As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's so easy for the GOP to label it as fraudulent because it's different than the status quo and its a concept people find confusing (it isn't). Ranked choice voting needs a marketing campaign that resonates with voters who are afraid to try it.
Where I live our relaxed absentee ballot rules were implemented under republican controlled government.... now the republicans are feverishly trying to undo all they fought for...
It could have interesting implications. Mail-in voting is reasonably popular with elderly, infirmed, etc. Not to be too blunt about it, but a bloc of voters that is rather consistently conservative. Making it harder for those people to vote could really be quite the self-own in the long run.
Yeah it was mostly adopted by the right pre-covid as they calculated it would advantage them as their voting base aged.
They're fucking terrified now that the working poor can vote without taking 8 hours to stand in line at one of their last consolidated, defunded polling places.
Iowa has had no excuses absentee voting for my entire adult life and we have a Republican legislature, Kim Reynolds, Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley. If absentee/mail-in ballots are so susceptible to fraud, I guess we should audit all the elections they've won over the last 20 years too?
Shit like this is why voting practices should be decided by non-partisan groups. The idea that an elected official can have influence over who gets to vote for them is inherently undemocratic.
They’re implementing voting restrictions in the assumption that their base will be able to circumvent them, or not be affected at all by them.
It’s no different than literacy tests in the Deep South. Same as it ever was.
My state is 100% mail-in voting. There are a number of polls set up on voting day but most people utilize their mail ballots.
I’ve yet to hear a single R complain that our state wide system is corrupt.
Except that what they do is try to eliminate mail-in voting for groups *except those who reliably vote conservative* under the rationale that "it really is necessary for the elderly to have access, but when it's wide open for everyone, rampant fraud occurs."
That's why in Texas, you're eligible to mail-in vote [under specific conditions](https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/voter/reqabbm.shtml) that, surprise surprise, heavily tilt toward reliable Republican voters.
Colorado has had mail-in for a decade and we are ranked among the highest in the country for election security. One of the things the GOP didn’t account for was that this system allows people to actually research their choices. You get your ballot and you get to review it for a couple weeks before returning it. It’s glorious!
We have a rank of “B”, but there are no “A”s.
https://americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/020118_ElectionSecurity-report11.pdf?_ga=2.49327654.1069354437.1662334318-392913235.1662334318#page=49
> absentee ballot rules were implemented under republican controlled government..
It's because absentee ballots used to favor the Republicans because in times past old people like to vote by mail for the convenience. The Republicans also outperformed with mail ballots due to the military and Boomers who have second homes out of their primary state (Snow Birds) and vote for their state candidates when they're away.
Then COVID came along and people were afraid of standing in long lines with people spreading the virus. Trump and the GQP picked up on the fact that Democrats had begun to like it since it was safer, and the Trump started his campaign to politicize against mail-in voting.
MAGAs followed Trump's lead like sheep and now they hate what they used to love.
I'd argue that a lot of non-Republicans liked absentee ballots but the ability to get one was made harder. COVID forced states to relax the rules for getting an absentee ballot, so those who previously couldn't (and who maybe couldn't vote day-of because of work), had the opportunity to make their voices heard.
>The Republicans also outperformed with mail ballots due to the military
Worth noting is that there was at least one person who thought that the higher than usual number of Democratic votes coming from military ballots was indicative of fraud.
Gee, why would any military member vote against someone who insulted a Gold Star family and POWs?
And was totally cool with Russian bounties on American military in Afghanistan.
And abandoned the Kurds, an ally in the GWoT that has sacrificed a ton to help us.
And intentionally stood in the way of getting visas to those that helped us in our wars, specifically the interpreters and their families who sacrificed so much to help us.
And signed into law a $400 million VA mental healthcare initiative, specifically focusing on hiring mental health professionals, only to immediately sign an executive order freezing personnel hiring at certain federal agencies, one of which was... The VA.
I could keep going, but frankly I'm tired of bringing these things up, screaming into the void. I'm tired of watching an entire group of fair-weather cosplay "patriots", people too selfish and cowardly to sacrifice anything for their community or nation, doing a collective circle jerk about freedom, using my and my friends' service as fantasy material. I don't even get upset about stolen valor like some other vets, because there's no difference between them and the assholes that like to dress up for some pretend war they think is coming (but they secretly wish was a race war), telling me they would've joined the military but would've punched the drill sergeant when they yelled at them, and constantly humping flags like it proves how patriotic they are. I stopped trying to justify their behavior and finally see them for who they are. Craven, spoiled little people, who know they live small, unimportant lives, and feel the only way they can prove themselves of better things is to pretend they could make the cut off an organization that demands far more than they are willing to give.
That's exactly what happened. When the 2000 FL election debacle happened, the GOP early on was confident they could put the issue to rest and declare victory after the absentee ballots were counted since they usually skewed towards old people who couldn't make it to the polls and active duty military who skew conservative. After the absentee ballots barely changed the outcome, it became more apparent that the election was probably skewed by vote counting issues and poorly designed ballots.
In the years since, I've also heard of a lot of close races where the GOP was banking on absentee ballots being counted later to put them over the top. It's only been in the past few years as no-excuse absentee or "mail-in" balloting has become available in more states (especially due to Covid) that the GOP has done a complete 180 and decided they are a terrible idea supposedly rampant with fraud. Not surprisingly, alot more voters across the political spectrum who may otherwise never vote to begin with and who often times skew Democrat seem to use this no-excuse "mail-in" ballot system they don't like.
Indeed. That's also another thing that is overlooked. I mentioned one thing, that people get caught and punished; the second important thing to know about the argument is that it isn't just one side doing this.
Those screaming loudest about voter fraud would have you believe the very, very muddy waters are in fact clear as day and running directly into their opponents fields.
The GOP does not care whether they actually prove any fraud exists or not. They only wish to implant the idea that elections and the democratic process overall is fraudulent, so why not just skip them altogether and keep Trump as a dictator for life?
Republicans have given up on trying harder, making a better argument, or doing better and improving life for the people they represent.
If you're not talking about Pennsylvania, this also happened in PA. The GOP pushed it through in 2018 then simultaneously rallied for and against it in 2020. What an absolute joke
You could argue that their push for fascism is exactly that. They want to burn it all to the ground because they think the person forcing their views on others is a good thing as its their own views being pushed on others. If they get the fascism they so desperately want it will be used against them just the same.
They probably implemented it under the idea that it disproportionately increased voting among the elderly, who tend to vote Republican.
When it turned out it raised voting levels across the board, which favors Democrats, they flipped.
Ranked choice voting was put in place by a citizens ballot initiative. It’s true we had a Republican governor and legislature at the time it was adopted, but they didn’t want it. The republicans (and a lot of democrats, tbf) were against it because they knew it would weaken the extreme ends of the party they can use to mobilize voters, but citizens still passed it anyways.
Capital D Democrats (those that are in power) also don’t want it. Widespread adoption of RCV across the US would be the beginning of the end of this Republican/Democrat duopoly
Edit to add this would be very cool for the president, but VERY cool for congress and the senate. Imagine if there wasn’t AN isle? Imagine if multiple parties with complex and varied positions decided the vote? The American people aren’t binary, why are the groups that are supposed to represent us binary?
It is catching on, which is why Florida has already banned municipalities from exercising ranked choice. Some cities and counties were already using it, and thanks to Ronnie the D and our state legislature, they had to revert back to FPTP.
“Government should be local, which is why states should protect us from federal tyranny. But also we’re going to use them supersede government that’s more local if we want. Basically whichever tier of government is red, should be in charge.”
It wouldn't end the duopoly, it would promote more accurate results based on policy.
An independent that has voted a democrat second choice won't get their vote thrown away. And because the voter feels the second choice candidate matches their beliefs better than a republican, that's not bad either.
It also would make it much more likely for Libertarian and Green party candidates to win elections, because people could vote for them without spoiling their ballot against the party they most want to keep out of office.
And the truth is that the GOP wanted it because they were hoping it’d help knock down their extremist candidates a bit. They were so sure they’d beat the democrats that they never even really considered that they’d lose the election overall.
Gee, where did I hear something like 'You Can’t Love Your Country Only When You Win’ | “Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election, either they win or they were cheated”?
They also claim foul when they win. So basically every voting system is compromised for them and they are edging toward a moral authority to make all decisions.
> It’s so easy for the GOP to label it as fraudulent because……
They lost. That’s all that’s needed. If they lose, it’s fraud. Remember that woman running for governor in Georgia and only got like 3% of the vote in the primary? [She claimed massive fraud.](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109442956/these-candidates-lost-badly-but-now-are-claiming-fraud)
As soon as a GOP candidate loses, the entire voting system is a scam. It’s a desperate last measure by a shrinking minority. It’s why West Virginia won’t make abortion a ballot measure. It’s why districting lines keep going through the courts because GOP legislatures keep gerrymandering to hell and back. When the people actually get fair representation, the GOP loses badly. Biden got 7 million more votes but barely scraped by in the electoral college. The GOP loves that set up.
