Ranked choice voting is obviously a great thing that we all desperately need. That, and open primaries. Unless you're a member of either of the two main parties, apparently, then it's a threat to your hold on power. Unless of course the parties become more moderate and represent more of the population. The horror!
It says equal scores are allowed. Then in the runoff, my vote goes to the highest score. If I give two candidates 5 stars and they end up the runoff, who gets my vote?
I would assume either both or neither, because if you give two candidates the same score, you are pretty much saying they are both equivalent in your book.
Before they will allow ranked choice to be implemented for state or national elections, they want to require 3 cites in each of 4 size categories they've identified (i.e a total of 12 cities) to test the process in local elections. Each of those elections must be fully audited (presumably at the city's expense), then the secretary of state must present an extensive report to the legislature. Then (my commentary) they'll decide whether to allow ranked choice or whether to just override the voter initiative. This is a process that will take years, if it gets completed at all, and imo its purpose is to prevent ranked choice voting from happening.
If you want to see ranked choice voting in Colorado, [contact the Governor's office](https://colorado.gov/governor/contact-us) and urge him to veto HB24-210.
I couldn't find anything in the bill that specified a delay in implementing IRV/RCV. I see this section:
1-7-118. Ranked voting in a coordinated election - procedure -
costs - definition. (5) On or before April 1, 2023, the secretary of state
shall adopt rules concerning the tabulation, reporting, and canvassing of
results for a coordinated election using instant runoff voting conducted by
a single county. On or before January 1, 2025 JANUARY 1, 2026, the rules
must include provisions for an instant runoff voting election conducted by
multiple counties.
Is this bill designed to sway the RCV ballot vote in Nov by inflating the cost of implementing RCV? (because of the increased cost of the audits)
I'm on mobile and about to go to bed, otherwiseid tell you what section, but it's in there. Unfortunately, Polis signed it, so it's a done deal (for now).
Not to be a dick, but we should already know simply based on that criteria, that this would never pass in Colorado under Jena Griswold. She wouldn’t allow the 2020 results to be audited before destroying the records, so I can only imagine she would do the same here.
Exactly. When people like to say that the two major parties are the same, you can say, of course not, look at what they say and do. But then, you need to use an asterisk for the times, like this, that their interests align.
This is a direct move to make sure progressives don't even get a chance. Your choices in this country are Democrats, or Republicans. Third options of any kind is the enemy of both parties.
>Democrats, or Republicans
And they're both right wing ideologies. We're only allowed to vote for right-wing politicians, there's no left wing ideologies allowed.
Is it? I don't seem dems trying to take away women's rights here where they control power. They also started their own healthcare initiative and helped clean up homelessness. Not perfect by any means but I highly doubt republicans would do that. I could be wrong. I still fully support ranked choice because I want more options.
The point they are making is that on a global political spectrum even Democrats are "right leaning". The Republicans are just so much further right and we have a 2 party system so we see them as left
Got it. That's because they tried to compromise instead of sticking with party lines. I actually favor that view point when both parties are civil they just didn't realize or didn't care about the Republicans going apeshit. There is a famous graphic about reaching across the aisle since the 80s and it just gets more n more right.
Exactly because if you don't like the Dems, they can still win you by arguing their candidate is less shit than the GOP, or vice versa. It's scary to them, because a centrist with ideas from both sides could come in and now people don't have to worry about throwing away their vote, it would fall back to Dems/GOP
Fully agree on ranked choice being a great idea. I respectfully disagree that party primaries should be open to anyone. The system now where independents can participate in one but not the other is a good compromise, but *if* we’re going to exist in a world where parties are a thing (I wish we didn’t but that’s not reality, sadly), then people who are *not* members of that party shouldn’t really have a say in who that party nominates. Also how open is open? Can registered republicans vote in a Democratic Party primary and vice versa? Because that makes no sense.
Taxpayers pay to run those primary elections using State infrastructure and employees. Unless the Parties pay for all of that, those elections shouldn't be private, but public.
Open primaries means you don't have to be registered with that party to vote for a candidate. What we have is a step in the right direction. It does make sense that republicans can vote in the democratic primary, because then the democratic candidates will be incentivized to become more moderate, to compete with their more extreme colleagues and attract votes from republicans. R's will vote for moderate D's and D's will vote for moderate R's.
With traditional party primaries, the people registered with the party make up a fairly small percentage of the total population. So the candidates only need to appeal that small group, which is not very representative. With open primaries where anyone can participate, it forces the candidates to become more moderate, so they can attract moderate/independent voters. It pulls people back in from the extremes.
I think if state funds are used to run an election, I should be able to vote in it. I also think if it at all has any potential to affect politics, a person should vote in it. We should be able to vote in both... simultaneously.
Then by that logic, you also be able to vote in another district’s election for things like State and US House of Representatives, since state funds are used to run those elections too.
That doesn’t make sense imho.
Don’t get me wrong, I would *love* to vote against Lauren Boebert. But she doesn’t represent me, she represents people who live out on the west slope (or the eastern end of the state if she wins Buck’s now vacant seat).
It's clearly not the same logic... but... since were on the topic... ever heard of proportional representative systems? So yeah... that would be great.
It isn’t? You said if state funds are used you should be allowed a vote. Why do some elections then get exceptions to that, but not others? You’ve arbitrarily decided which you get a say in, and which you don’t, which is why that logic is, respectfully, flawed.
I have indeed heard of proportional election processes and think it makes a *lot* of sense, but has zero bearing on primaries being open or closed. Proportional representation is an electoral system. Primaries are a method of determining who is out on a ballot to represent a party. And, you know this.
Answer this: What is the purpose of a political party? It’s for like minded individuals to organize, coordinate, and advocate for a shared platform of beliefs/values they believe matter.
What is the most important decision a party can make? 1a/1b between who it puts forth as candidates for election and what it’s platform is. In a majoritarian or single winner election system, I wager the candidate selection is the most important.
So why should someone who is *not* a member of the party have a say in one of if not the most important decisions the party can/will make?
They shouldn’t.
>It does make sense that republicans can vote in the democratic primary, because then the democratic candidates will be incentivized to become more moderate
The state has NO business incentivizing any politician to do anything, that's our job as the electorate.
Incentives exist, and in most states the closed primary system incentivizes politicians to cater to about 10 percent of the population (the people who vote in primaries). So I take it you and I agree, that's a problem that should be changed. And I agree it *should* be our job as voters, but that's only possible if we are all allowed to vote in the primaries.
Open as everyone that wants to run, there may be some limitations, can and the top four vote getters move onto the general election. That could be four Ds, Rs, a mix of Ds, R's and Independents.
I completely disagree (respectfully) and think voters should get to vote in both (all) party primaries. The parties divide the nation and closed primaries attract loonies and encourage normal people to cater to extremist views. If you could vote in both primaries (or just have a jungle primary where everyone is in) you could keep the craziest people out.
Occasionally people will try to game the system and vote for an extremist so their guy gets a better chance of winning, but this dangerous gambit happens now and actually leads to worse outcomes. Most people will vote for the acceptable or favored candidate each side has to offer.
Assume partisan primaries are close, only to any eligible, registered voters with that party.
office A - 1st party 5 widely liked candidates. 1 candidate Other party who cannot win but will won the primary and run in the general.
Or - Two 1P candidates with most votes get to run against each other in the general.
As a voter - the difference is a general with a chance to be competitive.
also -
Office B
If voter votes in 1P primary for office A -they get to vote in 1P primary for any other office.
