We need rank choice voting

[Anonymous]

The MD and MoCo primary prove this. When the vote splits three ways it’s never good news….

[Anonymous]

Agree 100%

[Anonymous]

Agree, I would love to see this in DC proper. The at-large council member primary this year is a great example. Anita Bonds won with just 35% of the vote even though she's very unpopular. Most of the rest of the vote was split between Lisa Gore and Nate Fleming. Bond's incumbent advantage is almost certainly what put her over the top (so many people vote in these primaries based exclusively on "I've heard of that person" with no research). But 70% of voters chose someone else! With ranked choice voting, I bet you anything Gore would have won, which also would have better reflected the actual will of the people, because most people who voted for Fleming probably would have ranked Gore second (and vice versa).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree, I would love to see this in DC proper. The at-large council member primary this year is a great example. Anita Bonds won with just 35% of the vote even though she's very unpopular. Most of the rest of the vote was split between Lisa Gore and Nate Fleming. Bond's incumbent advantage is almost certainly what put her over the top (so many people vote in these primaries based exclusively on "I've heard of that person" with no research). But 70% of voters chose someone else! With ranked choice voting, I bet you anything Gore would have won, which also would have better reflected the actual will of the people, because most people who voted for Fleming probably would have ranked Gore second (and vice versa).

This is why RCV needs to be passed via initiative. Incumbent councilmembers who benefit from no RCV have no incentive to make it more difficult for them to win.

[Anonymous]

We don’t need RCV, just runoffs. RCV is dumb and designed to increase complexity and opacity in voting which ultimately undermines faith in democracy.

Either a jungle primary with top-2 to general or have runoff primaries. Easy Peasy.

[Anonymous]

For sure. It would bring back viable centrist choices and not make us have to vote for crazy, old, hateful, and all the bad choices we have been getting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For sure. It would bring back viable centrist choices and not make us have to vote for crazy, old, hateful, and all the bad choices we have been getting.

In actual fact, RCV is more likely to favor extremes because it gives voters a free shot to vote for all marginal splinter factions in the hope that others do too. It will encourage more candidates to run and will become unmanageable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t need RCV, just runoffs. RCV is dumb and designed to increase complexity and opacity in voting which ultimately undermines faith in democracy.

Either a jungle primary with top-2 to general or have runoff primaries. Easy Peasy.

Jungle primaries are the way to go. Spending public money to have separate Statehood/Green, Democratic, and Republican primaries is a waste of resources.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t need RCV, just runoffs. RCV is dumb and designed to increase complexity and opacity in voting which ultimately undermines faith in democracy.

Either a jungle primary with top-2 to general or have runoff primaries. Easy Peasy.

This. The most recent Ward 1 election in DC needed this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We don’t need RCV, just runoffs. RCV is dumb and designed to increase complexity and opacity in voting which ultimately undermines faith in democracy.

Either a jungle primary with top-2 to general or have runoff primaries. Easy Peasy.

Runoffs cost money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t need RCV, just runoffs. RCV is dumb and designed to increase complexity and opacity in voting which ultimately undermines faith in democracy.

Either a jungle primary with top-2 to general or have runoff primaries. Easy Peasy.

Runoffs cost money.

Make the parties pay for it. Otherwise they have pay for their own conventions to choose their candidates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t need RCV, just runoffs. RCV is dumb and designed to increase complexity and opacity in voting which ultimately undermines faith in democracy.

Either a jungle primary with top-2 to general or have runoff primaries. Easy Peasy.

Jungle primaries are the way to go. Spending public money to have separate Statehood/Green, Democratic, and Republican primaries is a waste of resources.

Jungle primaries are terrible. Republicans couldn’t even muster candidates for all the seats on the MoCo council. If 5 Dems run and one R runs you could very easily end up with the same situation we have now— a Dem candidate preferred by a small fraction of Dem voters and a Rep candidate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t need RCV, just runoffs. RCV is dumb and designed to increase complexity and opacity in voting which ultimately undermines faith in democracy.

Either a jungle primary with top-2 to general or have runoff primaries. Easy Peasy.

Runoffs cost money.

Make the parties pay for it. Otherwise they have pay for their own conventions to choose their candidates.

Conventions are the worst way to pick candidates— look at the loons the VA R’s pick when they go to convention. Having 2 rounds of primaries before the general is not sustainable either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For sure. It would bring back viable centrist choices and not make us have to vote for crazy, old, hateful, and all the bad choices we have been getting.

In actual fact, RCV is more likely to favor extremes because it gives voters a free shot to vote for all marginal splinter factions in the hope that others do too. It will encourage more candidates to run and will become unmanageable.

But if those extremes don’t have majority support they won’t win. I don’t see how that is unmanageable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t need RCV, just runoffs. RCV is dumb and designed to increase complexity and opacity in voting which ultimately undermines faith in democracy.

Either a jungle primary with top-2 to general or have runoff primaries. Easy Peasy.

Jungle primaries are the way to go. Spending public money to have separate Statehood/Green, Democratic, and Republican primaries is a waste of resources.

Jungle primaries are terrible. Republicans couldn’t even muster candidates for all the seats on the MoCo council. If 5 Dems run and one R runs you could very easily end up with the same situation we have now— a Dem candidate preferred by a small fraction of Dem voters and a Rep candidate.

That's not how jungle primaries work. In a jungle primary there is a single primary for all candidates regardless of party. The top 2 vote getters regardless of party move on to the general election. It makes appealing to a narrow base less beneficial.