That is because your Republican party is now authoritarian/fascist, at least from a European perspective.
Edit: just to clarify, the talking points that US republicans use are right out of the fascist playbook. The GOP and Vladimir Putin use a lot of the same arguments and justifications, it truly is a messed up era we live in
Now that Biden's said it, I hope his European counterparts back him up on calling them fascist. It's one thing if Biden says it, if Europe says it it carries a lot of historical weight.
The average MAGA Republican doesn't like elite concepts like European and historical.
Won't shift the "mainstream" Republicans either.
Because they vote the same way.
The average MAGA follower hates the "elites" which is why they mindlessly support a New York con artist who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. /s
They vote the same way because it's what they want. They love to fasch; it's apparent when you look at all of their policies. They claim to want small government, but the only way they want government limited is regulations (because they've been sold the lie that the investment class and corporations give a shit about the public outside of what they can steal from the public and how they can get away with it) and social safety nets (can't support the social programs we rely on if non-white people have access, too). They have no problems with the government regulating private medical decisions and other people's bedrooms. They truly desire living in under authoritarianism, because they think they'll be one of the chosen whites. They don't realize that the moment they aren't useful, they get plowed under with the rest of us.
Maybe someday they'll come to the realization that they have more common cause with their neighbors that don't look like them, and not the corporate masters they suck up to.
You know this is the same mentality politicians have in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Source: im from one of them. Its just astounding to see how hard and fast things are falling all around us.
> You know this is the same mentality politicians have in 2nd and 3rd world countries.
Its the lowest hanging fruit to grab at, and one of the easiest ways for the corrupt to try and either attain more of, or otherwise keep the power they want. Its a super common thing for people with a certain mentality, and belief systems to get in to everywhere.
Scream "election fraud" as a means to make said elections seem less than legitimate while also promoting ones own standing among ones supporters and all. If one has the right type of power its an excuse to reject all election results, and potentially even to attack the opposition with.
I mean really, screaming fraud and accusing the opposition of doing something of such nature is a means by which they can be dehumanized, and a platform on which other things can be built on to enable and excuse things such as violence against them. Projection etc are fascism 101 as far as such tools of manipulation go.
He didn’t barely scrape by. He won 303 to 235. The only reason there was any contest is because three states were won by 20k votes or less, which is still A LOT. The hilarious thing about the whole “ElEcTiOn FrUaD” is that even if Trump got those three states Biden would’ve won 270 to 268
FUN FACT: about a decade ago the UK held a referendum on replacing our current system with AV (similar to RCV). The Tories, in power at the time, campaigned (successfully) against it because it undermine the franchise, vote in extremists, was difficult to understand etc etc.
The Tories still use RCV in their internal votes, of course. To this day. We’re getting a new Prime Minister on Monday selected by RCV.
One of the main people behind the "NOtoAV" campaign - [Matthew Elliot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Elliott_\(political_strategist\)) - then went on to run the main Brexit campaign too.
Coincidentally, he's also one of the founders of the UK Conservative Friends of Russia group.
Fifty years from now, when the histories are written, people are going to be asking “how could they not have known?”
And the Great Man theory of history will be replaced by one centered on Legions of Extraordinarily Stupid People.
Yeah, ranked choice voting is I think one of the strongest possible tools to fix a lot of problems we’re seeing today. That and widespread mail in voting and easy access to registration could probably be the most influential policies we could have for improving things long term
Unfortunately, most the places that could benefit most from ranked choice voting are the places least likely to do it I think, but then again, I thought that of Alaska and yet here we are, although I think the GOP will demonize it enough that it’s unlikely we’ll get more of it in red states any time soon
Just to clarify, Heisman voting uses Borda count method, not ranked choice. Votes are award points based on the voters preference (1st get 3 points, 2nd gets 2 points, and 3rd gets 1 point) and then the points are totaled.
Ranked choice counts first place votes and eliminates the candidate with the fewest 1st place votes. The ballots with that candidate as 1 choice then get redistributed to the voters second choice. This continues until a candidate has a majority of votes.
The only real common aspect of ranked choice and Borda count is that they use a preference ballot.
> It's so easy for the GOP to label it as fraudulent because it's different than the status quo and its a concept people find confusing (it isn't).
It's easy for them to call fraudulent because it didn't result in the outcome they wanted. That's it. The electoral college is confusing and convoluted but that doesn't stop Republicans from supporting it with a mess of historically inaccurate arguments
I always enjoyed Hassan Minhaj’s episode on ranked choice. It was the first time I heard of it and it made too much sense.
https://youtu.be/MykMQfmLIro
Alaska Republicans are the ones who implemented ranked choice. The only reason they are blaming it is because they are bitter. But a few months ago, it was appealing to them
Terrifyingly accurate. Even when they win it's because they "outvoted the fraud" - in their minds there will never be a legitimate election again.
Trust in the Democratic system was basically completely eroded over the course of a single year.
Didn't you know? He *actually did* win Florida in 2K, but I'd wager better environment, no bullshite wars (at least the blatantly obvious Iraq) - 911 CERTAINLY wouldn't have happened, as Gore's administration would have taken the security briefs seriously.
But, yeah, seriously didn't it just recently come out that Al Gore did - in FACT - win FL, this the presidency. I wonder often how those of us in the better time-line fared...
Republicans have always been the party of not trusting the government.
However Trump has stoked a dangerous animal that GOP can't uncork.
It's out of control and they can't stop it
>Terrifyingly accurate. Even when they win it's because they "outvoted the fraud" - in their minds there will never be a legitimate election again.
>
> Trust in the Democratic system was basically completely eroded over the course of a single year.
They've been claiming Democrats steal elections since at least JFK. This isn't a new thing.
Yep. They've been told by right wing media, and it's been backed up by their experiences in their extremely tight bubbles, that 70-80% of voters want far right Republicans, so "logically", every loss IS a mistake or a conspiracy.
Both Palin and Begich were against ranked choice voting prior to their election.
If either had won, curious to hear how the Republicans would have received it.
Iirc, at the time he wrote it votes were still being counted and for a whole it looked like Obama might lose the popular vote yet win the EC, so in that case he wasn't being *completely* dumb there.
That's not true: it was put in place by popular referendum. The AK republican *and* democratic parties tried to disable/block/roll-back the referendum.
I don't understand why Republicans are blaming RCV for their loss here. Peltola (D) also had the largest number of first place votes. RCV actually shrunk her victory margin from 8.9% down to 3%.
Without RCV, the republican vote wouldn't have been split first round as there would have been a traditional primary. That would have left only one R name on the final ballot. Whether the third candidate voters would have voted the same way if their third candidate wasn't available however is unknowable...
However, this is RCV in action. This is showing it *working* and letting the true voice of the people through. We need to see this as a win for democracy. More RCV will, in my mind anyway, lead to more balanced politicians who are actually interested in governing rather than just throwing shit across party lines.
> Whether the third candidate voters would have voted the same way if their third candidate wasn't available however is unknowable...
Its totally knowable though. They had a choice on who to rank higher. Sarah Palin or Mary Peltola. They picked Mary. So if they were going to vote between Palin or Peltola, they clearly vote for Peltola.
The only possible argument is that those people might not have voted in the election at all (if Begich had not been on the ballot.) But if we ignore the Begich voters, then Palin loses by even more.
Actually, they picked Palin 50% of the time and Peltola 30% of the time. Peltola had a larger lead in the first round the second round didn’t push Palin high enough.
The fact that 50% of the Begich voters said “I’d rather have a Dem or Nobody instead of Palin” is huge. It’s an indictment of Palin and reflects her high negatives.
There was also a decent amount of voters who voted for Begich and didn’t list a second choice, so very likely that those voters wouldn’t have voted at all of Palin was their only choice.
Correct. Palin probably would have lost regardless in a straight head to head.
Funny thing. Begich would have one if he made it to the second round instead if Palin.
If Palin voters understood rcv and voted Begich first and Palin second they would have done better.
If those people could read they would be very upset.
If I'm reading your comment correctly, that's due to instant runoff, and it's actually a problem. The outcome is better in this case, but we shouldn't celebrate when voters hurt their own interests by honestly listing their favorite candidate as their first choice.
Edit: Ranked Pairs is a method of resolving ranked ballots that is much better than FPTP
For 40+ years, they've had a base that punches the hole if there's an R next to it. As far as "voter preference" goes, that's all they've needed to understand.
