Straw man argument. Actually I have not stated that “it makes my candidate not win.”
You have not addressed at all my point that RCV is implemented almost exclusively in leftist areas. When there is an election to adopt it, the funding behind the pro-RCV side is almost exclusively from the left. This is good evidence that the left thinks it gives them an advantage.
I have not addressed abominations like Georgia’s system or the California jungle primary, but that does not mean I think they are a good idea.
Budget woes in CA and IL, and how the current Democrats in charge plan even higher taxes to get the rest of the rich to leave. 5% wealth tax for billionaires in CA proposed - more like the “all billionaires out of CA” act.
It’s only evidence as much as your adament opposition is evidence you think the traditional system gives your side an advantage. Voting systems arent fair based on the results, it’s based on the methodology used regardless of the results.
All RCV does is allow the candidate with majority support, even if not all voter’s first choice, to win. When bad candidates win, as you have often complained about, it’s because voters supported a bad candidate. There isnt anything more to it than that.
A traditional system either allows multiple candidates to split the vote and lets the winner sneak in with less than majority support, or it encourages backroom deals where choices are made between candidates instead of by the voters.
Voting systems are not a mathematical exercise that appeals to your sense of Mathematical rigor. They are fair if the voters understand the process so their vote is a fair indication of their preference for a position. Voters have a hard enough time selecting one candidate that they want to represent them. Having to rank the candidates assumes that the voters have more knowledge of the candidates than they actually have. As a result, RCV often leads to perverse results that the voters have to reverse with recall elections.
Another victory for common sense
With partial results reported, Milei’s La Libertad Avanza had increased its seats in the Chamber of Deputies to at least 64 from 37 and gained at least six seats in the Argentine Senate.
“BIG WIN in Argentina for Javier Milei, a wonderful Trump Endorsed Candidate! He’s making us all look good,” Trump added on Truth Social. “Congratulations Javier!”
The Trump administration had bet big on Milei’s hardcore libertarian leadership in Argentina, offering Buenos Aires a $20 billion currency swap earlier this month — with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent suggesting the amount could grow to $40 billion by leaning on private sector assistance.
Not at all. They use the same information they used to make their first choice, to make their second choice. And there is nothing stopping them from voting all or nothing with only a first choice.
I believe we’ve been through this before. The results are not “perverse”, the candidate with the most support wins. The only thing recall elections prove is that too many voters have gotten bamboozled by pie-in-the-sky campaign promises when casting their votes - something that holds true with any voting system.
You provide no evidence for your claims about ranked choice voting. Here’s some hard evidence about its problems
States That Have Banned Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV)
As of October 2025, 17 states have enacted statewide bans on ranked-choice voting (also known as instant-runoff voting), prohibiting its use in both state and local elections unless grandfathered in limited cases. These bans have primarily occurred in Republican-led states since 2022, often citing concerns over voter confusion, election delays, and deviations from traditional “one person, one vote” systems. Below is a list of these states, grouped by year of enactment for context:
| Year | States |
|---|---|
| 2022 | Florida, Tennessee |
| 2023 | Idaho, Montana, South Dakota |
| 2024 | Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma |
| 2025 | Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming |
That isnt evidence, those are merely complaints. Claims that can come up in any election. And claims that can easily be resolved.
The only evidence you’ve provided is “some people dont like change”, “we should be able to win without winning over a majority of voters”, and “voters are stupid”.
I’ve provided all the “evidence” necessary - RCV lets voters decide who the support consolidates behind, instead of that consolidation being a backroom deal between candidates and political elders. THAT is the reality behind most of the objections and anti-propoganda.
LOL. Those are “complaints” enacted by the elected, with legitimate voting systems, representatives of the people of the states. Your posts are just spin and rhetoric. In the real world of enacted voting systems, RCV is losing.
As another example, and more evidence, the people of Alaska will try once again to repeal their abomination of a voting system
The real world of agendas and conjecture doesnt determine the validity of a voting system.
As has been said repeatedly, RCV is literally a primary and general election rolled into one ballot being cast. That is all it is. It isnt the mystical voodoo you seem to think it is.