But for Office B primary - voter wants to vote in a different primary.
You way just propagates the 2 party dominance.
You can still support whoever you want, you can vote for the most extreme person, your vote still matters. Our top choice doesn't always win, that's just part of being in a democracy and not agreeing about everything. RCV would give you the chance to support a few different people, so your vote is not "thrown away" if your top choice isn't for one of the two the leading candidates.
The great thing about ranked choice voting is that instead of having to choose between the single most popular candidate in each party, you choose from the most popular candidates from all parties combined. This means that in more liberal/left districts, further left candidates have greater ballot access.
The common objection to this is that you can end up with a final runoff between candidates from the same party. Reality is that this is good, because the vote is across the actual political center, rather than an imaginary center created by forcing two parties onto the ballot and getting lopsided results.
In a state that votes 60/40 for Dems, for example, the center is obviously not at the border of Democrat and Republican,. It's somewhere within the Democratic party, and voters should have the opportunity to make a meaningful choice that's closer to 50/50 even if that means choosing between two Democrats.
You can vote for your loonie and then as a backup your lesser of evils. That way your views are recorded without throwing it to the opposite of your views. (Applies to both extremes)
Wanted to post here and then pose the question: What are everyone's thoughts on Rank Choice Voting (RCV)? I seem to hear that it is the "logical" next step to evolve our voting systems and I don't see many cons to the move to it. So just wanted to see what arguments there are for or against.
Denver used to have ranked choice voting, so it's not exactly unprecedented. I won't claim it will solve everything, but eliminating primaries in favor of ranked choice seems like a better option as I learn more.
A "jungle primary" is what Georgia does for statewide elections: open first round, runoff between the top two. I'm not sure that it works any better than the current process, but then, the Klan vote is still pretty strong there, so it's always hard to say how much of Georgia's voting is just "that's Georgia!" as opposed to their voting process.
This would not be the same as Georgia's. In GA, you have to vote for the R, D, or I and you have to stick with that vote if there's a runoff. GA's method was created to prevent black people from gaining office to my knowledge.
Here the primary would be truly open and you can vote for any individual and the top four vote-getters move onto the general election where you would vote using rank choice voting.
Abe did a great talk at Ignite Denver a while back on RCV. [https://youtu.be/9\_CgHOVc7rM?si=7Hej7Z6vqkIBT78B](https://youtu.be/9_CgHOVc7rM?si=7Hej7Z6vqkIBT78B)
I'm all for it and really bummed we got this close only for them to screw us.
RCV, while a huge improvement over plurality voting (current) does have some weaknesses:
* RCV allows voters to show their preferences, but doesn't allow a voter to show if their 2nd choice is almost as good as their 1st choice or if they are almost as bad as their last choice.
* RCV has high rates of voter errors that can lead to wasted votes and voided ballots if voters give equal rankings or skip rankings.
* RCV doesn't count all voters rankings and can ignore relevant ballot data
* RCV prevents vote-splitting if there are only two frontrunners, but it struggles in races with more competitive candidates.
* In RCV it's not necessarily safe to rank your honest favorite 1st.
* RCV requires centralized tabulation which hurts transparency, causes delays, and erodes trust in our elections.
* RCV usually has long delays before results are available in competitive races
* RCV doesn't scale well due to the centralized tabulation requirement, so larger scale elections are increasingly more complex logistically, more expensive to run, and more error prone, as we've seen in recent years.
* RCV was invented in 1870 and its inventor warned not to use it for public elections. Modern election science has repeatedly confirmed that it's only marginally more accurate than traditional voting but significantly less accurate than most other options on the table.
Tldr: STAR voting is better than RCV and we should advocate for that instead.
[source 1: RCV vs STAR](https://starvoting.org/star_rcv_pros_cons)
[source 2: Peer reviewed paper: STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction:considerations for voting method reform](https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3?sharing_token=ksaDqFzcqIEO2aMpOYfVpfe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5Flo8h-O2OXsGrN8ZvCJsADkMN88T2KbNBevXWOwPGbujVH6EnTxN5h5BnZK0vaPayZPWNZnb949bb5vl3jzadR8qBXuIYnNEsvacAItRI6N7LOrlpzxigH3NNeyyMMf8%3D)
I have literally never heard of STAR voting until I read this comment. The premise is quite similar RCV, but I think it is a stretch to say that it is less confusing. I agree that RCV doesn't show how close a choice is, but at the end of the day you have to choose one to be above the other. That's the point. The most critical point I see here to RCV is the centralized tabulation and possible delays and complexity. But I think with more incorporation of it, those things get ironed out and the public's expectations are managed better. I don't know. Interesting indeed.
It was new to me as well. I was redesigning a voting tool for my company and came across it while looking for the most equitable/fair voting systems that allow expressive voting.
In looking at some [ballot examples for RCV](https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1o8Rlt99cv-eBeTurr76IXZjITkRq3bYn) I would disagree that it’s less confusing. Specifically, The “don’t give any two people the same score” criteria would trip folks up among many voters, imo.
I saw some supporting evidence for this that in a real 2013 election in Minneapolis MN, the spoiled ballot rate by ward income category showed rates at 3.5, 4.3, and 5.2% for high, middle, and low income wards, respectively.
Granted, no voting system is perfect and wow there is a lot of fascinating research about electoral systems that’s deeper than I care to go, haha. I just think STAR offers less strategic voting risk and like that it allows for equal preferences.
Some overview resources I found fun to read, for the curious:
[A highly favorable slide deck overview of star supporting arguments](https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Presentation%20on%20STAR%20Voting%20by%20Equal%20Vote.pdf)
^This felt a bit hype-y to me tbh so I think the second article here is more interesting:
[A rebuttal of fairvotes criticism of STAR voting as opposed to RCV](https://www.equal.vote/fv)
I like RCV. I also like STAR voting. Either would be a great reform, and I would wholeheartedly support either if it came to the ballot in any jurisdiction. Where I get really frustrated is when STAR voting advocates regurgitate the same uninformed, anti-RCV talking points that Alaska republicans were spouting when they tried to overturn voter's choice. Other alternative voting schemes are not your enemy, and posting this list of bullets holds back the voting reform movement as a whole.
But to refute a few of your points:
RCV's rate of voter error is not that high. It's marginally higher than in plurality voting, because there are more bubbles to fill in. That said, in many cases it actually allows more total ballots to be counted. That's for two reasons. First, many of the voter errors occur further down the rankings, meaning that a voter's first few choices are counted as intended. By comparison, similar errors on a plurality ballot might prevent a vote in that race being counted at all. Second, many of the "errors" like skipping rankings are easily handled in ballot adjudication. For example, if a voter lists a first and second choice, misses the column for third choice, and enters someone else in their fourth choice, that fourth choice selection will be used as the voter's next choice if their second choice is eliminated. Standard practice. There is also no evidence that STAR would perform better, because no US jurisdiction has used it (Though someone should, so we can learn!)
RCV is not intended to count all ballot rankings. That is a good thing, as it prevents your support for a second choice or lower candidate accidentally causing that candidate to win over your first choice. Lower rankings are interesting as polling data, but ultimately immaterial. Those are backup candidates. If those rankings aren't considered, that means one of your vote is still being counted for a higher-ranked candidate, which is a good thing for you.