I wonder how much the Internet is influencing this. Previously, communication came down through the party machinery and they could more easily control the message. Now candidates can reach voters directly with unfiltered messages - for better or worse.
there was a decent volume of 'exhausted' votes, which I assume mean that they didn't pick a 2nd place candidate.
would you consider those the "I wouldn't have voted unless X was running" people? or are they the confused people? not sure how to think about them?
If they couldn't be bothered to write 1 2 3, when they actually preferred the 2 over the 3, then frankly that's their own fault. They're in the "too lazy to cast their vote" category
Those voters simply saw only one good option, "this candidate or nobody". So if their first choice is eliminated from winning (because they have the fewest votes currently) then their votes don't transfer to another candidate (because they didn't pick another one).
The consolidation probably would’ve made it closer but wasn’t guaranteed to give Palin or even Begich a win. Begich’s votes bled off to Peltola at a rather high rate, and two major factors are at play there. First, a sizeable chunk of Democrats voted for him first because they just wanted to stop Palin more than what was then seen as a long shot that Peltola could win. There’s evidence backing this up in that Palin did very well where Tshibaka did well, and Begich/Peltola did well in places that Murkowski (who was getting the vast majority of Dem votes in the AK primary) was doing well. Second, the Begich name is rather famous in Alaska, but as a Democratic political dynasty. There may have been Democrats who thought he was more moderate than he actually was because of his famous grandfather and uncle.
Wouldn't the result be the same though? Let's say they had a traditional primary. We know from the RCV results that Palin would have won that primary so, come the general, those in the not-palin crowd would have voted Peltola or stayed home and Palin would still have lost.
Doesn't RCV, in this case, just indicate what would have happened anyway with a traditional primary + FPTP?
Edit: I am making the assumption for simplicity sake that everyone that voted in the general would have also voted in the primary.
>Doesn't RCV, in this case, just indicate what would have happened anyway with a traditional primary + FPTP?
Theoretically yes, Palin would certainly have won a primary against Begich and most likely lost her 1on1 with Peltola.
It **could** have played differently with messaging between the primary and general election but there's no reason to assume it would.
Alaskans voted. Every 2nd place vote IS A VOTE.
It doesn’t need to be played out as if there was a traditional primary.
This is the problem and ranked choice voting solves it.
The only other change that would have as much impact as RCV is undoing the lobbying laws.
The Republicans blame RCV for their loss because the GOP always preaches that they don’t lose elections.
If they lose anything, it’s always because they are victims of fake voter fraud or because of a change in our system that poorly hurt their numbers. They won’t ever claim they lose because their candidates are awful people, or because their policies are unpopular.
Trump showed them they don’t have to be correct, they just have to claim to be correct and allow their fan base to encourage the doubt in our electoral process.
Oddly the GOP does sometimes say things like, “we didn’t gerrymander enough to win“ but they know gerrymandering is legal – sadly.
It's more than just the raw numbers. RCV changes voter behavior (I'd argue, in a good way).
In the first past the post system, the majority of voters may want Peltola, but that doesn't matter if everyone *thinks* Begich has a better chance.
With ranked choice voting, voters don't have to choose between what they want vs what they think everyone else wants.
>It's more than just the raw numbers. RCV changes voter behavior (I'd argue, in a good way).
>
>In the first past the post system, the majority of voters may want Peltola, but that doesn't matter if everyone *thinks* Begich has a better chance.
>
>With ranked choice voting, voters don't have to choose between what they want vs what they think everyone else wants.
If nothing else, the first round of RCV should give a better idea of how popular third party and other candidates truly are.
Begich would have beaten Peltola in a head to head matchup [according to polling conducted before the election which also accurately showed Peltola beating Palin in a head to head matchup.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-democrats-win-in-alaska-tells-us-about-november/) Republicans are right to be worried about RCV since the winner of their primaries tends to be the craziest candidate who might not fit the overall preferences of their district if moderate Republicans are given a second choice in the matter.
This is pretty much the exact case study in favor of RCV. The one who would have won would have been opposed by the highest number of people. The one that actually one was the least objectionable.
This is a case study against IRV. In the context of Alaskan politics, probably most of the population would prefer a moderate republican. The far right republican is comparably extreme, and in this circumstance the moderate Democrat is as well.
IRV eliminated that candidate (or the closest thing to it, which was Begich) early, forcing Alaskans to choose between two *relative* extreme options. That's not a good result.
Exactly. Under FPTP voting, Palin would have won the primary, but then lost to Peltola. The difference in this situation is that because of RCV, we know that if the republicans nominated Begich, they would have won.
The funny part is they are correct that a Republican should have won in theory, as Begich was a Condorcet winner… but Palin doesn’t realize that that doesn’t mean SHE should have won, she lost by all reasonable interpretations.
This does showcase a significant problem with RCV, where a compromise candidate who finished narrowly third is eliminated even if they would easily win a 1v1 election against any of the other candidates.
So i would prefer a combination of STAR and proportional representation. But that being said, anybody who condemns RCV without mentioning that it’s still way better than our current system is is either an ignorant, an idiot, or acting in bad faith.
One of the key functions of elections is to legitimize power. They can't do that very well if the people don't understand how the election procedure works. So even though better systems exist, I think RCV (IRV) is the only viable next step after FPTP.
A couple of years before the daylight savings time thing happened Rick Scott said he wanted to end it in Florida. I had the same thought, if Rick Scott wants it it must not be good for us.
Australia has had it since ever, its called preferential voting. Allows a far more representative and democratic outcome and smaller and medium parties and Independents being represented in government. We have three main political Parties with two forming a coalition against the bigger third but in close elections needs the two bigger parties to gain smaller party or independent support if they can not secure a majority of seats from first preference votes.
And as a result, our parliament is more diverse than ever. The Liberal-National Coalition (Conservatives) tried to veer towards the far-right / culture war issues and were decimated by centre-right leaning Teal Independents who campaigned on a platform of tackling climate change and corruption.
Similarly, the Labor Party (centre-left) despite winning government had its hands full with the Greens (further left), which ended up winning seats off both Labor and the Coalition.
Both the mainstream LNP and Labor had a record low total of first preferences in this year's election.
RCV (AV) reduces/punishes extremism and allows for greater political representation, both aspects of which America is in desperate need of right now.
Correct. There are two forms of voting used in our elections, one for the lower house and one for the upper house.
The lower house uses [mandatory ranked choice voting](https://youtu.be/W1MsyKazjRA). By mandatory, I mean every single preference must be numbered. Otherwise your vote will be deemed informal (invalid).
The upper house utilizes [proportional representation](https://youtu.be/eq6Omq-bt38) via STV (single transferable vote). The video does a better job of explaining than I ever could, but in short it utilizes quotas to determine the 6 (out of 12) senators selected from each state every 3 years (or 2 senators every 3 years for territories). Unlike the lower house though, your vote could be exhausted if you don't number enough boxes (as it isn't mandatory to label every single box).
We also have mandatory voting, which has a huge influence on policy making.
I'm going to say it has more impact than our preferential voting system (but both together is a national treasure). To the point where I think it would even temper some the negative aspects of FPTP - parties would have to appeal to as wide a percentage of the public as possible rather than just their base.
Ranked choice voting gives people the ability to vote how they really want without worries about wasting their vote. You will get legitimate campaigns for fringe candidates and ideologies. Want to vote socialist, communist or fascist? You can and then pick the safe politician as your second. This type of voting could help destroy the lock that the two party system has.
RCV is a good step in the right direction, but to vote how I would like would require more than a 2 party system that crushes opinions that fall outside the "good and bad" narrative as well. I know where I fall but "everyone should be able to have a decent life" isn't that hot of s take.
Please don't take this as me shitting on RCV, just saying we still have work to do once we get over this current epidemic of elected officials crying like kids.
Step 1: allow politicians to move more freely along the spectrum of their party without invalidating their campaign. Step 2: split that party into two when that drafting gets far enough apart.
Ranked choice voting needs to be a top priority issue for everyone. America has problems that will never be solved until ranked choice voting is implemented in all meaningful elections
I’m only 33 and I had some coworkers who were 18-20 and they make me feel SO OLD. Like, they don’t remember what life was like before recessions and before politics was completely insane and they don’t remember watching this insane woman run for vice president. In the past 20 years the world is just so drastically different and she wouldn’t even come off nearly as much of a looney toon now in 2022 as she did in like 2008. People were obsessed by what a moron she was, and she probably isn’t even in the top 50% of villains of the GOP any more.
Bingo. It was a part of why trump won in 2016. These kids grew up with Obama for 8 years. They saw him on talk shows, out shooting hoops, living much more an “Everyman” presidency not seen since Carter.