Biden era pardons at risk
To be sure, the report represents the views of the Republicans on the Oversight Committee. That panel’s ranking Democrat, Rep. Robert Garcia, trashed the investigation as a partisan obsession. But members of Biden’s party should be wary of parroting that spin. The House Republicans, for the most part, have the goods, and it’s not pretty.
The report found that there was no documentation memorializing a meeting where Biden himself allegedly authorized those pardons. What’s more, Biden’s chief of staff, Jeff Zients, authorized that the pardons themselves be signed by an autopen. At no point did Zients or Po check with the president whether he actually agreed to the pardons he did not literally sign.
There is no contemporaneous record that proves the president verbally authorized the pardons. And they were not signed by the president’s hand, but rather an autopen. The fact that the autopen was authorized to sign the pardons is itself a potential violation of the Constitution, which grants the pardon power to the president himself, not his senior advisers.
Of course it does. The opinion of the voters about the validity of an election is crucial to the functioning of a democracy. Otherwise, the losing side, such as the Democrats in 2024, will not accept the validity of the election.
Ranked choice voting is a weird mathematical abstraction that does not work in real life elections.
And stating that only shows how you are intentionally obfuscating the facts. The only math involved is adding up the votes, just like in any traditional election. If no one gets majority support, you delete the lowest candidate as an option, then add up those same votes again.
The only thing that doesnt work in a valid election is party leaders telling voters the one candidate they can choose from if they want to support the party (or, as is recently, if they want to vote against another party). And that’s a function of a traditional system, RCV lets the voters decide where to consolidate their support.
I repeat, this is a weird mathematical abstraction. Compare that with a traditional system where each voter selects one candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins. Easy for the voter to understand, easier to count the votes, and harder for sore losers to dispute.
I think the left likes RCV because it is easier to bamboozle the voters into supporting their unpopular positions. Your support of the system makes me think that you are also of the left persuasion.
One of the [often 2] candidates listed. After the options have been narrowed by political horsetrading and backroom deals. Elections arent won in the voting, they’re won in the advance polling that predicts who has the best chance to defeat “the other guy” and drives those backroom deals.
How so? Convincing voters to vote against Republicans/Trump produces the same result regardless of the voting system being used, either they are bamboozled or they arent. What RCV allows is for those voters to first support their desired candidate, and not be limited to the party-endorsed candidate. In a traditional system, supporting their desired candidate instead of the endorsed candidate means splitting the party vote and allowing the “bad” opponent to win. Traditional systems require defensive voting - voting against the person you do not want to win rather than for the person you want to win. RCV allows for both.
You like to cite the “perverse” Alaskan results, where the Republican was ahead after the initial voting, but lost after the 3rd option was eliminated. The only difference in a traditional election would be that 3rd option would’ve been deleted before votes were cast, and someone other than the voters would’ve decided who support consolidated behind.
Except the Constitution says nothing about how the pardons are to be executed:
That’s all it says. Don’t even know why they’ve bothered signing them at all, it seems like they could just do it by proclamation. Perhaps the signed paper is the means to make the proclamation, especially when there are hundreds or thousands of them. THEFP is showing their true colors in this one. And the DOJ is digging a hole for themselves, because the next President, if we get one, will proclaim Trump’s pardons illegal and revert them.
The point of the article was that the people who signed the pardon paperwork didn’t have evidence that Biden had actually approved them. I think a lot of the evidence coming out of the post-Biden books continues to make it unclear who was actually running the country during the last 1-2 years of his term, given his mental failings. The nation didn’t elect Dr. Jill or Hunter to sit in on presidential meetings, like they were at the end. If he was incompetent to serve, that’s what the 25th amendment is for, and we could have had a preview of President Kamala.
That is incorrect. Voters are so confused by the elaborate ballot that they either do not vote or only vote for their first choice as they would in a conventional election. The left exploits this by running stalking horse candidates to confuse the voters and dilute the conservative vote.
RCV is on the (non RCV) ballot in Michigan this fall. The county clerks in the state unanimously oppose the bill.
The issue is that there’s no indication there was even a proclamation by Biden. The whole signing thing is just another step that could be proof he affirmatively approved the pardons, but alas the autopen….