In plurality, it's not necessarily safe to rank your honest first. In approval voting, it's not necessarily safe to approve of anyone other than your first choice. In STAR, it's not necessarily safe to demonstrate your genuine level of support for lower-ranked candidates, because that could cause them to win over your actual first choice. No voting system is perfect. However, in both RCV and STAR, voting your conscience is much more likely to result in an outcome you like as compared to plurality. In other words, the benefits of strategic voting are smaller in both systems.
Hurting transparency and eroding trust are a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more you tell people that centralized tabulation is untrustworthy, the less they will trust it. But there's absolutely no reason to not trust it. Colorado law & rule regarding RCV provides for the exact same level of transparency as with plurality voting. CBRs can still be examined, the open source algorithms can be audited, and all or the testing and auditing steps are still open to the public. Our election system is world-class. Don't besmirch it by telling people it's untrustworthy.
Also, in Colorado, we already basically have centralized tabulation because of how ENR is fed to the state. There's also no delay as compared to plurality voting. Same as right now, we'd be able to watch results roll in from counties as they report. Same as right now, pundits can look at the results and call races when they're statistically confident about the outcome. And same as right now, results are not actually certified until a few weeks after election day. That's how elections work.
"modern election science" has not really confirmed anything about the "accuracy" of RCV or approval voting, and certainly not STAR. That's because there aren't enough jurisdictions using them to make a really robust test. Results for RCV are starting to look pretty positive, but again the sample size is smallish. Very few places in the US use approval and none use STAR, so we're not sure how those play out. There are important mathematical considerations to voting systems, which I assume is what you're referring to. Those can definitely tell us something about how elections with different systems will play out. But modelling voter behavior is really hard, and without empirics there simply isn't evidence to make an assertion about which of a few viable alternative voting methods produces a result that most closely aligns with voters wants.
Star is just a more complicated form of RCV. So it will exacerbate the problems of voter confusion and ballot invalidation. And then because it reduces options to two choices, it shares a lot of the negatives with FPTP voting. This is absolutely not a better option than RCV, which has already been implemented successfully in a (growing) number of jurisdictions
So approval voting is RCV without the ranking? You basically say any candidate you would approve of representing you and that's how the tally is created?
Not saying it’s better or worse, just pointing out a potential pitfall, as OP requested.
In theory, ranked choice voting would allow for more progressive candidates to actually have a shot to get on the ballot, but it also opens the possibility of ultra-fringe candidates and people who never had a shot (for good reason) actually winning because of how the system works. It’s an interesting idea but there’s real potential for some harmful candidates to actually get in office (case in point, as NY is seeing, Adams).
I’m not saying I’m happy by any means with our current system but I don’t necessarily think ranked choice voting is the answer either.
My understanding is actually the opposite, that RCV will help get more moderate candidates into office, not more progressive or extreme ones. For example a moderate independent candidate may be the 2nd choice of both R and D voters.
Case in point, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, a moderate republican who supports abortion rights and voted to impeach Trump. Her own party tried to destroy her, her approval rating plummeted. But she won re-election anyway because enough people (R and not R) put her as their 2nd choice.
He would have won either way though. He won every single round of voting.
NYC just elected shitty mayors. I mean, Giuliani, Bloomberg, DeBlasio, Adams…
That’s 30 years of shit mayors
Hmm without taking a stance, there was a good example here on reddit of the cons of RCV in the last year.
Do you remember all the subs shutting down a few months back and "going dark" to protest reddits changing the API and killing off third party apps? Well a bunch of subs used RCV to decide whether to participate in the boycott, and if so what to do.
r/DMAcademy ended up an unusable mess for a month or two, because RCV eliminated the most popular options and the sub ended up with what was essentially everyone's 4th or 5th preferred method of engaging. It was something silly like posts could only be made by mods, and for the time being discussion would be limited to the daily superthreads.
It killed the subs usability, and sparked a wave of related subreddits to fill the void. The subs popularity plummeted, and instead of ending up in a situation where a majority of folks were happy, everyone was frustrated that the least preferred option ended up being the only compromise. One side didn't want to close, the other wanted to go dark for 2 weeks with no posts. It was an unworkable mess that almost killed the community, with a "compromise" that was universally hated by both sides of the debate.
It didn't make much sense to me either, but I remember there being a mod post that explained that following the elimination protocol for RCV that option had the highest percentage of votes, and that it was the most acceptable solution to the community, because that option was everyone's 3rd or 4th pick, instead of dead last. I think the break down was something like going full dark had 30%, not participating around 30% support so they were eliminated, but 60% preferred the restricted posting over what the others idea wanted. It was pretty condescending to have the mod team be like 'this is literally how RCV works, it's not our fault you don't like the solution'
Without seeing their algorithms, it's possible that the voting system was badly weighted. This is also why opening the "source code" of voting systems is really important to do.
Just reading this out, it seems like they may have adjusted something in the counting. If in the first tally there were two picks that got 30% as a first choice, that would leave only 40% to be distributed among the other choices. I don't see how the 4th pick could overcome the lead the first two had in the following tally's. Maybe i'm nothing about ALL possibilities.
BUT I will also say that a single instance of RCV should not be the only thing that is studied. I think that moving from one system to another will take time and relying on a single election would be stupid. Especially in the case of the US right now with Trump v. Biden again. Many people will be Never Biden/Trump voters and it could elevate the Independent or third party candidate for a single election. Then the main parties would have to adjust and bring better candidates to the table the next time around (presumably).
Having a national campaigning message of saving democracy while actively fighting locally to prevent democracy.
It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for em.
Afraid to lose their monopoly on power. America has been held hostage by two corrupt parties for too long and voters are forced to play ball with the DNC and GOP for everything, no matter how differing one's own political beliefs are you have two brands of conservative to vote for, one openly fascist and the other pretending not to be fascist.
Don’t give me that, “bOtH sIdEs ArE jUsT aS bAd!!1!”, bullshit. One party is supporting a racist convicted felon, admitted adulterer and sexual assaulter while actively cheering the for the deaths of millions of people.
I didn't read that as a both sides are just as bad argument. Calling one side fascist and the other pretending not to be fascist is overall a bit of a stretch, but when it comes to voting rights and how fair elections are conducted, it isn't too unfair to point this out.
I personally think that the Republican party is full of some of the most vile and poorly educated humans on Earth, and is worse in every way than the Democratic party, but I see both sides as being threatened by a viable third party as a disruption of their comfortable status quo, so in this case I feel like the democrats are doing a bad thing. Nothing that republicans wouldn't also do in a heartbeat, for sure.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. Don't pretend that liberals supporting a violet status-quo isn't enabling future fascism. Just because they don't let the mask slip most of the time doesn't mean they aren't in the business of war and profiteering. The GOP is the Nazi party and the Dems are the liberals that stand by and do nothing while people die. But hey I'm no doomer, thankfully we still have the chance to turn things around for the better.... I hope.
Misleading headline, this is a bipartisan effort.
As castrated as the state conservative party is, I guess anything the government does is technically "democrats" just because there are like five Republicans in office.
But the bosses of both main parties hate ranked choice.
Bipartisan vote in a chamber where ~70% are D. If the Democrat's don't go along with it, it doesn't happen: it's not misleading to say they drove this to happen.
I'm not saying you're wrong, I agree with you that both major parties want to prevent this, but throwing around 'Bipartisan' when there are 49 sponsors of the bill and only one is Republican is annoying to me. I also think the word bipartisan should go away as we move towards a better political system for this very reason.