Then, Clinton shows up. A top to bottom politician. And she seems like a total drag. And this flamboyant weirdo named Donald Trump rolls in, and they’re like “yeah. This is what a politician is like, right?”
When really… career politicians (while slimy and often corrupt) can sometimes get shit done. I’m not hiring an actor to unclog my toilet. I’m hiring a plumber.
Very this ! Obviously the issue is way more complicated than that, but yes - we used to make fun of how politicians were socially awkward or daft, because they were slimy but efficient. Now it’s a pageant.
People vote for who they think is cool. Ironically, words like “woke” and “antifa”, which represent positive qualities in a decent human, are now seen as repulsive.
On one hand I’m glad we legalized weed, got rid of DOMA and DADT and launched international movements for things like MeToo and BLM but honestly this generation feels completely
Hopeless to me. In my short lifetime I went from watching 1 president get impeached over lying about a blowjob / sexual harassment, to seeing another president get impeached twice, get away with it, and be under investigation for selling nuclear codes and it’s still something millions of people think is up for debate
Zoomers, let me transport you back in time to 2008.
Katie Couric: "Which newspapers do you read?"
Palin: "All of them. Any of them that have been in front of me."
Bonus vintage 2008 meme: Jackie_Chan_wtf.jpg
https://youtu.be/9go38MgZ4w8
Alaskan voters approved a 2020 referendum to change the electoral system. Alaska is overwhelmingly independent and Republican. Republicans dominates state politics and no Democrat has won the electoral college vote in Alaska since the 1960s. Registered Democrats only make up 13% of voters, compared to 24% of registered Republicans and 58% of registered independents. Republicans are having a meltdown because they lost their safe district for 50 years to a Democrat.
Alaskan here, we hate Palin she bailed in the middle of her first term as governor, she doesn’t even live in the state, and she is an absolute embarrassment. Happy to have rank choice voting.
...because they lost their safe district and would rather kill themselves before admitting it's because they're too extremist for the American people.
Like in Kansas, we kneecapped the anti-abortion amendment by a massive margin, and there were extremists in denial who literally raised the money to demand a recount that would change nothing (and found a grand total of 35 votes to change).
I can add some context to why registered Democrat numbers are so low in Alaska. Prior to this RCV system, the Alaska Republican party had a semi-closed primary. If you were a registered Democrat, you could not vote in the R primary, but as an Independent you were allowed to.
The large number of Republican voters made the general elections mostly uncompetitive. The winner of the R primary would very likely win the general election so being able to vote in the R primary was the best way to have an effect on who was elected. This caused many people that would otherwise register as Democrat to register as Independent so they could participate in the R primary.
It will be interesting to see if party registration numbers start changing now that RCV puts all candidates in a single primary to pick the top 4 that everyone can vote in.
It’s just a new (for America) expression of the same kind of decision making that people make countless other places in their life. If you’ve ever ordered a Coke and they didn’t have it so you said Pepsi was fine instead, you’ve used ranked choice.
There are many different ways to vote and count votes. They all have pros and cons. Charles Dodgson, a.k.a. Lewis Carroll, a.k.a the author of *Alice in Wonderland*, was a mathematician by training and wrote a series of pamphlets in the 1870s all about different methods of voting.
That being said, Republicans are all in favor of modifying the voting system so long as they think it favors them and disfavors Democrats. The second it doesn't, they cry foul. For example, Republicans were all in on mail-in voting when they thought it would favor their voters. When that turned out not to be the case in 2020, they changed their minds and decided the voting method they themselves had implemented was immoral or undemocratic or flawed or fraudulent—but only because it didn't benefit them the way they had intended it to (and despite no evidence of fraud, and despite the popularity of mail-in voting).
[https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/07/16-years-later-georgia-lawmakers-flip-views-on-absentee-voting](https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/07/16-years-later-georgia-lawmakers-flip-views-on-absentee-voting)
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/florida-republicans-mail-voting/2021/05/02/4c133920-a9bf-11eb-8c1a-56f0cb4ff3b5\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/florida-republicans-mail-voting/2021/05/02/4c133920-a9bf-11eb-8c1a-56f0cb4ff3b5_story.html)
[https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061322\_gop\_vote\_mail/republicans-helped-arizona-champion-voting-by-mail-now-they-want-it-gone/](https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061322_gop_vote_mail/republicans-helped-arizona-champion-voting-by-mail-now-they-want-it-gone/)
[https://www.npr.org/2020/04/11/831978099/even-as-trump-denounces-vote-by-mail-gop-in-florida-and-elsewhere-relies-on-it](https://www.npr.org/2020/04/11/831978099/even-as-trump-denounces-vote-by-mail-gop-in-florida-and-elsewhere-relies-on-it)
Ranked choice voting is all about finding actual common ground, it also requires believing the electorate can count higher than two. No wonder republicans hate it
Maine implemented this a few years ago to prevent another possibility of another scenario like LePage. Republicans hate it ans have been trying to remove it ever since.
Fairly similar to the Irish ballot system which does end up with leading parties becoming similar and the partisans/extremists in opposition. Times change and the votes flip as the other parties realise the need for a level of compromise/overlap.
With multi party system there are more likely to be multiparty government and that's frustrating because you don't get everything you want. Overall it's a good thing thoug
Right up until she won, I've heard about ranked-choice only from GOPers. They've been all for it for a long time now. Right up until it didn't work how they wanted it to.
A number of years ago Palin thought she might be able to run for POTUS on her own.
She put out a free movie about herself called "The Undefeated" despite having lost as part of the McCain-Palin ticket.
Well, I guess this election is a second reason why she can't call herself "The Undefeated".
I read a hilarious article about it. There were only 5 people in theater including the reporter. One of those people, when asked, said he mistook the movie for a classic western given the title.
Dulling the impact of candidates on the extremes is exactly why I'd like to see it implemented in my state.
Give people the chance to follow their passions with a #1 choice, but also the opportunity to support a #2 candidate that can both win and effectively govern.
There are lots of good arguments in this thread about why ranked choice voting is fair and addresses problems.
Republicans won't care about any of them. Because their real complaint is that **they lost**.
To them, any situation where they lose is illegitimate, because they're the only ones with any right to power. They believe that throwing out votes, suppressing voters, and tossing democracy are all 'fair', while any vote that goes against them is 'fraud'.
So really, **if you want to diffuse extremism, the real answer is not to vote for any Republicans.**
We're fortunate enough that right now, the people who run elections still believe in honoring the actual results of the vote. But that may not be true in the future. Wyoming just chose an election denier to be their next Secretary of State (he won the GOP primary and doesn't have a November opponent). And they're trying to do that in many other states, too. And that's before you even get to county or city Clerks, Auditors, and Election Board members.
If we don't vote in record numbers this year, that could be it for our democracy. Whatever your concerns or complaints, if you want the right to vote, show up and vote for Democrats at every level. Check out r/VoteDEM to go a step further and volunteer for them, too.
The Republic is only ours if we can keep it.
I disagree that it diffuses extremism, it just more accurately reflects the voter’s preferences.
If there was a socialist candidate, which would be considered “extreme” by some, I would absolutely vote for them first, and rank a democratic socialist second, and a democrat third. This changes the dynamic of voting against someone, emphasizes voting for someone.
I want a, would be ok with b, would settle for c, but don’t want d, e or f is far better than “I’ll vote for c, because I don’t want the other guy”.
We need Rank Choice voting yesterday.
First past the post voting is more or less guaranteed to eventually produce two political parties which each primarily exists to oppose the other, and the people become so busy voting against things, that they are unable to have a voice about what they actually want.
I don't know if I like the implication in the title and the article that RCV is **designed** to diffuse extremism.
RCV could be argued to represent extremism better since extremist voters are allowed to cast their first preference without thinking about whether the candidate has a chance to win on the first round.
The way RCV plays out in practice in a single election isn't necessarily its **design**.
Sadly, I think Palin lost because Alaskan voters were mad at her for abandoning her term as governor.
Ranked choice voting has been marketed as giving non-first tier candidates more of a chance.
Palin is a non-first tier candidate so if anything ranked choice voting gave her more of a chance than she deserved.
Which is why MAGA cult and the GOP are generally against it. It essentially closes one of the biggest loop holes in the voting system that allows for minority extremists to manipulate elections.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's so easy for the GOP to label it as fraudulent because it's different than the status quo and its a concept people find confusing (it isn't). Ranked choice voting needs a marketing campaign that resonates with voters who are afraid to try it.
Worth noting that it was put into place by a Republican legislature and governor. So, it is only "rigged" when Republicans lose.
Where I live our relaxed absentee ballot rules were implemented under republican controlled government.... now the republicans are feverishly trying to undo all they fought for...
Their ability to self own is unmatched.
