"New Ballot Initiative Proposes Bringing Ranked-Choice Voting And Open Primaries To D.C."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a reason why the incumbent politicians loathe this proposal so much: it's a direct threat to them. DC has a long track record of fractured opposition to unpopular electeds. That would translate to incumbents losing with RCV. There's a very real chance the DC Council will look different if this passes. Which is why I look forward to voting for it.


Brianne Nadeau should be absolutely terrified of RCV.

If RCV can help us get rid of Brianne, I will happily sign up to canvas door to door in favor of switching to it.

All semi-unpopular incumbents (Bonds, Bowser, Mendelsohn, Nadeau) will be threatened by RCV because it will limit the extent to which they can split the opposition vote, but I think RCV will make the most difference in primaries without an incumbent. These are generally a complete farce in DC. See Ward 2 in 2020 and Ward 3 in 2022 for examples.

I support RCV. But why would you call Ward 3's primary in 2022 a "complete farce"? We had like a pretty close race between two candidates and there was like a dozen total in the field. Some made up bullshit right here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a reason why the incumbent politicians loathe this proposal so much: it's a direct threat to them. DC has a long track record of fractured opposition to unpopular electeds. That would translate to incumbents losing with RCV. There's a very real chance the DC Council will look different if this passes. Which is why I look forward to voting for it.


Brianne Nadeau should be absolutely terrified of RCV.

If RCV can help us get rid of Brianne, I will happily sign up to canvas door to door in favor of switching to it.

All semi-unpopular incumbents (Bonds, Bowser, Mendelsohn, Nadeau) will be threatened by RCV because it will limit the extent to which they can split the opposition vote, but I think RCV will make the most difference in primaries without an incumbent. These are generally a complete farce in DC. See Ward 2 in 2020 and Ward 3 in 2022 for examples.

I support RCV. But why would you call Ward 3's primary in 2022 a "complete farce"? We had like a pretty close race between two candidates and there was like a dozen total in the field. Some made up bullshit right here.

NP, but my take is the concern is the Democratic primary in DC is the de facto general election. So when you have no incumbent and a crowded field of candidates, it turns into a mess. Another solution that's not on the ballot would be to have jungle primaries.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a reason why the incumbent politicians loathe this proposal so much: it's a direct threat to them. DC has a long track record of fractured opposition to unpopular electeds. That would translate to incumbents losing with RCV. There's a very real chance the DC Council will look different if this passes. Which is why I look forward to voting for it.


Brianne Nadeau should be absolutely terrified of RCV.

If RCV can help us get rid of Brianne, I will happily sign up to canvas door to door in favor of switching to it.

All semi-unpopular incumbents (Bonds, Bowser, Mendelsohn, Nadeau) will be threatened by RCV because it will limit the extent to which they can split the opposition vote, but I think RCV will make the most difference in primaries without an incumbent. These are generally a complete farce in DC. See Ward 2 in 2020 and Ward 3 in 2022 for examples.

I support RCV. But why would you call Ward 3's primary in 2022 a "complete farce"? We had like a pretty close race between two candidates and there was like a dozen total in the field. Some made up bullshit right here.

I don’t know if you followed the race but the only reason it was a close race in the end was because two or three candidates - who had similar platforms - effectively dropped out a couple of weeks or so before the election. The loser later cried foul and accused those who dropped out of trying to manipulate democracy and what not. I would describe it as a farce, yes, although perhaps not as bad as the Ward 7 primary this year or most at-large races.

[Anonymous]

Intro to ranked choice voting here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpSi_Kl7P2U


It's a really good idea. Already used in NYC, Seattle, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Arlington VA, Takoma, MD, etc.

[Anonymous]

There was a city council primary race this year in which the winner got 5,000 votes. That means they won with 5 percent of the vote. That's ridiculous. You shouldnt be able to win a seat in government in a race where 95 percent of the registered voters in your ward did not support you. Ranked choice voting would fix this.

[Anonymous]

Sarah Palin lost her bid for a House seat because of ranked choice voting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/05/sarah-palin-alaska-ranked-choice-works/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Palin lost her bid for a House seat because of ranked choice voting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/05/sarah-palin-alaska-ranked-choice-works/

Eric Adams became Mayor of NYC thanks to RCV.

RCV rewards those who appear to be moderates. But the liars, con artists, and charlatans will just change their stripes to project as "moderate" to try to get elected under RCV, then try to enact their real agenda once in office.

I'm curious as to how it will shake out in the long run, but RCV is not a panacea for this country's issues. I'd much rather ban gerrymandering, ban the Electoral College or move to proportional Electoral College vote for every state. RCV is just a band-aid for this other stuff.

[Anonymous]

Ranked choice voting is totally normal in other big, liberal cities. It's kind of odd we don't already have it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ranked choice voting is totally normal in other big, liberal cities. It's kind of odd we don't already have it.

Are Republican dominated areas embracing RCV?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a reason why the incumbent politicians loathe this proposal so much: it's a direct threat to them. DC has a long track record of fractured opposition to unpopular electeds. That would translate to incumbents losing with RCV. There's a very real chance the DC Council will look different if this passes. Which is why I look forward to voting for it.


Brianne Nadeau should be absolutely terrified of RCV.