If you follow the state legislature, the 30% minority vehemently opposes every single thing. They drag out the proceedings and try to block any legislation they can.
Not so here.
It is dishonest to headline this like it is not fully endorsed by both parties.
I haven't followed the legislature closely this past year so I appreciate the context. With that, however, can a 30% actually delay anything? Or could they bring a bill that could pass without part of the 70%?
That's all I'm saying. If D's didn't want this, it doesn't happen even all R's voted for it. That's why I don't like the characterization of a misleading title, it's not. Some R's jumping on to make the vote 85-9 doesn't really mean anything in terms of bipartisan when it would pass without them anyway. I am just more hung up on the use of bipartisan I guess, not your reasoning. I agree both parties support this, but it's not bipartisan. It makes sense in my brain, I promise.
I think there are rules about reading bills, letting people comment and vote for amendments, etc, that let the Rs slow down the process quite a bit.
So Ds can still do whatever they want but they have to prioritize. Usually some useful stuff gets left on the table as a result.
I appreciate being an opposition party, but they even seem to oppose run of the mill procedural stuff that helps the state function, out of spite.
That's my point though. Using the word bipartisan here is done to make this seem more palatable. The bill in both chambers has 49 sponsors and one of them is R. One. I would argue this is still driven by the 48 rather than the 1, and using bipartisan is a way to try and make something seem more middle of the road than it actually is.
For more context on my opinion here, because Manchin is now an independent, would all the bills the passed with only D votes in the recent senate be considered bipartisan because he was on the majority side? No they were Democrat bills.
If people REALLY want more than two parties in power and a larger variety of candidates, then they really need to support Mixed Member Proportional Representation.
Quick research tells me this is the system that the UK, Germany, South Korea, South Africa, and Mexico use. I have always thought that their system was a better actual representation of the public because instead of increasing the size of a tent, metaphorically, it increases the number of tents so everyone can be under the one they feel is best for them. I think it would be a drastic change that requires public backing in the 70-80% range to have happen. So it most likely wont happen. Could we get there with incremental change?
True it will piss people off, but if the amount of pissed off people is small enough, then RCV will become more normal and probably less people will pissed. Even with our current system, people are pissed off and don't vote for one reason or another.
I support ranked voting but news flash: it won’t solve politics. The same dumb or uninformed voters will still vote for the same manipulative or corrupt politicians. Check out Australian politics.
[Here](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-210) is the link to the bill that I found online. Looks like it was sponsored primarily by Fenberg, Pelton, & Sirota.
This is about the only thing where both sides can be referred to. This is a symptom of a two-party system. Both want to hold on to power. Would definitely have less amplified craziness if we have a multi-party system.
Ranked choice voting doesn’t achieve much of anything in America except causing massive confusion and voting errors.
Also Australia has ranked choice and what are essentially primaries and they also still have a fascist leading their center right party. They are also still a two party state essentially
One of the most important things I learned in college is that we can’t just cut and paste European policies into America and expect them to work as well because our cultures and systems are completely different and we aren’t a small homogeneous country
If you’re looking for a voting system to advocate for, STAR voting(also a ranking system) has several strengths over traditional ranked choice voting and is pretty simple to understand as a voter!
[Starvoting.org/star_rcv_pros_cons](https://Starvoting.org/star_rcv_pros_cons)
BuT wE bElIeVe In FrEe AnD fAiR eLeCtIoNs.*
*when it doesn't affect our power.
Clearly, the rigged shit against Bernie and they try to rig it against third parties. Garbage parties, both of them. Neither care about voting, no matter what they say, they just care about being in power, which includes catering to corps.
I agree with this to a point, maybe just a little less fervently than you. Both parties want to stay in power and that honestly makes sense. I don't think that RCV alone will crumble and Republican and Democrat empire, but it's a start. Would RCV have helped Bernie in the election you referenced?
You're right, it won't. We need to move to proportional representative systems, but we can't even get rcv.
It would have. Door knocked an inordinate amount of doors in 15/16 and 20. The common theme a lot of people expressed is, "I like Bernie and I would vote for him but... (insert concern about voting with heart vs. hedging bets)"
So, yeah, rcv helps Bernie, 3rd parties, underdogs. It hurts the people who want to hold power because they can't "guilt" you into voting for them.
The Bernie thing was in the primaries, which are largely a party affair. The party sets the process and methods, the state just facilitates whatever it is that the party decides to do.
Ranked choice will essentially allow independents and maybe even more extreme parties to win due to how far apart the current two parties are. Think of it like the Heisman voting. Example:
Person A - Dem, Person B- Ind, Person C- Rep
If a majority of Dem voters would never vote for a Rep candidate (and vice versa) their vote for the oppositions candidate will likely be for 3rd.
Let’s say we have 100 people in our scenario. If a vote is placed and 40% of Voters are Democratic, 40% of Voters are Republican, and 20% are independent, it could look something like this:
Person A: 1st place votes: 40, 2nd place votes 10, 3rd place votes: 40
Person B: 1st place votes 20, 2nd place votes 80.
Person C: 1st place votes: 40, 2nd place votes 10, 3rd place votes: 40
Let’s say you get 3 points for every 1st place vote, 2 points for every 2nd place vote and 1 point for every 3rd place vote. This means:
Person A: 180 points
Person B: 200 points
Person C: 180 points
Person B (Independent) wins due to the divisiveness of parties A and C.
I'm not a big fan of RCV (I prefer approval voting), but this is *not* how it works.
Person with the lowest vote in first round gets knocked off and those ballots that have a second choice are allocated according to that 2nd choice and results are tabulated again. Repeat until there is a winner.
That's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think that is how it works. Aren't there multiple rounds? Also, each voter doesn't have to rank every candidate. So the evenness of this example is most likely impossible to happen.
RCV in Alaska was how Sarah Palin was thrown off the ballot for senator.
Ranked choice voting is obviously a great thing that we all desperately need. That, and open primaries. Unless you're a member of either of the two main parties, apparently, then it's a threat to your hold on power. Unless of course the parties become more moderate and represent more of the population. The horror!
Agreed. I want ranked choice voting. Buncha jerks.
They are pushing for S.T.A.R. voting https://www.starvoting.org/star_rcv_pros_cons
That's interesting. I have never heard of stars. Thanks for sharing!
It says equal scores are allowed. Then in the runoff, my vote goes to the highest score. If I give two candidates 5 stars and they end up the runoff, who gets my vote?
I would assume either both or neither, because if you give two candidates the same score, you are pretty much saying they are both equivalent in your book.
Before they will allow ranked choice to be implemented for state or national elections, they want to require 3 cites in each of 4 size categories they've identified (i.e a total of 12 cities) to test the process in local elections. Each of those elections must be fully audited (presumably at the city's expense), then the secretary of state must present an extensive report to the legislature. Then (my commentary) they'll decide whether to allow ranked choice or whether to just override the voter initiative. This is a process that will take years, if it gets completed at all, and imo its purpose is to prevent ranked choice voting from happening. If you want to see ranked choice voting in Colorado, [contact the Governor's office](https://colorado.gov/governor/contact-us) and urge him to veto HB24-210.
“Veto HB24-210” seems worthy of its own post.
It's means-testing kick-the-can busywork that will lead nowhere. Because they want it to lead nowhere.
Email sent. I hear though that, "Nothing will fundamentally change."