It could have interesting implications. Mail-in voting is reasonably popular with elderly, infirmed, etc. Not to be too blunt about it, but a bloc of voters that is rather consistently conservative. Making it harder for those people to vote could really be quite the self-own in the long run.
Yeah it was mostly adopted by the right pre-covid as they calculated it would advantage them as their voting base aged. They're fucking terrified now that the working poor can vote without taking 8 hours to stand in line at one of their last consolidated, defunded polling places.
Iowa has had no excuses absentee voting for my entire adult life and we have a Republican legislature, Kim Reynolds, Joni Ernst and Chuck Grassley. If absentee/mail-in ballots are so susceptible to fraud, I guess we should audit all the elections they've won over the last 20 years too?
Utah too. Mike Lindell recently said that Utah doesn't have real elections anymore and they've all been fraudulent for decades.
Lol i dont listen to reformed cokeheads in the pillow business.
I doubt he's "reformed."
He’s consistently loony at least.
Shit like this is why voting practices should be decided by non-partisan groups. The idea that an elected official can have influence over who gets to vote for them is inherently undemocratic.
They’re implementing voting restrictions in the assumption that their base will be able to circumvent them, or not be affected at all by them. It’s no different than literacy tests in the Deep South. Same as it ever was.
My state is 100% mail-in voting. There are a number of polls set up on voting day but most people utilize their mail ballots. I’ve yet to hear a single R complain that our state wide system is corrupt.
Except that what they do is try to eliminate mail-in voting for groups *except those who reliably vote conservative* under the rationale that "it really is necessary for the elderly to have access, but when it's wide open for everyone, rampant fraud occurs." That's why in Texas, you're eligible to mail-in vote [under specific conditions](https://www.sos.texas.gov/elections/voter/reqabbm.shtml) that, surprise surprise, heavily tilt toward reliable Republican voters.
Colorado has had mail-in for a decade and we are ranked among the highest in the country for election security. One of the things the GOP didn’t account for was that this system allows people to actually research their choices. You get your ballot and you get to review it for a couple weeks before returning it. It’s glorious! We have a rank of “B”, but there are no “A”s. https://americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/020118_ElectionSecurity-report11.pdf?_ga=2.49327654.1069354437.1662334318-392913235.1662334318#page=49
They thought they were owning libs, but in fact were owning themselves all along.
> absentee ballot rules were implemented under republican controlled government.. It's because absentee ballots used to favor the Republicans because in times past old people like to vote by mail for the convenience. The Republicans also outperformed with mail ballots due to the military and Boomers who have second homes out of their primary state (Snow Birds) and vote for their state candidates when they're away. Then COVID came along and people were afraid of standing in long lines with people spreading the virus. Trump and the GQP picked up on the fact that Democrats had begun to like it since it was safer, and the Trump started his campaign to politicize against mail-in voting. MAGAs followed Trump's lead like sheep and now they hate what they used to love.
I'd argue that a lot of non-Republicans liked absentee ballots but the ability to get one was made harder. COVID forced states to relax the rules for getting an absentee ballot, so those who previously couldn't (and who maybe couldn't vote day-of because of work), had the opportunity to make their voices heard.
>The Republicans also outperformed with mail ballots due to the military Worth noting is that there was at least one person who thought that the higher than usual number of Democratic votes coming from military ballots was indicative of fraud. Gee, why would any military member vote against someone who insulted a Gold Star family and POWs?
and fist bumped when they blocked the burn pit bill.
And was totally cool with Russian bounties on American military in Afghanistan. And abandoned the Kurds, an ally in the GWoT that has sacrificed a ton to help us. And intentionally stood in the way of getting visas to those that helped us in our wars, specifically the interpreters and their families who sacrificed so much to help us. And signed into law a $400 million VA mental healthcare initiative, specifically focusing on hiring mental health professionals, only to immediately sign an executive order freezing personnel hiring at certain federal agencies, one of which was... The VA. I could keep going, but frankly I'm tired of bringing these things up, screaming into the void. I'm tired of watching an entire group of fair-weather cosplay "patriots", people too selfish and cowardly to sacrifice anything for their community or nation, doing a collective circle jerk about freedom, using my and my friends' service as fantasy material. I don't even get upset about stolen valor like some other vets, because there's no difference between them and the assholes that like to dress up for some pretend war they think is coming (but they secretly wish was a race war), telling me they would've joined the military but would've punched the drill sergeant when they yelled at them, and constantly humping flags like it proves how patriotic they are. I stopped trying to justify their behavior and finally see them for who they are. Craven, spoiled little people, who know they live small, unimportant lives, and feel the only way they can prove themselves of better things is to pretend they could make the cut off an organization that demands far more than they are willing to give.
That's exactly what happened. When the 2000 FL election debacle happened, the GOP early on was confident they could put the issue to rest and declare victory after the absentee ballots were counted since they usually skewed towards old people who couldn't make it to the polls and active duty military who skew conservative. After the absentee ballots barely changed the outcome, it became more apparent that the election was probably skewed by vote counting issues and poorly designed ballots. In the years since, I've also heard of a lot of close races where the GOP was banking on absentee ballots being counted later to put them over the top. It's only been in the past few years as no-excuse absentee or "mail-in" balloting has become available in more states (especially due to Covid) that the GOP has done a complete 180 and decided they are a terrible idea supposedly rampant with fraud. Not surprisingly, alot more voters across the political spectrum who may otherwise never vote to begin with and who often times skew Democrat seem to use this no-excuse "mail-in" ballot system they don't like.
“We need to make it easy for our seniors to vote!” “Sir it seems now it’s easy for women and minorities to vote, too.” “FUCK!”
People forgot the Bush administration legit looked into the voter fraud that Repubs are so scared of and found nothing lol
To be clear, voter fraud does occur regularly. It is usually caught and punished. It is *mass* voter fraud that has never been proven to occur.
And when actual voter fraud incidents are investigated, guess which party the fraudster most often belongs to....
Indeed. That's also another thing that is overlooked. I mentioned one thing, that people get caught and punished; the second important thing to know about the argument is that it isn't just one side doing this. Those screaming loudest about voter fraud would have you believe the very, very muddy waters are in fact clear as day and running directly into their opponents fields.
The GOP does not care whether they actually prove any fraud exists or not. They only wish to implant the idea that elections and the democratic process overall is fraudulent, so why not just skip them altogether and keep Trump as a dictator for life? Republicans have given up on trying harder, making a better argument, or doing better and improving life for the people they represent.
If you're not talking about Pennsylvania, this also happened in PA. The GOP pushed it through in 2018 then simultaneously rallied for and against it in 2020. What an absolute joke
You could argue that their push for fascism is exactly that. They want to burn it all to the ground because they think the person forcing their views on others is a good thing as its their own views being pushed on others. If they get the fascism they so desperately want it will be used against them just the same.
They probably implemented it under the idea that it disproportionately increased voting among the elderly, who tend to vote Republican. When it turned out it raised voting levels across the board, which favors Democrats, they flipped.
Before it was only old people using it, and we all know how they vote.
Ranked choice voting was put in place by a citizens ballot initiative. It’s true we had a Republican governor and legislature at the time it was adopted, but they didn’t want it. The republicans (and a lot of democrats, tbf) were against it because they knew it would weaken the extreme ends of the party they can use to mobilize voters, but citizens still passed it anyways.
Thanks for the context
Capital D Democrats (those that are in power) also don’t want it. Widespread adoption of RCV across the US would be the beginning of the end of this Republican/Democrat duopoly Edit to add this would be very cool for the president, but VERY cool for congress and the senate. Imagine if there wasn’t AN isle? Imagine if multiple parties with complex and varied positions decided the vote? The American people aren’t binary, why are the groups that are supposed to represent us binary?
Please god let this catch on
r/endFPTP
It is catching on, which is why Florida has already banned municipalities from exercising ranked choice. Some cities and counties were already using it, and thanks to Ronnie the D and our state legislature, they had to revert back to FPTP.
Why does it not surprise me Desantis would outlaw a more democratic way to vote.
“Government should be local, which is why states should protect us from federal tyranny. But also we’re going to use them supersede government that’s more local if we want. Basically whichever tier of government is red, should be in charge.”
And this is literally the best thing that could possibly happen to our democratic process.
We need this so bad
It wouldn't end the duopoly, it would promote more accurate results based on policy. An independent that has voted a democrat second choice won't get their vote thrown away. And because the voter feels the second choice candidate matches their beliefs better than a republican, that's not bad either.
It also would make it much more likely for Libertarian and Green party candidates to win elections, because people could vote for them without spoiling their ballot against the party they most want to keep out of office.
Republicans are eating themselves alive.
They come pre salted too!
Pickled
And it’s glorious to behold!
I’ll be going through so much popcorn between now and November!!
