Dude! What are you saying? You’re starting to sound like ranked choice is more important than choice. Are you suddenly for minimum requirements to be on the ballot? That’s just a rat’s behind hair from being from minimum voting requirements. Look out, you’re showing symptoms of being a non-democrat. 
1 Like
There are minimum requirements to get on traditional ballots…
1 Like
Really? Do you think that the list of available choices has no bearing on the voting?
To be honest, I’m okay with ranked choice, as long as each ranking requires a re-vote. My brain is incapable of calculating all of the possible permutations from a 10 candidate election.
If I could calculate those permutations, I would probably be living near a race track, working the daily doubles and 'fectas. 
2 Likes
According to @scripta there are apparently not enough to limit the field to less than 30. Unless I misunderstood his complaint.
I dont understand, because [I think, if understanding you correctly] that’s exactly what happens.
Everyone’s top choice is counted. The candidate with the lowest total is eliminated. Everyone’s top choice of the remaining candidates is counted. The candidate with the lowest total is eliminated. Everyone’s top choice of the remaining candidates is counted. Etc, etc, until a candidate gets a majority of the votes (guaranteeing they will never have the lowest vote total in any subsequent rounds).
He’s talking about “candidates” who simply submitted the form so they could see their name on the ballot. There should be some sort of minimum criteria that indicates a viable campaign. Kind of like candidates being allowed to participate in a debate. There’s usually a minimum level of support required, whether it’s measured by poll results, fundraising results, or whatever.
But my point was, there were requirements to get on last week’s Presidential ballot. You couldnt just raise your hand and get yourself added to the list.
2 Likes
Explain please? Are you saying that more people wanted to run for mayor simply because they thought they could beat an incumbent with RCV, but not with the old system? That sounds like a good thing, and now that we know the consequence, we need to make it a bit more difficult. Like a minimum number of petition signatures or something.
Then I’m not explaining myself very well. I’d prefer to blame you for not understanding, but that’s about as likely as me blaming the ball for failing to pick up a six - ten split. Here’s one scenario …
Nov 5, 2024 for Pres
Lenin (or as I like to say, Linen)
Stalin
F D Roosevelt
Johnson
Carter
Biden
HarrisHarris
Washington
Hamilton
Jefferson
AdamsHarris
Monroe
Madison
Jackson
Lincoln
Theodore Roosevelt o
Trump
The guy from Kentucky
The FL gov
The TX gov
The CA gov
The Black candidate
The Asian candidate
The Female candidate
The male Trans candidate
The female Trans candidate
The Muslim candidate
The Aubergine candidate, for grins
Straight up, I’m voting for Washington/Lincoln/Hamilton/Reagan/Madiso/TR, etc.
Now let’s say, we’re on the umpteenth round of “ranking” and we’re down to
LeninHarris
Stalin
Harris
Biden
Cartero
The Black candidate
The Asian candidate
The Female candidate
The male Trans candidate
The female Trans candidate
The Muslim candidate
The Aubergine candidate, maybe no longer for grins
With this choice, I may consider the “name_your_minority” candidate to be the least harmful from the pool. If the pool were different, I might choose someone different. However, I’m not given that opportunity. I’m stuck with guessing. There is no way that I can guess, with any degree of certainty, what the 7th round of ranking may be.
Finally, with all of the “count every vote” idiopathic mantras, might someone please consider the responsibility of voting to be AT LEAST as important as the right to vote.
3 Likes
I do not understand why you think you would have to guess anything. The pool does not change, it is what it is. Your responsibility as a voter is to order the candidates in order of your preference. That’s it. There’s no guessing involved.
I don’t think you understand what the “7th round of ranking” actually means. All it means is that the bottom 6 candidates have been eliminated and their votes were redistributed to other candidates that haven’t been eliminated yet, using the ranked choice of the people who voted for those 6 candidates.
3 Likes
BTW if memory serves, Hamilton never ran for president / head of state, unlike all the other named people on your list
1 Like
they spent most of it on TVs and MSM. Trump had more twitter, podcasts etc I am sure he got paid vs Kamala paid Oprah etc
1 Like
You arent understanding it correctly. There’s 28 options. By the time there’s only those 12 options left, the other 16 have each been eliminated as having the lowest vote total in one of the prior 16 rounds. So you know who you have to chose from as your 17th-best choice, because it’s the 12 you havent already selected in slots 1-16. The only way the pool available for round 17 could be different is if you put different names in slots 1-16, and you know you’ve done that at the time you are filling out the ballot.
If your 1st choice is the Aubergine candidate, and he is still in it for round 7 (hasnt had the lowest total in any or rounds 1-6), the Aubergine candidate is still your vote in round 7.
I think calling it “rounds” of voting does create confusion for some people. Rounds of voting implies there are multiple votes, when it’s only one vote where you allow people to change their vote once it’s clear their preferred choice cant win.
Ranked choice guarantees a majority of people will have voted for the winner, even if the winner was their 3rd or 4th preference.
3 Likes
What a great choice for AG…
1 Like
More on Trumps appointments so far
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/4985802-trump-cabinet-nominees-second-term
4 Likes
Duh? Of course it changes. After the first round the pool is different than it was before the first round. Isn’t that the whole point?
Me? Not understand? Are you related to my wife? 
I’m not sure how much plainer I can state it, but I’ll try …
I can confidently rank the first few candidates. However, at some point, I won’t know the available pool of candidates. I know they will be some of the original pool, but I will not know the actual pool. Thus, I cannot know which candidates, of that pool, are the least harmful.
Sadly, but he should have. Our country would be better for it. Instead, a one-term VP killed him in an illegal duel.
2 Likes
Uh, I might add a qualifier …
Democrats had a huge advantage … in money.
1 Like
Assuming no candidate received a majority, the least popular candidate is eliminated, and the ballots of the people who selected the least popular candidate as their 1st choice are re-calculated – their votes are now distributed to their 2nd choice (everyone else’s votes remain the same). If no candidate receives a majority still, then the process is repeated – the second least popular candidate is eliminated, and the ballots that were counted towards that second least popular candidate move on to the next ranked choice, which could now be 2nd or 3rd choice on those ballots, depending on how each voter ranked their choices.
I’m sure there are examples online that would explain this better, if you only cared enough to look. Here are a few:
That pool is everyone except the first few that you confidently ranked. If the ones you ranked are popular enough, then you don’t need to worry about the rest, since they’re not likely to win and your first few would be enough. But if you are worried about the rest because your first few are not as popular as you think, then it’s your responsibility as a voter to rank them. But you don’t have to do that, so if you don’t, then the result would be the same as you not voting once your first few favorites are eliminated.
2 Likes
And I didn’t explain my limitations correctly. I cannot predict all of the possible permutations beyond round four or five, depending on the number of candidates. That’s why I no longer play chess or build databases. I can’t wrap my head around the big picture.
1 Like