We need rank choice voting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is America and freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution. Parties have a right to pick their candidates however they want to. They don’t have a right to have the government pay for that selection process for free and the US is one of the only counties that I am aware of that does this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Virginia had a convention and picked Youngkin because they were afraid their primary voters would pick Amanda Chase who couldn’t win.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is America and freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution. Parties have a right to pick their candidates however they want to. They don’t have a right to have the government pay for that selection process for free and the US is one of the only counties that I am aware of that does this.

Freedom of association, yes - but nowhere in the Constitution are political parties even mentioned.

I think we should have ranked-choice voting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This is America and freedom of association is enshrined in the Constitution. Parties have a right to pick their candidates however they want to. They don’t have a right to have the government pay for that selection process for free and the US is one of the only counties that I am aware of that does this.

Freedom of association, yes - but nowhere in the Constitution are political parties even mentioned.

I think we should have ranked-choice voting.

RCV is also not mentioned in the constitution and since Democratic selection is mentioned, RCV is probably unconstitutional if it was legally contested.

[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.

This has actually been proven in an academic study.

RCV produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use. It also increased the perception that the voting process was slanted against the respondent’s party.

https://medium.com/mit-election-lab/the-effect-of-ranked-choice-voting-in-maine-44bbb7374847

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I don’t see how it makes appealing to a narrow basis less beneficial in a crowded primary. If there are 4 Ds and 1 R running, it’s very possible that even though 75 % of the voters would prefer any of the Ds to the R the R goes through to the general if he has a solid base.

[Anonymous]

If you read anything on the jungle primary you’ll see it’s had lots of unintended consequences particularly from people trying to game the system. Lots of people (across the political spectrum and inside and outside politics) are unhappy with it. Probably good for political consultants though.