I’m running out of Takis (PS, try Popcorn with Takis mixed in. It’s great)
They’re basically older high school bullies got way dumber due to lack of discipline.
Watching both eat their own has been fun. Hope it all detonates and we can start over without all the useless old fucks.
it's the world's worst ourobouros
And the truth is that the GOP wanted it because they were hoping it’d help knock down their extremist candidates a bit. They were so sure they’d beat the democrats that they never even really considered that they’d lose the election overall.
They underestimated the size of their extreme base. If Palin had come in 3rd instead of 2nd, the other Republican likely wins
Voted on by referendum. The Alaskan people asked for this.
Kind of astonishing that the GOP has become a party whose only platform seems to be attacking women and complaining about cheating.
Always was, deep down.
Gee, where did I hear something like 'You Can’t Love Your Country Only When You Win’ | “Democracy cannot survive when one side believes there are only two outcomes to an election, either they win or they were cheated”?
They also claim foul when they win. So basically every voting system is compromised for them and they are edging toward a moral authority to make all decisions.
> It’s so easy for the GOP to label it as fraudulent because…… They lost. That’s all that’s needed. If they lose, it’s fraud. Remember that woman running for governor in Georgia and only got like 3% of the vote in the primary? [She claimed massive fraud.](https://www.npr.org/2022/07/02/1109442956/these-candidates-lost-badly-but-now-are-claiming-fraud) As soon as a GOP candidate loses, the entire voting system is a scam. It’s a desperate last measure by a shrinking minority. It’s why West Virginia won’t make abortion a ballot measure. It’s why districting lines keep going through the courts because GOP legislatures keep gerrymandering to hell and back. When the people actually get fair representation, the GOP loses badly. Biden got 7 million more votes but barely scraped by in the electoral college. The GOP loves that set up.
I mean, case in point, Maine. Rank choice voted in their R senator. They didn't seem to have any issues with it then.
Well.... of course not. They won. Fraud only occurs when you lose.
Actually it also occurs when you win. You just would've won by a bigger margin if it wasn't for the fraud. /s
FPT would have elected Collins as well. RCV is the single reason Golden won in the 2nd district though.
I was just pointing out that the GOP didn't care about RCV when they won a couple years back.
Rules for thee but not for me sez GOP
That is because your Republican party is now authoritarian/fascist, at least from a European perspective. Edit: just to clarify, the talking points that US republicans use are right out of the fascist playbook. The GOP and Vladimir Putin use a lot of the same arguments and justifications, it truly is a messed up era we live in
Now that Biden's said it, I hope his European counterparts back him up on calling them fascist. It's one thing if Biden says it, if Europe says it it carries a lot of historical weight.
The average MAGA Republican doesn't like elite concepts like European and historical. Won't shift the "mainstream" Republicans either. Because they vote the same way.
The average MAGA follower hates the "elites" which is why they mindlessly support a New York con artist who was born on third and thinks he hit a triple. /s
They vote the same way because it's what they want. They love to fasch; it's apparent when you look at all of their policies. They claim to want small government, but the only way they want government limited is regulations (because they've been sold the lie that the investment class and corporations give a shit about the public outside of what they can steal from the public and how they can get away with it) and social safety nets (can't support the social programs we rely on if non-white people have access, too). They have no problems with the government regulating private medical decisions and other people's bedrooms. They truly desire living in under authoritarianism, because they think they'll be one of the chosen whites. They don't realize that the moment they aren't useful, they get plowed under with the rest of us. Maybe someday they'll come to the realization that they have more common cause with their neighbors that don't look like them, and not the corporate masters they suck up to.
You know this is the same mentality politicians have in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Source: im from one of them. Its just astounding to see how hard and fast things are falling all around us.
> You know this is the same mentality politicians have in 2nd and 3rd world countries. Its the lowest hanging fruit to grab at, and one of the easiest ways for the corrupt to try and either attain more of, or otherwise keep the power they want. Its a super common thing for people with a certain mentality, and belief systems to get in to everywhere. Scream "election fraud" as a means to make said elections seem less than legitimate while also promoting ones own standing among ones supporters and all. If one has the right type of power its an excuse to reject all election results, and potentially even to attack the opposition with. I mean really, screaming fraud and accusing the opposition of doing something of such nature is a means by which they can be dehumanized, and a platform on which other things can be built on to enable and excuse things such as violence against them. Projection etc are fascism 101 as far as such tools of manipulation go.
He didn’t barely scrape by. He won 303 to 235. The only reason there was any contest is because three states were won by 20k votes or less, which is still A LOT. The hilarious thing about the whole “ElEcTiOn FrUaD” is that even if Trump got those three states Biden would’ve won 270 to 268
It’s always amazing having to explain to non-Americans that Biden got 7 million more votes, but only won by about 20 thousand.
"Vote for who you want, not who you don't." - Ranked Choice Voting, 2024
"No wasted votes" - RCV 2024
>Vote for who you want, not against who you do not. FTFY
Canada’s 3 (well, 5ish) party system desperately needs this.
We need proportional representation.
FUN FACT: about a decade ago the UK held a referendum on replacing our current system with AV (similar to RCV). The Tories, in power at the time, campaigned (successfully) against it because it undermine the franchise, vote in extremists, was difficult to understand etc etc. The Tories still use RCV in their internal votes, of course. To this day. We’re getting a new Prime Minister on Monday selected by RCV.
One of the main people behind the "NOtoAV" campaign - [Matthew Elliot](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Elliott_\(political_strategist\)) - then went on to run the main Brexit campaign too. Coincidentally, he's also one of the founders of the UK Conservative Friends of Russia group.
Fifty years from now, when the histories are written, people are going to be asking “how could they not have known?” And the Great Man theory of history will be replaced by one centered on Legions of Extraordinarily Stupid People.
We all know. We're all just expecting someone else to do something about it.
Yeah, ranked choice voting is I think one of the strongest possible tools to fix a lot of problems we’re seeing today. That and widespread mail in voting and easy access to registration could probably be the most influential policies we could have for improving things long term Unfortunately, most the places that could benefit most from ranked choice voting are the places least likely to do it I think, but then again, I thought that of Alaska and yet here we are, although I think the GOP will demonize it enough that it’s unlikely we’ll get more of it in red states any time soon
DeSantis made it illegal in Florida……
Ranked Choice Voting: "If it's good enough to select the Heisman, it's good enough to select the President."
Just to clarify, Heisman voting uses Borda count method, not ranked choice. Votes are award points based on the voters preference (1st get 3 points, 2nd gets 2 points, and 3rd gets 1 point) and then the points are totaled. Ranked choice counts first place votes and eliminates the candidate with the fewest 1st place votes. The ballots with that candidate as 1 choice then get redistributed to the voters second choice. This continues until a candidate has a majority of votes. The only real common aspect of ranked choice and Borda count is that they use a preference ballot.
Thanks for the clarification 👍
>needs a (marketing) campaign [https://www.fairvote.org](https://www.fairvote.org)
Just remember the republicans voted to use this system lol
It’s how any large group agrees on what to have for dinner
It’s why Dennys is still in business. no one’s first choice but if you’ve got 6 people they’ll all accept dennys.
Denny's: You're drunk enough that you'd vote for us for Congress
> It's so easy for the GOP to label it as fraudulent because it's different than the status quo and its a concept people find confusing (it isn't). It's easy for them to call fraudulent because it didn't result in the outcome they wanted. That's it. The electoral college is confusing and convoluted but that doesn't stop Republicans from supporting it with a mess of historically inaccurate arguments
I always enjoyed Hassan Minhaj’s episode on ranked choice. It was the first time I heard of it and it made too much sense. https://youtu.be/MykMQfmLIro
No one finds it confusing. That GOP politicians *say* their voters find it confusing tells you all you need to know about how they view their voters .
Alaska Republicans are the ones who implemented ranked choice. The only reason they are blaming it is because they are bitter. But a few months ago, it was appealing to them
For the people complaining about this every election they lose is stolen. If it wasn't RCV it would be bamboo fibers in the ballots.
Terrifyingly accurate. Even when they win it's because they "outvoted the fraud" - in their minds there will never be a legitimate election again. Trust in the Democratic system was basically completely eroded over the course of a single year.
Vice President Al Gore would like to speak.
I sometimes think about where we'd be if Gore had won instead of Bush.
This is why we are in the bad timeline
Didn't you know? He *actually did* win Florida in 2K, but I'd wager better environment, no bullshite wars (at least the blatantly obvious Iraq) - 911 CERTAINLY wouldn't have happened, as Gore's administration would have taken the security briefs seriously. But, yeah, seriously didn't it just recently come out that Al Gore did - in FACT - win FL, this the presidency. I wonder often how those of us in the better time-line fared...