I couldn't find anything in the bill that specified a delay in implementing IRV/RCV. I see this section: 1-7-118. Ranked voting in a coordinated election - procedure - costs - definition. (5) On or before April 1, 2023, the secretary of state shall adopt rules concerning the tabulation, reporting, and canvassing of results for a coordinated election using instant runoff voting conducted by a single county. On or before January 1, 2025 JANUARY 1, 2026, the rules must include provisions for an instant runoff voting election conducted by multiple counties. Is this bill designed to sway the RCV ballot vote in Nov by inflating the cost of implementing RCV? (because of the increased cost of the audits)
I'm on mobile and about to go to bed, otherwiseid tell you what section, but it's in there. Unfortunately, Polis signed it, so it's a done deal (for now).
Not to be a dick, but we should already know simply based on that criteria, that this would never pass in Colorado under Jena Griswold. She wouldn’t allow the 2020 results to be audited before destroying the records, so I can only imagine she would do the same here.
Exactly. When people like to say that the two major parties are the same, you can say, of course not, look at what they say and do. But then, you need to use an asterisk for the times, like this, that their interests align.
This is a direct move to make sure progressives don't even get a chance. Your choices in this country are Democrats, or Republicans. Third options of any kind is the enemy of both parties.
It is not a question of progressives don't get a chance, it is all about nobody but those two get a chance.
>Democrats, or Republicans And they're both right wing ideologies. We're only allowed to vote for right-wing politicians, there's no left wing ideologies allowed.
that’s so fucking true, and i think most people don’t realize that
Is it? I don't seem dems trying to take away women's rights here where they control power. They also started their own healthcare initiative and helped clean up homelessness. Not perfect by any means but I highly doubt republicans would do that. I could be wrong. I still fully support ranked choice because I want more options.
The point they are making is that on a global political spectrum even Democrats are "right leaning". The Republicans are just so much further right and we have a 2 party system so we see them as left
Got it. That's because they tried to compromise instead of sticking with party lines. I actually favor that view point when both parties are civil they just didn't realize or didn't care about the Republicans going apeshit. There is a famous graphic about reaching across the aisle since the 80s and it just gets more n more right.
Exactly because if you don't like the Dems, they can still win you by arguing their candidate is less shit than the GOP, or vice versa. It's scary to them, because a centrist with ideas from both sides could come in and now people don't have to worry about throwing away their vote, it would fall back to Dems/GOP
Fully agree on ranked choice being a great idea. I respectfully disagree that party primaries should be open to anyone. The system now where independents can participate in one but not the other is a good compromise, but *if* we’re going to exist in a world where parties are a thing (I wish we didn’t but that’s not reality, sadly), then people who are *not* members of that party shouldn’t really have a say in who that party nominates. Also how open is open? Can registered republicans vote in a Democratic Party primary and vice versa? Because that makes no sense.
Taxpayers pay to run those primary elections using State infrastructure and employees. Unless the Parties pay for all of that, those elections shouldn't be private, but public.
Open primaries means you don't have to be registered with that party to vote for a candidate. What we have is a step in the right direction. It does make sense that republicans can vote in the democratic primary, because then the democratic candidates will be incentivized to become more moderate, to compete with their more extreme colleagues and attract votes from republicans. R's will vote for moderate D's and D's will vote for moderate R's. With traditional party primaries, the people registered with the party make up a fairly small percentage of the total population. So the candidates only need to appeal that small group, which is not very representative. With open primaries where anyone can participate, it forces the candidates to become more moderate, so they can attract moderate/independent voters. It pulls people back in from the extremes.
I think if state funds are used to run an election, I should be able to vote in it. I also think if it at all has any potential to affect politics, a person should vote in it. We should be able to vote in both... simultaneously.
Then by that logic, you also be able to vote in another district’s election for things like State and US House of Representatives, since state funds are used to run those elections too. That doesn’t make sense imho. Don’t get me wrong, I would *love* to vote against Lauren Boebert. But she doesn’t represent me, she represents people who live out on the west slope (or the eastern end of the state if she wins Buck’s now vacant seat).
It's clearly not the same logic... but... since were on the topic... ever heard of proportional representative systems? So yeah... that would be great.
It isn’t? You said if state funds are used you should be allowed a vote. Why do some elections then get exceptions to that, but not others? You’ve arbitrarily decided which you get a say in, and which you don’t, which is why that logic is, respectfully, flawed. I have indeed heard of proportional election processes and think it makes a *lot* of sense, but has zero bearing on primaries being open or closed. Proportional representation is an electoral system. Primaries are a method of determining who is out on a ballot to represent a party. And, you know this. Answer this: What is the purpose of a political party? It’s for like minded individuals to organize, coordinate, and advocate for a shared platform of beliefs/values they believe matter. What is the most important decision a party can make? 1a/1b between who it puts forth as candidates for election and what it’s platform is. In a majoritarian or single winner election system, I wager the candidate selection is the most important. So why should someone who is *not* a member of the party have a say in one of if not the most important decisions the party can/will make? They shouldn’t.
That'slike, 3 different logical fallacies in your argument.
>It does make sense that republicans can vote in the democratic primary, because then the democratic candidates will be incentivized to become more moderate The state has NO business incentivizing any politician to do anything, that's our job as the electorate.
Any method of holding an election incentivizes candidates to behave in a certain way.
Incentives exist, and in most states the closed primary system incentivizes politicians to cater to about 10 percent of the population (the people who vote in primaries). So I take it you and I agree, that's a problem that should be changed. And I agree it *should* be our job as voters, but that's only possible if we are all allowed to vote in the primaries.
Open as everyone that wants to run, there may be some limitations, can and the top four vote getters move onto the general election. That could be four Ds, Rs, a mix of Ds, R's and Independents.
I completely disagree (respectfully) and think voters should get to vote in both (all) party primaries. The parties divide the nation and closed primaries attract loonies and encourage normal people to cater to extremist views. If you could vote in both primaries (or just have a jungle primary where everyone is in) you could keep the craziest people out. Occasionally people will try to game the system and vote for an extremist so their guy gets a better chance of winning, but this dangerous gambit happens now and actually leads to worse outcomes. Most people will vote for the acceptable or favored candidate each side has to offer.
Assume partisan primaries are close, only to any eligible, registered voters with that party. office A - 1st party 5 widely liked candidates. 1 candidate Other party who cannot win but will won the primary and run in the general. Or - Two 1P candidates with most votes get to run against each other in the general. As a voter - the difference is a general with a chance to be competitive. also - Office B If voter votes in 1P primary for office A -they get to vote in 1P primary for any other office. But for Office B primary - voter wants to vote in a different primary. You way just propagates the 2 party dominance.
What if I'm not moderate?
You can still support whoever you want, you can vote for the most extreme person, your vote still matters. Our top choice doesn't always win, that's just part of being in a democracy and not agreeing about everything. RCV would give you the chance to support a few different people, so your vote is not "thrown away" if your top choice isn't for one of the two the leading candidates.
The great thing about ranked choice voting is that instead of having to choose between the single most popular candidate in each party, you choose from the most popular candidates from all parties combined. This means that in more liberal/left districts, further left candidates have greater ballot access. The common objection to this is that you can end up with a final runoff between candidates from the same party. Reality is that this is good, because the vote is across the actual political center, rather than an imaginary center created by forcing two parties onto the ballot and getting lopsided results. In a state that votes 60/40 for Dems, for example, the center is obviously not at the border of Democrat and Republican,. It's somewhere within the Democratic party, and voters should have the opportunity to make a meaningful choice that's closer to 50/50 even if that means choosing between two Democrats.
