Why blame “software” for something that can be done by hand with identical results?
Do you agree that the final result does not include their vote IF, AND ONLY IF their one selection was the candidate that received the fewest number of votes in the first round? Or do you believe something different?
This is gibberish. Of course the first choice is a candidate. otherwise he would not be on the ballot. He filled out the paperwork and did all the other requirements to get on the ballot. Please explain how he is not a candidate.
Ranked choice voting is undoubtedly a complex process. The county clerks who are in charge of counting the vote in Michigan came out unanimously against it citing its complexity for voters and for the vote counting process.
The Michigan Association of County Clerks unanimously voted to oppose a ballot measure seeking to establish ranked choice voting in Michigan, which is being put forth by Rank MI Vote for potential inclusion in the 2026 election.
The clerks cited concerns about timeliness of the certification of elections, confusion by voters and delays to any recounts or audits in their opposition to the measure.
“Do you agree that the final result does not include their vote IF, AND ONLY IF their one selection was the candidate that received the fewest number of votes in the first round?”
I am not familiar with all the variants in the implementation of RCV so that might be true for some. So what? @Glitch99 categorically said that the winner of RCV received the majority of the vote. Do you agree that the vote of people whose ballots are “exhausted” is not included in the final result so it is not the majority?
The same way there are 15 presidential candidates during primary season, yet only one in November. That is what RCV “rounds” are, candidates losing in a de facto primary until one receives majority support over the other remaining candidates.
Good luck NYC
One small step towards ending the gerontocracy.
You are misusing the term “candidate” to try to demystify the strange abstract process used to come out with the final selection in ranked choice voting.
You are trying to misuse the term “candidate” to create the illusion of a strange abstract process.
You either have a bunch of candidate who slowly decide to drop out before voters get a say, or you have a bunch of candidates that the voters decide to drop one by one due to a lack of support on the ballots cast. As has been said repeatedly over the years, RCV is merely a primary and general election using one single ballot. That’s it, that is all it is.
This is no illusion. 17 states have banned RCV because it is a strange process not understandable to the voters. And difficult and opaque for the voting system to count. A couple of posts back I presented a link to an article about all the county clerks in Michigan coming out against RCV.
The only places that use RCV are leftist dominated. You have never explained to me the reason for this.
It has been banned because it lessons the influence of the major political parties and reduces the stranglehold incumbents have on elected positions. Dont buy into the propaganda trying to sell you otherwise, it’s just smoke and mirrors.
What proof do you have of your statement? Why is it that left leaning areas Want RCV but right leaning areas do not?
From everything I have read, there is only one implementation of RCV everywhere – you select your preferences in order from most favorite to least favorite. That’s it. If there are 10 candidates and you only selected 3 of them, it means you do not care about the other 7, they are your least favorite. If one of those 7 wins, it is only because your 3 choices were in the minority and they lost.
No, I do not agree, because it is not true. Every vote is included in the final result. The people whose ballots are “exhausted” voted for candidates who lost, because they were not preferred by the majority of voters.
Commenting on the socialist winning in nyc, and broadly on the ignored issues of student loan debt and housing unaffordability.
Younger generations are told that if they do the same things as the boomers did, things will work out well for them. But society has changed very drastically, and it doesn’t work in quite the same way. Housing is way more expensive. It’s much harder to get a house in a place like New York or Silicon Valley, or anywhere the economy is actually doing well and there are a lot of decent jobs. People assume everything still works, but objectively, it doesn’t. Boomers are strangely uncurious about how the world is not really working for their kids. It’s always hard to know how much bad faith there is or how bad the actors are.
I’m obviously very biased against socialism. I don’t think socialism has solutions to these problems. I don’t think Mamdani particularly has solutions. I don’t think you can socialize housing. If you just impose rent controls, then you probably have even less housing, and eventually, it’s even more expensive. But to Mamdani’s credit, he at least talked about these problems. So my cop-out answer is always to say: The first step is to talk about the problems, even if you don’t know what to do about them. There’s been a failure of, let’s say, the center left-center right establishment to even talk about them.
I don’t know if I would say that young people are pro-socialist. I would say they are less pro-capitalist than they used to be. If capitalism is seen as an unfair racket of one sort or another, you’ll be much less pro capitalism. So in some relative sense, they’re more socialist, even though I think it’s more just: Capitalism doesn’t work for me . Or, this thing called capitalism is just an excuse for people ripping you off .
It does not make sense to debate the fine mathematical points of RCV. As pointed out by the Michigan county clerks, the system should be rejected because voters do not understand it, and it is a nightmare to tabulate the votes.
Nobody is debating the math, it is trivially simple.
If voters do not understand, voters should be educated. I can get a 4 year old to order his favorite fruit.
Of course it doesnt - because then you’d see how you are wrong 
can you get voters to accept that this is the way to select a winner for a political office? The Michigan County clerks, whose job it is to run and count elections, do not think so and unanimously came out against changing the system to RCV.
Sure. “List your favorite candidates in order.” Done.
I googled this because I didn’t know what the fuss is all about. A quote from this article
It sounds to me like the The Michigan Association of County Clerks has been corrupted by anti-RCV propaganda, because this statement is ridiculous and false. The exhausted ballots “leave voters without representation” in exactly the same way as current ballots leave the voters who voted for losers without representation.
They also said “Michigan voters are used to knowing who won an election in a timely manner, so it’s incredibly important that we’re able to report accurate, unofficial results on election night”. It might be true that getting results would take longer if they can’t process all the ballots that night, or if there’s no obvious majority winner with no chance of being overtaken with the remaining ballots. I doubt their claim about the importance of reporting accurate unofficial results on election night. Nobody should expect this, even if they’re used to it. The benefits of RCV outweigh the perceived cost of this claim.
So they’re bent out of shape about the fact that ultimately only the top 2 candidates have their final results reported? Sounds like they’re hung up on the notion of “rounds”, believing the propaganda that each round is a new, separate vote. In reality, it is still one vote with candidates progressively dropping out as the vote tally confirms a lack of the support needed to win.