If RCV can help us get rid of Brianne, I will happily sign up to canvas door to door in favor of switching to it.

All semi-unpopular incumbents (Bonds, Bowser, Mendelsohn, Nadeau) will be threatened by RCV because it will limit the extent to which they can split the opposition vote, but I think RCV will make the most difference in primaries without an incumbent. These are generally a complete farce in DC. See Ward 2 in 2020 and Ward 3 in 2022 for examples.

I support RCV. But why would you call Ward 3's primary in 2022 a "complete farce"? We had like a pretty close race between two candidates and there was like a dozen total in the field. Some made up bullshit right here.

NP, but my take is the concern is the Democratic primary in DC is the de facto general election. So when you have no incumbent and a crowded field of candidates, it turns into a mess. Another solution that's not on the ballot would be to have jungle primaries.

Open primary with RCV seems just as effective, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sarah Palin lost her bid for a House seat because of ranked choice voting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/09/05/sarah-palin-alaska-ranked-choice-works/

Eric Adams became Mayor of NYC thanks to RCV.

RCV rewards those who appear to be moderates. But the liars, con artists, and charlatans will just change their stripes to project as "moderate" to try to get elected under RCV, then try to enact their real agenda once in office.

I'm curious as to how it will shake out in the long run, but RCV is not a panacea for this country's issues. I'd much rather ban gerrymandering, ban the Electoral College or move to proportional Electoral College vote for every state. RCV is just a band-aid for this other stuff.

Sure, but this initiative has nothing to do with federal elections, which means gerrymandering and the Electoral College are irrelevant. RCV is a fix for problems with our local democracy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a reason why the incumbent politicians loathe this proposal so much: it's a direct threat to them. DC has a long track record of fractured opposition to unpopular electeds. That would translate to incumbents losing with RCV. There's a very real chance the DC Council will look different if this passes. Which is why I look forward to voting for it.


Brianne Nadeau should be absolutely terrified of RCV.

If RCV can help us get rid of Brianne, I will happily sign up to canvas door to door in favor of switching to it.

All semi-unpopular incumbents (Bonds, Bowser, Mendelsohn, Nadeau) will be threatened by RCV because it will limit the extent to which they can split the opposition vote, but I think RCV will make the most difference in primaries without an incumbent. These are generally a complete farce in DC. See Ward 2 in 2020 and Ward 3 in 2022 for examples.

I support RCV. But why would you call Ward 3's primary in 2022 a "complete farce"? We had like a pretty close race between two candidates and there was like a dozen total in the field. Some made up bullshit right here.

I don’t know if you followed the race but the only reason it was a close race in the end was because two or three candidates - who had similar platforms - effectively dropped out a couple of weeks or so before the election. The loser later cried foul and accused those who dropped out of trying to manipulate democracy and what not. I would describe it as a farce, yes, although perhaps not as bad as the Ward 7 primary this year or most at-large races.

RCV would have made it so those candidates could have stayed in and still had the same result. But I don't know that candidates dropping out is bad for democracy. Only one of them can win. No point being a spoiler when you know it's down to someone you like and someone you don't like.

[Anonymous]

So I vote and I just want to let everyone know that the actual question for RCV is on the BACK of the ballot. So plesae be sure to turn over the ballot and vote on this question.
Personally as an independent I an disenfranchised by the current system and would welcome this new method of voting

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
There's a reason why the incumbent politicians loathe this proposal so much: it's a direct threat to them. DC has a long track record of fractured opposition to unpopular electeds. That would translate to incumbents losing with RCV. There's a very real chance the DC Council will look different if this passes. Which is why I look forward to voting for it.


Brianne Nadeau should be absolutely terrified of RCV.

If RCV can help us get rid of Brianne, I will happily sign up to canvas door to door in favor of switching to it.

All semi-unpopular incumbents (Bonds, Bowser, Mendelsohn, Nadeau) will be threatened by RCV because it will limit the extent to which they can split the opposition vote, but I think RCV will make the most difference in primaries without an incumbent. These are generally a complete farce in DC. See Ward 2 in 2020 and Ward 3 in 2022 for examples.

I support RCV. But why would you call Ward 3's primary in 2022 a "complete farce"? We had like a pretty close race between two candidates and there was like a dozen total in the field. Some made up bullshit right here.

I don’t know if you followed the race but the only reason it was a close race in the end was because two or three candidates - who had similar platforms - effectively dropped out a couple of weeks or so before the election. The loser later cried foul and accused those who dropped out of trying to manipulate democracy and what not. I would describe it as a farce, yes, although perhaps not as bad as the Ward 7 primary this year or most at-large races.

RCV would have made it so those candidates could have stayed in and still had the same result. But I don't know that candidates dropping out is bad for democracy. Only one of them can win. No point being a spoiler when you know it's down to someone you like and someone you don't like.

They did the right thing in dropping out and the losing candidate who cried foul is a clown.

RCV would have allowed them to stay in without the risk of splitting the vote and allowed voters - rather than the candidates - to determine who was the strongest candidate to defeat said clown.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So I vote and I just want to let everyone know that the actual question for RCV is on the BACK of the ballot. So plesae be sure to turn over the ballot and vote on this question.
Personally as an independent I an disenfranchised by the current system and would welcome this new method of voting

+1