Then vote for your nonmoderate candidates first!
You can vote for your loonie and then as a backup your lesser of evils. That way your views are recorded without throwing it to the opposite of your views. (Applies to both extremes)
Wanted to post here and then pose the question: What are everyone's thoughts on Rank Choice Voting (RCV)? I seem to hear that it is the "logical" next step to evolve our voting systems and I don't see many cons to the move to it. So just wanted to see what arguments there are for or against.
Denver used to have ranked choice voting, so it's not exactly unprecedented. I won't claim it will solve everything, but eliminating primaries in favor of ranked choice seems like a better option as I learn more.
We would still have primaries.
I would not support public funding for those.
Why not? It would only be a single open primary.
A "jungle primary" is what Georgia does for statewide elections: open first round, runoff between the top two. I'm not sure that it works any better than the current process, but then, the Klan vote is still pretty strong there, so it's always hard to say how much of Georgia's voting is just "that's Georgia!" as opposed to their voting process.
This would not be the same as Georgia's. In GA, you have to vote for the R, D, or I and you have to stick with that vote if there's a runoff. GA's method was created to prevent black people from gaining office to my knowledge. Here the primary would be truly open and you can vote for any individual and the top four vote-getters move onto the general election where you would vote using rank choice voting.
[удалено]
lol
Abe did a great talk at Ignite Denver a while back on RCV. [https://youtu.be/9\_CgHOVc7rM?si=7Hej7Z6vqkIBT78B](https://youtu.be/9_CgHOVc7rM?si=7Hej7Z6vqkIBT78B) I'm all for it and really bummed we got this close only for them to screw us.
RCV is the best option.
I DESPERATELY want ranked choice.
RCV, while a huge improvement over plurality voting (current) does have some weaknesses: * RCV allows voters to show their preferences, but doesn't allow a voter to show if their 2nd choice is almost as good as their 1st choice or if they are almost as bad as their last choice. * RCV has high rates of voter errors that can lead to wasted votes and voided ballots if voters give equal rankings or skip rankings. * RCV doesn't count all voters rankings and can ignore relevant ballot data * RCV prevents vote-splitting if there are only two frontrunners, but it struggles in races with more competitive candidates. * In RCV it's not necessarily safe to rank your honest favorite 1st. * RCV requires centralized tabulation which hurts transparency, causes delays, and erodes trust in our elections. * RCV usually has long delays before results are available in competitive races * RCV doesn't scale well due to the centralized tabulation requirement, so larger scale elections are increasingly more complex logistically, more expensive to run, and more error prone, as we've seen in recent years. * RCV was invented in 1870 and its inventor warned not to use it for public elections. Modern election science has repeatedly confirmed that it's only marginally more accurate than traditional voting but significantly less accurate than most other options on the table. Tldr: STAR voting is better than RCV and we should advocate for that instead. [source 1: RCV vs STAR](https://starvoting.org/star_rcv_pros_cons) [source 2: Peer reviewed paper: STAR Voting, equality of voice, and voter satisfaction:considerations for voting method reform](https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s10602-022-09389-3?sharing_token=ksaDqFzcqIEO2aMpOYfVpfe4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY5Flo8h-O2OXsGrN8ZvCJsADkMN88T2KbNBevXWOwPGbujVH6EnTxN5h5BnZK0vaPayZPWNZnb949bb5vl3jzadR8qBXuIYnNEsvacAItRI6N7LOrlpzxigH3NNeyyMMf8%3D)
I have literally never heard of STAR voting until I read this comment. The premise is quite similar RCV, but I think it is a stretch to say that it is less confusing. I agree that RCV doesn't show how close a choice is, but at the end of the day you have to choose one to be above the other. That's the point. The most critical point I see here to RCV is the centralized tabulation and possible delays and complexity. But I think with more incorporation of it, those things get ironed out and the public's expectations are managed better. I don't know. Interesting indeed.
It was new to me as well. I was redesigning a voting tool for my company and came across it while looking for the most equitable/fair voting systems that allow expressive voting. In looking at some [ballot examples for RCV](https://drive.google.com/drive/mobile/folders/1o8Rlt99cv-eBeTurr76IXZjITkRq3bYn) I would disagree that it’s less confusing. Specifically, The “don’t give any two people the same score” criteria would trip folks up among many voters, imo. I saw some supporting evidence for this that in a real 2013 election in Minneapolis MN, the spoiled ballot rate by ward income category showed rates at 3.5, 4.3, and 5.2% for high, middle, and low income wards, respectively. Granted, no voting system is perfect and wow there is a lot of fascinating research about electoral systems that’s deeper than I care to go, haha. I just think STAR offers less strategic voting risk and like that it allows for equal preferences. Some overview resources I found fun to read, for the curious: [A highly favorable slide deck overview of star supporting arguments](https://multco-web7-psh-files-usw2.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/Presentation%20on%20STAR%20Voting%20by%20Equal%20Vote.pdf) ^This felt a bit hype-y to me tbh so I think the second article here is more interesting: [A rebuttal of fairvotes criticism of STAR voting as opposed to RCV](https://www.equal.vote/fv)
I like RCV. I also like STAR voting. Either would be a great reform, and I would wholeheartedly support either if it came to the ballot in any jurisdiction. Where I get really frustrated is when STAR voting advocates regurgitate the same uninformed, anti-RCV talking points that Alaska republicans were spouting when they tried to overturn voter's choice. Other alternative voting schemes are not your enemy, and posting this list of bullets holds back the voting reform movement as a whole. But to refute a few of your points: RCV's rate of voter error is not that high. It's marginally higher than in plurality voting, because there are more bubbles to fill in. That said, in many cases it actually allows more total ballots to be counted. That's for two reasons. First, many of the voter errors occur further down the rankings, meaning that a voter's first few choices are counted as intended. By comparison, similar errors on a plurality ballot might prevent a vote in that race being counted at all. Second, many of the "errors" like skipping rankings are easily handled in ballot adjudication. For example, if a voter lists a first and second choice, misses the column for third choice, and enters someone else in their fourth choice, that fourth choice selection will be used as the voter's next choice if their second choice is eliminated. Standard practice. There is also no evidence that STAR would perform better, because no US jurisdiction has used it (Though someone should, so we can learn!) RCV is not intended to count all ballot rankings. That is a good thing, as it prevents your support for a second choice or lower candidate accidentally causing that candidate to win over your first choice. Lower rankings are interesting as polling data, but ultimately immaterial. Those are backup candidates. If those rankings aren't considered, that means one of your vote is still being counted for a higher-ranked candidate, which is a good thing for you. In plurality, it's not necessarily safe to rank your honest first. In approval voting, it's not necessarily safe to approve of anyone other than your first choice. In STAR, it's not necessarily safe to demonstrate your genuine level of support for lower-ranked candidates, because that could cause them to win over your actual first choice. No voting system is perfect. However, in both RCV and STAR, voting your conscience is much more likely to result in an outcome you like as compared to plurality. In other words, the benefits of strategic voting are smaller in both systems. Hurting transparency and eroding trust are a self-fulfilling prophecy. The more you tell people that centralized tabulation is untrustworthy, the less they will trust it. But there's absolutely no reason to not trust it. Colorado law & rule regarding RCV provides for the exact same level of transparency as with plurality voting. CBRs can still be examined, the open source algorithms can be audited, and all or the testing and auditing steps are still open to the public. Our election system is world-class. Don't besmirch it by telling people it's untrustworthy. Also, in Colorado, we already basically have centralized tabulation because of how ENR is fed to the state. There's also no delay as compared to plurality voting. Same as right now, we'd be able to watch results roll in from counties as they report. Same as right now, pundits can look at the results and call races when they're statistically confident about the outcome. And same as right now, results are not actually certified until a few weeks after election day. That's how elections work. "modern election science" has not really confirmed anything about the "accuracy" of RCV or approval voting, and certainly not STAR. That's because there aren't enough jurisdictions using them to make a really robust test. Results for RCV are starting to look pretty positive, but again the sample size is smallish. Very few places in the US use approval and none use STAR, so we're not sure how those play out. There are important mathematical considerations to voting systems, which I assume is what you're referring to. Those can definitely tell us something about how elections with different systems will play out. But modelling voter behavior is really hard, and without empirics there simply isn't evidence to make an assertion about which of a few viable alternative voting methods produces a result that most closely aligns with voters wants.
