Anonymous wrote:You have ranked choice. It's called a closed primary.

Your first choice goes against the other party's first choice.

I agree and get the sense people who want ranked choice are often fans of fringe party’s I.e. libertarian. They are often naieve idealists whose actions produce results like president drumpgf

Anonymous wrote:Agreed, OP. We need run-off elections in the US for any federal or statewide office. It will bring out better quality, centrist candidates that would appeal to more people.

The current system is bonkers and we are held hostage by two extremes:

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf

VERY interesting study. Thanks for sharing, PP.
From the study:
Progressive Activists: younger, highly engaged, secular, cosmopolitan, angry. 8%
– Traditional Liberals: older, retired, open to compromise, rational, cautious. 11%
– Passive Liberals: unhappy, insecure, distrustful, disillusioned. 15%
– Politically Disengaged: young, low income, distrustful, detached, patriotic,
conspiratorial. 26%
– Moderates: engaged, civic-minded, middle-of-the-road, pessimistic, Protestant. 15%
– Traditional Conservatives: religious, middle class, patriotic, moralistic. 19%
– Devoted Conservatives: white, retired, highly engaged, uncompromising,
patriotic 6%

I'll wager this interms of the Montgomery County election:

Progressive Activists - Will vote for Elrich. Vast majority already voted for Elrich in the primary. Elrich probably was nominated securing 99.9% of only this vote.
Traditional Liberals - Elrich/Floreen split. Slight advantage Elrich. A significant faction of these people might be inclined to vote for Floreen, the more moderate, but a portion of those would hesitate to do so because of the chance of Ficker winning.
Passive Liberals - Mixed bag. Some won't vote. Some will vote for Elrich because he's the Democrat. Some will vote for Elrich because he's less mainstream and because they have distrust in the establishment. Some might even vote for Ficker out of protest or frustration or write in Mickey Mouse. Disadvantage Floreen, because these people might be less in tune to her Independent campaign and why she's running.
Politically disengaged - Will not vote, or slight advantage to Elrich because of the "D" next to his name and voting Democrat out of general distaste for Trump
Moderates - Will vote for Floreen.
Traditional Conservatives - Will vote for Ficker; though some who closely follow politics might caluclatingly vote for Floreen
Devoted Conservatives - Will vote for Ficker

Tough to say to whom the advantage lies, because Montgomery County will skew more liberal and progressive than the study's numbers for the general US, and moderates will dwarf Devoted Conservatives/Ficker voters.

Eyeballing this, I'd say Floreen has a decent path to victory, if properly executed with aggressive campaigning and targeting conservatives who will settle for "not Elrich" and engaging moderates, plus reaching more of the passive and traditional liberals.
However, I am not too bullish on this happening. Her campaign ads, instead of focusing on why her housing or economic development plan is better, come off as arrogant and overly negative - these ads alone could push people to vote for Elrich, or even Ficker out of spite because of how dismissive she is. Personality does matter.

An open primary would probably more sense as as starting point. I am not a Democrat, have no desire to be a Democrat, but would have happily voted for Blair in the Democratic primary (and general). Instead, I stayed home. Now I'm debating whether Floreen or the Republican is more likely to beat Elrich. Which is it anyway?

Agreed, OP. We need run-off elections in the US for any federal or statewide office. It will bring out better quality, centrist candidates that would appeal to more people.

The current system is bonkers and we are held hostage by two extremes:

According to the report, 25 percent of Americans are traditional or devoted conservatives, and their views are far outside the American mainstream. Some 8 percent of Americans are progressive activists, and their views are even less typical.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/large-majorities-dislike-political-correctness/572581/
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a70a7c3010027736a22740f/t/5bbcea6b7817f7bf7342b718/1539107467397/hidden_tribes_report-2.pdf

Not op but..Thanks for all the uninformed posts

Read up on ranked choice or instant runoff voting before you comment

With ranked choice, we could say what our ranked preference is

So for example, maybe green party is your true 1st choice but you can say that Democrats are your 2nd.. So you avoid a situation where someone like Nader is a spoiler.

