority to win in the current system, so this supposed flaw with RCV isn’t even applicable.

How about you respond to the many points I’ve made - most notably about your apparent misunderstanding of how RCV works - instead of quoting random opinions designed to bias you rather than give an objective evaluation (“muddled computer-run outcome”? Seriously?).

1 Like
634

Before I can respond, you first have to tell us what an RCV is. You still refuse to define it although you tell us that the Alaska system is not an RCV. Is the Maine system an RCV? Tell us why in detail.

RCV certainly is a computer-muddled system that voters do not understand. You keep saying it is not complicated and then you give a long list of steps that voters have to do. At each step, if the voter makes a mistake his ballot is invalidated. Even with the current system, a fairly large percentage of voters make two selections when only one is allowed and invalidate their ballot. Imagine filling out a 10 or 20 step list. What if the voter makes duplicate selections down ballot?

Your argument consists of repeating that RCV is fairer than our current system. I do not buy that.

635

I told you no such thing. And rather than refuse, I did specifically address your question.

Yeah, ok. In reality, I showed how even 6 year olds can grasp it, and even default to using it. I can recall taking elementary school tests that used the same basic concept. You are the only one insisting on “a complicated 20 step list”, simply because you dont want to understand it. In the main example, the person you wanted to win didnt, and blaming it on unfair complexity is much easier than understanding that they simply lost.

I’ve repeatedly explained why that is. Which you’ve refuted with questions like “but what if I want to vote for the same person in round two?”, which is utterly nonsensical. That isnt a differing opinion, that’s a fundamental misunderstanding.

Over the years we have agreed on nearly everything, and what we havent has been over different degrees of agreement. I cant understand why you are so hellbent on avoiding the same reasoning you’ve [sometimes] elegantly used on other issues instead of applying it to this issue as well.

636

Yes, we do disagree on RCV. I have researched it and I do not like what I find. I think it is too complex for voters to understand and too easy for bad actors to game and cheat. What you seem to think is a positive attribute, making it easier for third parties, I think is a strong negative that leads to lack of clarity for voters. As an example, consider the chaos in Israel with their multi party system.

Here in the USA there is a strong distinction between the two parties. The Democrats are able to win despite their crazy unpopular ideas because the left-wing media are able to hide their views from the voters. RCV would make it even easier to hide the difference.

1 Like
637

There’s also one similarity - a large swaith of the middle want to get rid of both parties, but cant since our election system doesnt allow them to vote for anyone but a chosen establishment candidate.

638

Fetterman raises eyebrows with choppy opening statement in Senate return: 'Frightening’ (msn.com)

This keeps getting better - after denying health concerns following a mid-campaign stroke, then immediately spending more of his first Senate term in the hospital than on Capital Hill, this guy also managed to be awarded the chair of a Senate committee?!?! And then he shows up for work in shorts and a hoodie? I’m all for being casual, but when you already have a severe image problem, you generally try to avoid compounding it even further.

1 Like
639

California is coming to the rest of the country. Defeating Su would help but the regime will just appoint another radical.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/feinstein-s-absence-imperils-biden-s-labor-secretary-pick-a-fellow-californian/ar-AA1a1COF

The three senators who could determine Su’s fate are Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., Jon Tester, D-Mont., and Kyrsten Sinema, I-Ariz. All three are up for re-election in 2024, and face tough races that could determine the majority in the Senate.

3 Likes
640

Isn’t her absence still shorter than “I need my pills now” Fetterman?

641

Who can tell when Fetterman is absent? I guess you can hear the stammering and grunting when he’s there.

1 Like
642

Vote scheduled this afternoon 4/26/23

Edit. 217 - 215 On to the Senate

Edit.

Edit.

2 Likes