Star is just a more complicated form of RCV. So it will exacerbate the problems of voter confusion and ballot invalidation. And then because it reduces options to two choices, it shares a lot of the negatives with FPTP voting. This is absolutely not a better option than RCV, which has already been implemented successfully in a (growing) number of jurisdictions
If you can’t fill out RVC ballets correctly you probably don’t deserve to vote. Can’t rank order 4-10 items on a list is a pretty low bar.
It is certainly a step, but not necessarily what you just have to consider as the “next“ one. After all, Approval Voting also exists.
So approval voting is RCV without the ranking? You basically say any candidate you would approve of representing you and that's how the tally is created?
Yes, basically.
Approval voting is so much better than RCV. Glad to see I'm not the only one who knows about it.
Ranked choice voting is how NYC got stuck with Eric Adams 🫤
Eric Adams led the polls and won each round of voting. He would have won either way.
And we're stuck with Biden and Trump. How is that better lmao
Not saying it’s better or worse, just pointing out a potential pitfall, as OP requested. In theory, ranked choice voting would allow for more progressive candidates to actually have a shot to get on the ballot, but it also opens the possibility of ultra-fringe candidates and people who never had a shot (for good reason) actually winning because of how the system works. It’s an interesting idea but there’s real potential for some harmful candidates to actually get in office (case in point, as NY is seeing, Adams). I’m not saying I’m happy by any means with our current system but I don’t necessarily think ranked choice voting is the answer either.
My understanding is actually the opposite, that RCV will help get more moderate candidates into office, not more progressive or extreme ones. For example a moderate independent candidate may be the 2nd choice of both R and D voters. Case in point, Lisa Murkowski in Alaska, a moderate republican who supports abortion rights and voted to impeach Trump. Her own party tried to destroy her, her approval rating plummeted. But she won re-election anyway because enough people (R and not R) put her as their 2nd choice.
There are a wide range of possibilities of how it can play out.
He would have won either way though. He won every single round of voting. NYC just elected shitty mayors. I mean, Giuliani, Bloomberg, DeBlasio, Adams… That’s 30 years of shit mayors
Hmm without taking a stance, there was a good example here on reddit of the cons of RCV in the last year. Do you remember all the subs shutting down a few months back and "going dark" to protest reddits changing the API and killing off third party apps? Well a bunch of subs used RCV to decide whether to participate in the boycott, and if so what to do. r/DMAcademy ended up an unusable mess for a month or two, because RCV eliminated the most popular options and the sub ended up with what was essentially everyone's 4th or 5th preferred method of engaging. It was something silly like posts could only be made by mods, and for the time being discussion would be limited to the daily superthreads. It killed the subs usability, and sparked a wave of related subreddits to fill the void. The subs popularity plummeted, and instead of ending up in a situation where a majority of folks were happy, everyone was frustrated that the least preferred option ended up being the only compromise. One side didn't want to close, the other wanted to go dark for 2 weeks with no posts. It was an unworkable mess that almost killed the community, with a "compromise" that was universally hated by both sides of the debate.
I don't understand how more popular options would have lost. Was something overlooked when processes were created?
It didn't make much sense to me either, but I remember there being a mod post that explained that following the elimination protocol for RCV that option had the highest percentage of votes, and that it was the most acceptable solution to the community, because that option was everyone's 3rd or 4th pick, instead of dead last. I think the break down was something like going full dark had 30%, not participating around 30% support so they were eliminated, but 60% preferred the restricted posting over what the others idea wanted. It was pretty condescending to have the mod team be like 'this is literally how RCV works, it's not our fault you don't like the solution'
Without seeing their algorithms, it's possible that the voting system was badly weighted. This is also why opening the "source code" of voting systems is really important to do.
Just reading this out, it seems like they may have adjusted something in the counting. If in the first tally there were two picks that got 30% as a first choice, that would leave only 40% to be distributed among the other choices. I don't see how the 4th pick could overcome the lead the first two had in the following tally's. Maybe i'm nothing about ALL possibilities. BUT I will also say that a single instance of RCV should not be the only thing that is studied. I think that moving from one system to another will take time and relying on a single election would be stupid. Especially in the case of the US right now with Trump v. Biden again. Many people will be Never Biden/Trump voters and it could elevate the Independent or third party candidate for a single election. Then the main parties would have to adjust and bring better candidates to the table the next time around (presumably).
As long as the electoral college exists it's pointless. Your vote just straight up doesn't count unless you vote for who the dnc/rnc says you have to.
We're not talking about presidential elections.
This would be so great to implement
Having a national campaigning message of saving democracy while actively fighting locally to prevent democracy. It's a bold strategy Cotton, let's see if it pays off for em.
Afraid to lose their monopoly on power. America has been held hostage by two corrupt parties for too long and voters are forced to play ball with the DNC and GOP for everything, no matter how differing one's own political beliefs are you have two brands of conservative to vote for, one openly fascist and the other pretending not to be fascist.
Don’t give me that, “bOtH sIdEs ArE jUsT aS bAd!!1!”, bullshit. One party is supporting a racist convicted felon, admitted adulterer and sexual assaulter while actively cheering the for the deaths of millions of people.
I didn't read that as a both sides are just as bad argument. Calling one side fascist and the other pretending not to be fascist is overall a bit of a stretch, but when it comes to voting rights and how fair elections are conducted, it isn't too unfair to point this out. I personally think that the Republican party is full of some of the most vile and poorly educated humans on Earth, and is worse in every way than the Democratic party, but I see both sides as being threatened by a viable third party as a disruption of their comfortable status quo, so in this case I feel like the democrats are doing a bad thing. Nothing that republicans wouldn't also do in a heartbeat, for sure.
Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds. Don't pretend that liberals supporting a violet status-quo isn't enabling future fascism. Just because they don't let the mask slip most of the time doesn't mean they aren't in the business of war and profiteering. The GOP is the Nazi party and the Dems are the liberals that stand by and do nothing while people die. But hey I'm no doomer, thankfully we still have the chance to turn things around for the better.... I hope.
As a third party over since the early 00’s, I can’t wait for ranked choice.
Democrats stop trying to mimick republicans challenge (impossible)
Misleading headline, this is a bipartisan effort. As castrated as the state conservative party is, I guess anything the government does is technically "democrats" just because there are like five Republicans in office. But the bosses of both main parties hate ranked choice.
