Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously..those who voted for Elrich..do you honestly think he is good for business and job growth? Whst has he done to prove this? Or do you not care about this?

They don't care about that. At all. They want higher minimum wage, no police, racial equity, and to solve the world problem of climate change right here in 20850.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously..those who voted for Elrich..do you honestly think he is good for business and job growth? Whst has he done to prove this? Or do you not care about this?

I care about business and job growth, but those things aren’t at the very top of my list of priorities.
There are a lot of things about Blair that, for me, raise serious concerns, that weren’t allayed despite my efforts to get more specific information.

Anonymous wrote:Seriously..those who voted for Elrich..do you honestly think he is good for business and job growth? Whst has he done to prove this? Or do you not care about this?

Anonymous wrote:Seriously..those who voted for Elrich..do you honestly think he is good for business and job growth? Whst has he done to prove this? Or do you not care about this?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.

It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman

I was tracking each daily mail in ballot count and while Elrich's percentage stayed relatively stable, Blair's decreased as Riemer's went up. It's not proof, of course. I think Riemer and Blair votes are much more about being anti-Elrich than truly being passionate about either candidate.

The idea that someone is motivated to vote for Riemer over Elrich because they are anti-rich is an odd stance. Sure voters are irrational. However that’s pretty up there.

I think the point was that there might be some people who would rank the candidates Riemer then Elrich then Blair (possibly because they don't like a businessman with little to no government experience trying to buy the election), but it's hard to know how many of those people there would be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked Choice Voting is not going to solve this problem. People are way too stupid to understand what it means and how to fill out a ballot. I worked in surveys at my previous job. You'd be shocked at the number of people who can't handle "Rank your top 5" (in a list of 15). They'll number everything 1-5. Or they put check marks by 5 items, not #s. I don't know if RCV is even allowed within Maryland (or any political elections, for that matter).

Having a run-off when the margin is something like 0.5% or less and there are more than 2 candidates running in the primary would solve the problem. Let the top 2 duke it out.

I agree with you. Runoffs should be the answer not RCV. I think prominent Riemer supporters push RCV because they hold onto some magical thinking that Riemer somehow would have won under this system. Which is pretty nuts considering how little support he got and inconsistent with their other common refrain about how the majority of voters* didn’t vote for Elrich.

* they always conflate all voters with Democratic primary voters.

Yes. We need a runoff, if no one gets over 50% of the vote in the first round. It’s asinine that someone should run a county of 1 million people because he won a primary by 42 votes, with 39% of the vote.

I agree with you on the first part and disagree on the second. There will be a general election in November that decides who will be the County Exective. Last time he won with 65% of all county voters. Margin of victory in a partisan primary is meaningless. Political parties don’t need to hold public primary elections to pick their general election candidates and the margin of victory is irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked Choice Voting is not going to solve this problem. People are way too stupid to understand what it means and how to fill out a ballot. I worked in surveys at my previous job. You'd be shocked at the number of people who can't handle "Rank your top 5" (in a list of 15). They'll number everything 1-5. Or they put check marks by 5 items, not #s. I don't know if RCV is even allowed within Maryland (or any political elections, for that matter).

Having a run-off when the margin is something like 0.5% or less and there are more than 2 candidates running in the primary would solve the problem. Let the top 2 duke it out.

I agree with you. Runoffs should be the answer not RCV. I think prominent Riemer supporters push RCV because they hold onto some magical thinking that Riemer somehow would have won under this system. Which is pretty nuts considering how little support he got and inconsistent with their other common refrain about how the majority of voters* didn’t vote for Elrich.

* they always conflate all voters with Democratic primary voters.

Yes. We need a runoff, if no one gets over 50% of the vote in the first round. It’s asinine that someone should run a county of 1 million people because he won a primary by 42 votes, with 39% of the vote.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked Choice Voting is not going to solve this problem. People are way too stupid to understand what it means and how to fill out a ballot. I worked in surveys at my previous job. You'd be shocked at the number of people who can't handle "Rank your top 5" (in a list of 15). They'll number everything 1-5. Or they put check marks by 5 items, not #s. I don't know if RCV is even allowed within Maryland (or any political elections, for that matter).

Having a run-off when the margin is something like 0.5% or less and there are more than 2 candidates running in the primary would solve the problem. Let the top 2 duke it out.

I agree with you. Runoffs should be the answer not RCV. I think prominent Riemer supporters push RCV because they hold onto some magical thinking that Riemer somehow would have won under this system. Which is pretty nuts considering how little support he got and inconsistent with their other common refrain about how the majority of voters* didn’t vote for Elrich.

* they always conflate all voters with Democratic primary voters.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.

It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman

I was tracking each daily mail in ballot count and while Elrich's percentage stayed relatively stable, Blair's decreased as Riemer's went up. It's not proof, of course. I think Riemer and Blair votes are much more about being anti-Elrich than truly being passionate about either candidate.

The idea that someone is motivated to vote for Riemer over Elrich because they are anti-rich is an odd stance. Sure voters are irrational. However that’s pretty up there.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.

It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman

What I’m trying to understand is how Riemer voters can claim that RCV is important when they also say Elrich was their second choice. Sounds like they are talking out of both sides of their mouths out of convenience to absolve blame for re-electing Elrich.

Seems like a disingenuous candidate has many disingenuous supporters. It’s an affinity group.

You sound nuts. You do realize that there are thousands upon thousands of Riemer voters. There is no set of beliefs you must subscribe to or spokesperson who could articulate those beliefs. It is almost certain that some Riemer voters would have Elrich as their second choice and some have Blair. Likewise it almost certain that some would support RCV and some wouldn’t. But that’s about all you can say about them as a group.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.

It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman

I was tracking each daily mail in ballot count and while Elrich's percentage stayed relatively stable, Blair's decreased as Riemer's went up. It's not proof, of course. I think Riemer and Blair votes are much more about being anti-Elrich than truly being passionate about either candidate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked choice voting would take the last place candidate and distribute their votes to the candidates ranked second on those ballots. So if you think a majority of Riemer voters would have Blair as their second choice he would have won once Riemer was eliminated.

It’s common for Blair supporters to argue Riemer voters are also anti-Elrich voters but there is no way to know— they could also be anti-rich businessman

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Riemer voters: Don’t blame us. This wouldn’t have happened if we had Ranked Choice Voting.

Also Riemer Voters: Don’t blame us, we would have voted for Elrich anyway.

Can someone help to explain to me how RCV would have led to a different outcome?

Ranked Choice Voting is not going to solve this problem. People are way too stupid to understand what it means and how to fill out a ballot. I worked in surveys at my previous job. You'd be shocked at the number of people who can't handle "Rank your top 5" (in a list of 15). They'll number everything 1-5. Or they put check marks by 5 items, not #s. I don't know if RCV is even allowed within Maryland (or any political elections, for that matter).

Having a run-off when the margin is something like 0.5% or less and there are more than 2 candidates running in the primary would solve the problem. Let the top 2 duke it out.