It was adopted in Oakland and then in my former hometown. The results seemed to favor the leftists, who were quite organized in campaigning for second choice. That's where the more radical candidates would end up...and then take home the prize.
Once upon a time, when I was young and (more) idealistic, sometime in the '70s, I came up with this idea on my own. But then realized that it eliminates the discretion of a conditional second choice.
In a run-off system, one chooses only among those who survived the first round. I might have preferred a different second choice but if that candidate is eliminated, my second vote was wasted. In a run-off, we are presented with a new election: given the choice of these finalists, whom would I choose? Everyone's second vote would count. And the ultimate winner would have received majority of the votes.
The ranked voting system assumes a multiple of candidates. The writer from Oz is certainly correct that we are hopelessly locked in a rigid two-party system. RVC would encourage more third and fourth party candidates; why should Bernie have given up in 2016 in such a system if he believed (correctly) he could probably do better than HRC as second choice? Likewise we might have had an alternate competitive Republican as well in the general election, one with a real shot at winning on the second choice ranking.
Which illustrates the other problem: party affiliation. Many if not most who enthusiastically supported Trump, for instance, would probably not have had a second choice. No Democrat or other Republican offered what he did. So, more second choice votes would have gone to one of his opponents -- and cost him the election.
Instead I would propose simplifying the primary process and treating the general election as The Primary, assuming nobody would get a majority. Then a runoff, perhaps in two stages: down to the top three (as Constitution prescribes for the House in case of no electoral winner), then the top two finalists if necessary. The reason for that is to avoid decrease the probability that the top two in a large field are from the same party, but unacceptable to a majority of voters.
I am puzzled why no one has successfully challenged ranked-choice voting in federal courts, or why challenges in Maine were not successful. It clearly violates our one-person-one-vote principle. There's probably a role for it in primary or party nominating elections, as I wrote about in Virginia in 2021, but defintely not for general elections. It confuses the hell out of many voters, and disenfranches them. https://kellyjohnston.substack.com/p/ranked-choice-voting-a-serious-look
It was adopted in Oakland and then in my former hometown. The results seemed to favor the leftists, who were quite organized in campaigning for second choice. That's where the more radical candidates would end up...and then take home the prize.
Once upon a time, when I was young and (more) idealistic, sometime in the '70s, I came up with this idea on my own. But then realized that it eliminates the discretion of a conditional second choice.
In a run-off system, one chooses only among those who survived the first round. I might have preferred a different second choice but if that candidate is eliminated, my second vote was wasted. In a run-off, we are presented with a new election: given the choice of these finalists, whom would I choose? Everyone's second vote would count. And the ultimate winner would have received majority of the votes.
The ranked voting system assumes a multiple of candidates. The writer from Oz is certainly correct that we are hopelessly locked in a rigid two-party system. RVC would encourage more third and fourth party candidates; why should Bernie have given up in 2016 in such a system if he believed (correctly) he could probably do better than HRC as second choice? Likewise we might have had an alternate competitive Republican as well in the general election, one with a real shot at winning on the second choice ranking.
Which illustrates the other problem: party affiliation. Many if not most who enthusiastically supported Trump, for instance, would probably not have had a second choice. No Democrat or other Republican offered what he did. So, more second choice votes would have gone to one of his opponents -- and cost him the election.
Instead I would propose simplifying the primary process and treating the general election as The Primary, assuming nobody would get a majority. Then a runoff, perhaps in two stages: down to the top three (as Constitution prescribes for the House in case of no electoral winner), then the top two finalists if necessary. The reason for that is to avoid decrease the probability that the top two in a large field are from the same party, but unacceptable to a majority of voters.
I am puzzled why no one has successfully challenged ranked-choice voting in federal courts, or why challenges in Maine were not successful. It clearly violates our one-person-one-vote principle. There's probably a role for it in primary or party nominating elections, as I wrote about in Virginia in 2021, but defintely not for general elections. It confuses the hell out of many voters, and disenfranches them. https://kellyjohnston.substack.com/p/ranked-choice-voting-a-serious-look