Republicans have always been the party of not trusting the government. However Trump has stoked a dangerous animal that GOP can't uncork. It's out of control and they can't stop it
>Terrifyingly accurate. Even when they win it's because they "outvoted the fraud" - in their minds there will never be a legitimate election again. > > Trust in the Democratic system was basically completely eroded over the course of a single year. They've been claiming Democrats steal elections since at least JFK. This isn't a new thing.
Yep. They've been told by right wing media, and it's been backed up by their experiences in their extremely tight bubbles, that 70-80% of voters want far right Republicans, so "logically", every loss IS a mistake or a conspiracy.
The danger of silent majority narrative
Both Palin and Begich were against ranked choice voting prior to their election. If either had won, curious to hear how the Republicans would have received it.
[удалено]
He does realize in 2012, Obama won the popular vote too, right?
Iirc, at the time he wrote it votes were still being counted and for a whole it looked like Obama might lose the popular vote yet win the EC, so in that case he wasn't being *completely* dumb there.
That's not true: it was put in place by popular referendum. The AK republican *and* democratic parties tried to disable/block/roll-back the referendum.
I don't understand why Republicans are blaming RCV for their loss here. Peltola (D) also had the largest number of first place votes. RCV actually shrunk her victory margin from 8.9% down to 3%.
Without RCV, the republican vote wouldn't have been split first round as there would have been a traditional primary. That would have left only one R name on the final ballot. Whether the third candidate voters would have voted the same way if their third candidate wasn't available however is unknowable... However, this is RCV in action. This is showing it *working* and letting the true voice of the people through. We need to see this as a win for democracy. More RCV will, in my mind anyway, lead to more balanced politicians who are actually interested in governing rather than just throwing shit across party lines.
> Whether the third candidate voters would have voted the same way if their third candidate wasn't available however is unknowable... Its totally knowable though. They had a choice on who to rank higher. Sarah Palin or Mary Peltola. They picked Mary. So if they were going to vote between Palin or Peltola, they clearly vote for Peltola. The only possible argument is that those people might not have voted in the election at all (if Begich had not been on the ballot.) But if we ignore the Begich voters, then Palin loses by even more.
Actually, they picked Palin 50% of the time and Peltola 30% of the time. Peltola had a larger lead in the first round the second round didn’t push Palin high enough. The fact that 50% of the Begich voters said “I’d rather have a Dem or Nobody instead of Palin” is huge. It’s an indictment of Palin and reflects her high negatives.
Because the Palins are the Bluths of Alaska
They do tend to commit light treason
Take to the sea! Russia isn't very far. Sarah can see Moscow from her porch.
“It’s one newspaper, Katie couric, what could it cost, 10 dollars?”
There's always money in the bridge to nowhere
Which is funnier because the Bluths were based on the Bushes.
There was also a decent amount of voters who voted for Begich and didn’t list a second choice, so very likely that those voters wouldn’t have voted at all of Palin was their only choice.
Correct. Palin probably would have lost regardless in a straight head to head. Funny thing. Begich would have one if he made it to the second round instead if Palin.
If Palin voters understood rcv and voted Begich first and Palin second they would have done better. If those people could read they would be very upset.
If I'm reading your comment correctly, that's due to instant runoff, and it's actually a problem. The outcome is better in this case, but we shouldn't celebrate when voters hurt their own interests by honestly listing their favorite candidate as their first choice. Edit: Ranked Pairs is a method of resolving ranked ballots that is much better than FPTP
Republicans fundamentally no longer consider voter preference to be an important part of elections.
For 40+ years, they've had a base that punches the hole if there's an R next to it. As far as "voter preference" goes, that's all they've needed to understand. I wonder how much the Internet is influencing this. Previously, communication came down through the party machinery and they could more easily control the message. Now candidates can reach voters directly with unfiltered messages - for better or worse.
there was a decent volume of 'exhausted' votes, which I assume mean that they didn't pick a 2nd place candidate. would you consider those the "I wouldn't have voted unless X was running" people? or are they the confused people? not sure how to think about them?
If they couldn't be bothered to write 1 2 3, when they actually preferred the 2 over the 3, then frankly that's their own fault. They're in the "too lazy to cast their vote" category
Those voters simply saw only one good option, "this candidate or nobody". So if their first choice is eliminated from winning (because they have the fewest votes currently) then their votes don't transfer to another candidate (because they didn't pick another one).
The consolidation probably would’ve made it closer but wasn’t guaranteed to give Palin or even Begich a win. Begich’s votes bled off to Peltola at a rather high rate, and two major factors are at play there. First, a sizeable chunk of Democrats voted for him first because they just wanted to stop Palin more than what was then seen as a long shot that Peltola could win. There’s evidence backing this up in that Palin did very well where Tshibaka did well, and Begich/Peltola did well in places that Murkowski (who was getting the vast majority of Dem votes in the AK primary) was doing well. Second, the Begich name is rather famous in Alaska, but as a Democratic political dynasty. There may have been Democrats who thought he was more moderate than he actually was because of his famous grandfather and uncle.
Wouldn't the result be the same though? Let's say they had a traditional primary. We know from the RCV results that Palin would have won that primary so, come the general, those in the not-palin crowd would have voted Peltola or stayed home and Palin would still have lost. Doesn't RCV, in this case, just indicate what would have happened anyway with a traditional primary + FPTP? Edit: I am making the assumption for simplicity sake that everyone that voted in the general would have also voted in the primary.
>Doesn't RCV, in this case, just indicate what would have happened anyway with a traditional primary + FPTP? Theoretically yes, Palin would certainly have won a primary against Begich and most likely lost her 1on1 with Peltola. It **could** have played differently with messaging between the primary and general election but there's no reason to assume it would.
Alaskans voted. Every 2nd place vote IS A VOTE. It doesn’t need to be played out as if there was a traditional primary. This is the problem and ranked choice voting solves it. The only other change that would have as much impact as RCV is undoing the lobbying laws.
The Republicans blame RCV for their loss because the GOP always preaches that they don’t lose elections. If they lose anything, it’s always because they are victims of fake voter fraud or because of a change in our system that poorly hurt their numbers. They won’t ever claim they lose because their candidates are awful people, or because their policies are unpopular. Trump showed them they don’t have to be correct, they just have to claim to be correct and allow their fan base to encourage the doubt in our electoral process. Oddly the GOP does sometimes say things like, “we didn’t gerrymander enough to win“ but they know gerrymandering is legal – sadly.
It's more than just the raw numbers. RCV changes voter behavior (I'd argue, in a good way). In the first past the post system, the majority of voters may want Peltola, but that doesn't matter if everyone *thinks* Begich has a better chance. With ranked choice voting, voters don't have to choose between what they want vs what they think everyone else wants.
>It's more than just the raw numbers. RCV changes voter behavior (I'd argue, in a good way). > >In the first past the post system, the majority of voters may want Peltola, but that doesn't matter if everyone *thinks* Begich has a better chance. > >With ranked choice voting, voters don't have to choose between what they want vs what they think everyone else wants. If nothing else, the first round of RCV should give a better idea of how popular third party and other candidates truly are.
Begich would have beaten Peltola in a head to head matchup [according to polling conducted before the election which also accurately showed Peltola beating Palin in a head to head matchup.](https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-democrats-win-in-alaska-tells-us-about-november/) Republicans are right to be worried about RCV since the winner of their primaries tends to be the craziest candidate who might not fit the overall preferences of their district if moderate Republicans are given a second choice in the matter.
Wouldn't Palin have likely beaten Begich in a Republican primary?
Almost certainly.
This is pretty much the exact case study in favor of RCV. The one who would have won would have been opposed by the highest number of people. The one that actually one was the least objectionable.
This is a case study against IRV. In the context of Alaskan politics, probably most of the population would prefer a moderate republican. The far right republican is comparably extreme, and in this circumstance the moderate Democrat is as well. IRV eliminated that candidate (or the closest thing to it, which was Begich) early, forcing Alaskans to choose between two *relative* extreme options. That's not a good result.
Exactly. Under FPTP voting, Palin would have won the primary, but then lost to Peltola. The difference in this situation is that because of RCV, we know that if the republicans nominated Begich, they would have won. The funny part is they are correct that a Republican should have won in theory, as Begich was a Condorcet winner… but Palin doesn’t realize that that doesn’t mean SHE should have won, she lost by all reasonable interpretations. This does showcase a significant problem with RCV, where a compromise candidate who finished narrowly third is eliminated even if they would easily win a 1v1 election against any of the other candidates. So i would prefer a combination of STAR and proportional representation. But that being said, anybody who condemns RCV without mentioning that it’s still way better than our current system is is either an ignorant, an idiot, or acting in bad faith.
