This legislation would require outlawing primaries altogether. Both the primary and general is for one office, and allows you to cast two votes for two different candidates. The entire concept of a primary is to allow people to have more than one vote in an election - you can vote for one person from a wide slate of candidates in the primary, and then cast another vote from a narrowed slate in the general.
All ranked choice does is combine the primary process and general election into one ballot.
This leads to confusion by the voters and perverse results like those in California that I have referenced that led to recalls of RCV selected candidates. Iirc you claim that a voting system cannot be judged by whether it leads to discovering the will of the voters.
And we’ve told you that the recalls had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that they were elected using RCV. It’s a narrative being pushed by special interest groups to convince people like you that there’s something wrong with RCV, but it is a lie.
It only leads to confusion when you explain it as “this is very confusing”. It’s actually very simple, if you’d actually focus on how it works.
And no, the results are not perverse. And you are reaching very very very far for the slightest string to pull by trying to equate recalling officials as some sort of evidence against ranked choice. If voters regret their decision, they’re going to regret their decision regardless of which voting method had been used.
Usually we agree on this stuff. But you are being very obtuse about this.
“We’ve only done this once before, and the system elected the most moderate candidate [Eric Adams],” said Loeser, who previously served as the press secretary to former mayor Michael Bloomberg.
Not so this time around.
“All the polls from every side indicate that Cuomo is likely to get to 50 percent in the first two or three rounds,” he said. “But ranked-choice voting makes it easier for voters who have an agenda to stop Cuomo.” Loeser says it may “very well be that the system benefits Mamdani [the socialist]”.
There’s a reason that support for ranked choice voting is overwhelmingly from the left. The left’s voters are organized and are willing to compromise to elect their candidates. They are a minority, but RCV gives them a chance to elect their candidates.
RCV supporters claim there’s a mathematical reason for this but experience shows that this is wrong. RCV elects leftists preferentially, and after the voters experience their radical policies, many of them are recalled or not re-elected.
Bullcrap. If he’s likely to get 50 percent the first round, it’ll be over regardless of the system used. There wont even be any “first two or three rounds”.
Like with any election using any voting system, if you have an agenda to stop someone, you simply dont vote for them. You either have enough voters with the same agenda to be successful, or you dont and he’s elected despite your efforts. Ranked choice simply cannot manufacture a loss for a candidate with a majority support. Period.
No, Onenote, this isnt proof of anything. Except proof that you continue to be bamboozled by crap propaganda.
No, it elects the candidate a majority of the voters prefer. Yes, even liberals can have buyer’s remorse after electing extremists.
By it’s very structure, no one can win a RCV election without getting a majority of the votes. Even two candidates splitting the opposition support will not create a back door victory, unlike how it can in a traditional election.
That’s why he’s loosing his lead. When 2 minority voter blocks join forces, they have much less of a minority. When there is only one candidate to choose from, they’re going to unite just the same.
As said repeatedly, what TRADITIONAL voting would allow is for the opposing votes to be split, and allow Cuomo to backdoor his way to victory against the will of a majority of voters.
And yet again, blame the stupid NYC voters, not the voting system.
RCV allows the fractious left to combine to defeat the more mainstream candidate. In a traditional voting system, the left would have to agree on a single candidate. Much harder than with RCV. It is not the “stupid” voters. It’s the system.
By “mainstream” you mean middle-of-the-road politically? The purpose of elections is, and should be, to select the most popular candidate, not the most mainstream candidate.
The most popular candidate is not always the best person for the job, but that’s irrelevant.