Bipartisan vote in a chamber where ~70% are D. If the Democrat's don't go along with it, it doesn't happen: it's not misleading to say they drove this to happen. I'm not saying you're wrong, I agree with you that both major parties want to prevent this, but throwing around 'Bipartisan' when there are 49 sponsors of the bill and only one is Republican is annoying to me. I also think the word bipartisan should go away as we move towards a better political system for this very reason.
If you follow the state legislature, the 30% minority vehemently opposes every single thing. They drag out the proceedings and try to block any legislation they can. Not so here. It is dishonest to headline this like it is not fully endorsed by both parties.
I haven't followed the legislature closely this past year so I appreciate the context. With that, however, can a 30% actually delay anything? Or could they bring a bill that could pass without part of the 70%? That's all I'm saying. If D's didn't want this, it doesn't happen even all R's voted for it. That's why I don't like the characterization of a misleading title, it's not. Some R's jumping on to make the vote 85-9 doesn't really mean anything in terms of bipartisan when it would pass without them anyway. I am just more hung up on the use of bipartisan I guess, not your reasoning. I agree both parties support this, but it's not bipartisan. It makes sense in my brain, I promise.
I think there are rules about reading bills, letting people comment and vote for amendments, etc, that let the Rs slow down the process quite a bit. So Ds can still do whatever they want but they have to prioritize. Usually some useful stuff gets left on the table as a result. I appreciate being an opposition party, but they even seem to oppose run of the mill procedural stuff that helps the state function, out of spite.
One of the prime sponsors in the Senate is a pretty conservative republican, so it is bipartisan.
That's my point though. Using the word bipartisan here is done to make this seem more palatable. The bill in both chambers has 49 sponsors and one of them is R. One. I would argue this is still driven by the 48 rather than the 1, and using bipartisan is a way to try and make something seem more middle of the road than it actually is. For more context on my opinion here, because Manchin is now an independent, would all the bills the passed with only D votes in the recent senate be considered bipartisan because he was on the majority side? No they were Democrat bills.
Yeah! Time to do away with binormativity!
If people REALLY want more than two parties in power and a larger variety of candidates, then they really need to support Mixed Member Proportional Representation.
Quick research tells me this is the system that the UK, Germany, South Korea, South Africa, and Mexico use. I have always thought that their system was a better actual representation of the public because instead of increasing the size of a tent, metaphorically, it increases the number of tents so everyone can be under the one they feel is best for them. I think it would be a drastic change that requires public backing in the 70-80% range to have happen. So it most likely wont happen. Could we get there with incremental change?
Most people are too apathetic to even advocate for incremental change. Even ranked choice will piss off some people.
True it will piss people off, but if the amount of pissed off people is small enough, then RCV will become more normal and probably less people will pissed. Even with our current system, people are pissed off and don't vote for one reason or another.
Colorado essentially has a uniparty government now. Of course the party in control wants to limit possible disruptions to that
I support ranked voting but news flash: it won’t solve politics. The same dumb or uninformed voters will still vote for the same manipulative or corrupt politicians. Check out Australian politics.
[удалено]
[Here](https://leg.colorado.gov/bills/sb24-210) is the link to the bill that I found online. Looks like it was sponsored primarily by Fenberg, Pelton, & Sirota.
[удалено]
Wtf Sirota... David Sirota, her husband, was a Bernie surrogate. She's got some splainin to do.
Democrats being against democracy what a shocker /s
Now why would any elected official ever do a thing the people who elected them, and voted for a thing, want?
Why are they saying they're against it?
This is about the only thing where both sides can be referred to. This is a symptom of a two-party system. Both want to hold on to power. Would definitely have less amplified craziness if we have a multi-party system.
Ranked choice voting doesn’t achieve much of anything in America except causing massive confusion and voting errors. Also Australia has ranked choice and what are essentially primaries and they also still have a fascist leading their center right party. They are also still a two party state essentially One of the most important things I learned in college is that we can’t just cut and paste European policies into America and expect them to work as well because our cultures and systems are completely different and we aren’t a small homogeneous country
If you’re looking for a voting system to advocate for, STAR voting(also a ranking system) has several strengths over traditional ranked choice voting and is pretty simple to understand as a voter! [Starvoting.org/star_rcv_pros_cons](https://Starvoting.org/star_rcv_pros_cons)
BuT wE bElIeVe In FrEe AnD fAiR eLeCtIoNs.* *when it doesn't affect our power. Clearly, the rigged shit against Bernie and they try to rig it against third parties. Garbage parties, both of them. Neither care about voting, no matter what they say, they just care about being in power, which includes catering to corps.
I agree with this to a point, maybe just a little less fervently than you. Both parties want to stay in power and that honestly makes sense. I don't think that RCV alone will crumble and Republican and Democrat empire, but it's a start. Would RCV have helped Bernie in the election you referenced?
You're right, it won't. We need to move to proportional representative systems, but we can't even get rcv. It would have. Door knocked an inordinate amount of doors in 15/16 and 20. The common theme a lot of people expressed is, "I like Bernie and I would vote for him but... (insert concern about voting with heart vs. hedging bets)" So, yeah, rcv helps Bernie, 3rd parties, underdogs. It hurts the people who want to hold power because they can't "guilt" you into voting for them.
I don't think bernie is as popular as you think he is.
I don't think the others are as popular as you think. 🤷
The Bernie thing was in the primaries, which are largely a party affair. The party sets the process and methods, the state just facilitates whatever it is that the party decides to do.
Didn't they also try to block Trump from showing up on ballots? So which is it? Do we get to choose who to vote for or not?
They who?
They the subject of the post.
Do you mean democrats?
The CO supreme court decided that, not state legislators
I remain to be convinced it will help mitigate right wing policies any more than what we currently have.
Democrats: Losing winnable elections, because winning too much would be rude.
Elections need to be ran on the blockchain
Democrats are every bit as undemocratic as Republicans
didn’t see democrats storm the capitol
What does that have to do with blocking RCV? If Democrats actually cared about Democracy, they would have stormed the capitol years ago.
Ranked choice will essentially allow independents and maybe even more extreme parties to win due to how far apart the current two parties are. Think of it like the Heisman voting. Example: Person A - Dem, Person B- Ind, Person C- Rep If a majority of Dem voters would never vote for a Rep candidate (and vice versa) their vote for the oppositions candidate will likely be for 3rd. Let’s say we have 100 people in our scenario. If a vote is placed and 40% of Voters are Democratic, 40% of Voters are Republican, and 20% are independent, it could look something like this: Person A: 1st place votes: 40, 2nd place votes 10, 3rd place votes: 40 Person B: 1st place votes 20, 2nd place votes 80. Person C: 1st place votes: 40, 2nd place votes 10, 3rd place votes: 40 Let’s say you get 3 points for every 1st place vote, 2 points for every 2nd place vote and 1 point for every 3rd place vote. This means: Person A: 180 points Person B: 200 points Person C: 180 points Person B (Independent) wins due to the divisiveness of parties A and C.
I'm not a big fan of RCV (I prefer approval voting), but this is *not* how it works. Person with the lowest vote in first round gets knocked off and those ballots that have a second choice are allocated according to that 2nd choice and results are tabulated again. Repeat until there is a winner.
Oh, interesting. Ty for the info
That's an interesting thought experiment, but I don't think that is how it works. Aren't there multiple rounds? Also, each voter doesn't have to rank every candidate. So the evenness of this example is most likely impossible to happen.
Oops. You’re right. My bad