In the Moco case, I'm sure all the frick voters preferred Blair over elrich but we didn't have any way to learn that with our current system

Is the winner in MoCo required to get 51% of the vote? In many places if no candidate gets 51% of the vote it goes to a runoff of the top 2. This may be an easier way to accomplish your goal.

It’s been mathematically proven that no voting system rationally aggregates group preferences. Ranked choice is not objectively superior system; it just has a different set of trade-offs.

And in a Presidential election, one could vote their conscience without worrying about being a spoiler.

the idea is to bring forth a candidate who has the broadest approval and potential of support, versus narrowing it down to false extremes with a locked-up base.

Anonymous wrote:So the goal is to have the two leading democrat vote getters fight it out in the general election?

Thereby shutting everyone else out, in perpetuity?


Sounds perfect for MoCo, which is exactly why it's such a horrible idea.

In MoCo, Elrich vs. Blair in a general election would bring out a lot more favorable choice than Elrich vs. Ficker; or Elrich vs. Ficker vs. candidate who doesn't even want the job but hates Elrich and has a lot of developer money.

In this system, if it were an open primary, perhaps Republicans and Independents would put up a better candidate of their own instead of Ficker unopposed.

Open primaries in general could also be a potential solution.

So the goal is to have the two leading democrat vote getters fight it out in the general election?

Thereby shutting everyone else out, in perpetuity?


Sounds perfect for MoCo, which is exactly why it's such a horrible idea.

You have ranked choice. It's called a closed primary.

Your first choice goes against the other party's first choice.

So how do we get ranked choice voting? It obviously requires a change of law... Looks like Maine did it by referendum https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maine-lepage-ranked-choice-voting/562871/

How do we get a referendum on the ballot? I can only find info about "veto referenda" which means you can have a referendum to veto an act of the legislature. I'm not sure there is a process to petition to get a referendum on policy that has not already been passed into law.. ?

But it looks like someone in our legislature is trying...at least for MoCo

http://mgaleg.maryland.gov/webmga/frmMain.aspx?pid=billpage&tab=subject3&id=hb0173&stab=01&ys=2018RS

Agree 100%

Was saying the same thing

Would allow us to really know if voters preferred Blair or elrich

I am speaking from Montgomery County, Maryland, but I think this applies elsewhere. Whatever happens on November 6th, even if I personally find the results favorable, this whole election cycle shows that we have a broken system.
We are ending up with undesriable results because a largely unpopular candidate can solidify a base to win with a plurality as more palatable candidates split the vote. This is what got Trump the GOP nomination in 2016.

I say this and I voted for Marc Elrich for County Executive in the primary. I actually like Marc, I admire his insightfulness and responsiveness and think he was the most knowledgeable on issues, and I do think that the reasons why people don't like him are based on misleading information - but that is neither here nor there. The point is, he narrowly won a plurality with a small minority of voters. I would have liked it if he won more convincingly by winning over a majority of voters against the smear campaign, but that is not my point here. Informed or not, voters would be better served to nominate someone more could agree upon.

David Blair might have won a ranked choice primary election, and we wouldn't be in this mess we have now. If Floreen wins, she did it by gaming the system and taking advantage of the divided anti-Elrich vote. If Ficker wins, then we really have a worst-case scenario of the candidate with the most broadly negative view prevailing over a split, non-lunatic vote. I would wager that most would rather have Blair than Floreen, or certainly Ficker.

Anyway, not to make this yet another thread about the Montgomery County election, as we need to reform our voting system as a whole. The Democrats probably could have put up a better candidate than Jealous if there were fewer in the primary. Not sure about the Virginia side of things, but it seems like rank choice would be more fair as a whole.

Top-two/jungle primaries/runoff elections could be another solution but I still think it would be flawed, though not as flawed as our current system.

What say the rest of you? Any other potential solutions? Approval voting is another one, but from what I read it sounded way too complicated and tedious for people going to the polls and probably wouldn't be taken full advantage.