You can think that. But every point you’ve made has been addressed, to which you’ve had no counterpoint to offer besides “It’s just terrible!” No one is lying about anything.
I’ve been clear that I agree RCV has it’s issues, namely it makes the election about voting against a candidate rather than voting for a candidate. But you’ve given other reasons why it’s bad, reasons that are tenuous at best.
they’re easy to target, will pay up vs big guys have lawyers.
I doubt it. My guess is IRS targets returns that get red-flagged, perhaps for people who are likely underreporting their taxable income.
It does none of that. It’s apparent from your post that you do not understand it. I already tried to explain it in the simplest terms. Very simply, RCV takes multiple rounds of voting to eliminate the least-liked candidates and select the most-liked one, but it does all of that in a single round instead of multiple voting rounds. The exact same feat can be accomplished using multiple rounds, except in that case the voters would be allowed to change their mind after their votes were already cast the first time. RCV doesn’t allow you to change your mind, you must select your order of preference on the first try without regard for how everyone else is voting. That’s it, nothing else to it.
Are you saying that it’s “illegitimate” to hold multiple rounds of voting to determine the winner? Why? Or is some other part of this is “illegitimate”?
it’s only “illegitimate” when my candidate loses 
Good news from Alaska
Come on, Robert, tell us what you really think:
Well, he did make his campaign about speaking the truth moreso than his rivals, and that part seems right on.
Speaking of him leaving, here was one poll for the votes before and after:
National General Election Poll:
Harris: 46%
Trump: 44%
Kennedy: 9%
But without RFK:
Trump: 51%
Harris: 49%
Maybe the Democrats shouldn’t have suppressed his campaign so much - they should like the odds better with him in the race as a 3rd party to draw more votes from Trump than Harris.
I could see the arguments for the first two, but the last four apply just as much to the GOP.
correct, and the only 3rd party alternative just sold out for a cabinet position. We don’t have any good choices. lesser evil is still evil!
Funny RFK Jr. forgot to mention he knocked at both doors trying to secure a senior government position in exchange for his endorsement. He said the magic words to open Trump’s door, while the dems weren’t desperate enough to embrace this grifter.
Interesting, I didn’t see that in MSM or online. They should have taken him on the offer. The Dems are being too confident, just like Hilary in 2016!
He will be on the ballot in non-swing states. It will be interesting to see if people vote for him there. We need a good third-party option to break the duopoly
Here’s RFK’s voter preferences in swing states
And some analysis of swing state status and issues (2nd half of the article)
We most certainly do, but it’s practically impossible without ranked-choice voting.
There are a few articles, including this one…
I remember when Perot was a candidate couple of times in the 90’s. No ranked choice then. You can have a 3rd party without ranked choice.
Exactly. Right now, a vote for a third party candidate is often perceived as (and effectively is) a vote for the candidate you dont want to win. For a third party candidate to get serious traction, voters need to know that they can support both that person and their preferred “party” candidate, rather than split that support so that both of them loose.
And Perot didnt come anywhere close to winning anything. There was no reasonable chance of him winning a single electoral college vote, let alone winning the election.
So? There is only one winner in an election. He did have a reasonable following early on, though, before he began to talk nonsense and became late night joke material.
Not really.
Even more good news from Alaska. Now it is a traditional election where the candidate with the most votes wins. Hopefully the voters will repeal the arcane nonsense of ranked choice, although you can be sure that Murk and other Democrats lite will pour money against repeal.
Ranked choice voting is a Democrat’s dream, particularly in red states, where they can siphon off GOP candidates who are running against one another. It’s a horribly flawed system that favors Democrats, so it’s good to see someone take a stand against it.
In what may be a surprise blow to Democrats’ chances of holding a key red state seat in the U.S. House, Alaska Lt. Gov. Nancy Dahlstrom announced Friday she is suspending her campaign for Congress.
That leaves a two candidate race between the incumbent Democrat Peltola and Republican Nick Begich.
Edit. My last statement is wrong. Under Alaska’s weird system if a candidate drops off the ballot, the candidate with the next most votes in the primary goes to the 4 candidates general.
Under state law, if one of top four candidates in the primary dies, withdraws or is disqualified within 64 days of the general election, the fifth-place finisher moves on to the general election ballot. Friday marked 74 days until the Nov. 5 general election.
If early results hold, the other two candidates to advance to the general election would be little-known Republican Matthew Salisbury and Alaska Independence Party candidate John Wayne Howe, who were each receiving less than 1% of of the vote.
I have been donating to the Stein campaign and will send them some more $