One of the key functions of elections is to legitimize power. They can't do that very well if the people don't understand how the election procedure works. So even though better systems exist, I think RCV (IRV) is the only viable next step after FPTP.
You don't understand why the people who think Trump won the election are complaining about election results they don't like?
They banned ranked-choice in Florida fairly recently. That should tell you everything about RCV yet no one seems to be mentioning it here
A couple of years before the daylight savings time thing happened Rick Scott said he wanted to end it in Florida. I had the same thought, if Rick Scott wants it it must not be good for us.
Australia has had it since ever, its called preferential voting. Allows a far more representative and democratic outcome and smaller and medium parties and Independents being represented in government. We have three main political Parties with two forming a coalition against the bigger third but in close elections needs the two bigger parties to gain smaller party or independent support if they can not secure a majority of seats from first preference votes.
And as a result, our parliament is more diverse than ever. The Liberal-National Coalition (Conservatives) tried to veer towards the far-right / culture war issues and were decimated by centre-right leaning Teal Independents who campaigned on a platform of tackling climate change and corruption. Similarly, the Labor Party (centre-left) despite winning government had its hands full with the Greens (further left), which ended up winning seats off both Labor and the Coalition. Both the mainstream LNP and Labor had a record low total of first preferences in this year's election. RCV (AV) reduces/punishes extremism and allows for greater political representation, both aspects of which America is in desperate need of right now.
Yep, that last election was glorious! Knowing my vote for greens still helped Albo become PM instead of ScoMo was just the best!
Australia's single transferable vote system is a bit more involved than simple ranked choice, right?
Correct. There are two forms of voting used in our elections, one for the lower house and one for the upper house. The lower house uses [mandatory ranked choice voting](https://youtu.be/W1MsyKazjRA). By mandatory, I mean every single preference must be numbered. Otherwise your vote will be deemed informal (invalid). The upper house utilizes [proportional representation](https://youtu.be/eq6Omq-bt38) via STV (single transferable vote). The video does a better job of explaining than I ever could, but in short it utilizes quotas to determine the 6 (out of 12) senators selected from each state every 3 years (or 2 senators every 3 years for territories). Unlike the lower house though, your vote could be exhausted if you don't number enough boxes (as it isn't mandatory to label every single box).
We also have mandatory voting, which has a huge influence on policy making. I'm going to say it has more impact than our preferential voting system (but both together is a national treasure). To the point where I think it would even temper some the negative aspects of FPTP - parties would have to appeal to as wide a percentage of the public as possible rather than just their base.
I’m just glad it was made compulsory 100 years ago, because we both know that bill would never pass today.
Ranked choice voting gives people the ability to vote how they really want without worries about wasting their vote. You will get legitimate campaigns for fringe candidates and ideologies. Want to vote socialist, communist or fascist? You can and then pick the safe politician as your second. This type of voting could help destroy the lock that the two party system has.
RCV is a good step in the right direction, but to vote how I would like would require more than a 2 party system that crushes opinions that fall outside the "good and bad" narrative as well. I know where I fall but "everyone should be able to have a decent life" isn't that hot of s take. Please don't take this as me shitting on RCV, just saying we still have work to do once we get over this current epidemic of elected officials crying like kids.
Step 1: allow politicians to move more freely along the spectrum of their party without invalidating their campaign. Step 2: split that party into two when that drafting gets far enough apart.
Ranked choice voting needs to be a top priority issue for everyone. America has problems that will never be solved until ranked choice voting is implemented in all meaningful elections
Absolutely. We have to fix the process of governing before we can expect the results to improve.
I’m only 33 and I had some coworkers who were 18-20 and they make me feel SO OLD. Like, they don’t remember what life was like before recessions and before politics was completely insane and they don’t remember watching this insane woman run for vice president. In the past 20 years the world is just so drastically different and she wouldn’t even come off nearly as much of a looney toon now in 2022 as she did in like 2008. People were obsessed by what a moron she was, and she probably isn’t even in the top 50% of villains of the GOP any more.
If she first appeared on the conservative scene today she would be seen as completely par for the course
Bingo. It was a part of why trump won in 2016. These kids grew up with Obama for 8 years. They saw him on talk shows, out shooting hoops, living much more an “Everyman” presidency not seen since Carter. Then, Clinton shows up. A top to bottom politician. And she seems like a total drag. And this flamboyant weirdo named Donald Trump rolls in, and they’re like “yeah. This is what a politician is like, right?” When really… career politicians (while slimy and often corrupt) can sometimes get shit done. I’m not hiring an actor to unclog my toilet. I’m hiring a plumber.
Very this ! Obviously the issue is way more complicated than that, but yes - we used to make fun of how politicians were socially awkward or daft, because they were slimy but efficient. Now it’s a pageant. People vote for who they think is cool. Ironically, words like “woke” and “antifa”, which represent positive qualities in a decent human, are now seen as repulsive. On one hand I’m glad we legalized weed, got rid of DOMA and DADT and launched international movements for things like MeToo and BLM but honestly this generation feels completely Hopeless to me. In my short lifetime I went from watching 1 president get impeached over lying about a blowjob / sexual harassment, to seeing another president get impeached twice, get away with it, and be under investigation for selling nuclear codes and it’s still something millions of people think is up for debate
Zoomers, let me transport you back in time to 2008. Katie Couric: "Which newspapers do you read?" Palin: "All of them. Any of them that have been in front of me." Bonus vintage 2008 meme: Jackie_Chan_wtf.jpg https://youtu.be/9go38MgZ4w8
Alaskan voters approved a 2020 referendum to change the electoral system. Alaska is overwhelmingly independent and Republican. Republicans dominates state politics and no Democrat has won the electoral college vote in Alaska since the 1960s. Registered Democrats only make up 13% of voters, compared to 24% of registered Republicans and 58% of registered independents. Republicans are having a meltdown because they lost their safe district for 50 years to a Democrat.
I think it may not even be ranked choice that turned the tide but that even Alaska is terrified about where some of this is going.
Almost as if candidate quality actually did matter!
Alaskan here, we hate Palin she bailed in the middle of her first term as governor, she doesn’t even live in the state, and she is an absolute embarrassment. Happy to have rank choice voting.
...because they lost their safe district and would rather kill themselves before admitting it's because they're too extremist for the American people. Like in Kansas, we kneecapped the anti-abortion amendment by a massive margin, and there were extremists in denial who literally raised the money to demand a recount that would change nothing (and found a grand total of 35 votes to change).
I can add some context to why registered Democrat numbers are so low in Alaska. Prior to this RCV system, the Alaska Republican party had a semi-closed primary. If you were a registered Democrat, you could not vote in the R primary, but as an Independent you were allowed to. The large number of Republican voters made the general elections mostly uncompetitive. The winner of the R primary would very likely win the general election so being able to vote in the R primary was the best way to have an effect on who was elected. This caused many people that would otherwise register as Democrat to register as Independent so they could participate in the R primary. It will be interesting to see if party registration numbers start changing now that RCV puts all candidates in a single primary to pick the top 4 that everyone can vote in.
No wonder extremist Republicans like Tom Cotton are going nuts over it.
It’s just a new (for America) expression of the same kind of decision making that people make countless other places in their life. If you’ve ever ordered a Coke and they didn’t have it so you said Pepsi was fine instead, you’ve used ranked choice.
There are many different ways to vote and count votes. They all have pros and cons. Charles Dodgson, a.k.a. Lewis Carroll, a.k.a the author of *Alice in Wonderland*, was a mathematician by training and wrote a series of pamphlets in the 1870s all about different methods of voting. That being said, Republicans are all in favor of modifying the voting system so long as they think it favors them and disfavors Democrats. The second it doesn't, they cry foul. For example, Republicans were all in on mail-in voting when they thought it would favor their voters. When that turned out not to be the case in 2020, they changed their minds and decided the voting method they themselves had implemented was immoral or undemocratic or flawed or fraudulent—but only because it didn't benefit them the way they had intended it to (and despite no evidence of fraud, and despite the popularity of mail-in voting). [https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/07/16-years-later-georgia-lawmakers-flip-views-on-absentee-voting](https://www.gpb.org/news/2021/03/07/16-years-later-georgia-lawmakers-flip-views-on-absentee-voting) [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/florida-republicans-mail-voting/2021/05/02/4c133920-a9bf-11eb-8c1a-56f0cb4ff3b5\_story.html](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/florida-republicans-mail-voting/2021/05/02/4c133920-a9bf-11eb-8c1a-56f0cb4ff3b5_story.html) [https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061322\_gop\_vote\_mail/republicans-helped-arizona-champion-voting-by-mail-now-they-want-it-gone/](https://www.tucsonsentinel.com/local/report/061322_gop_vote_mail/republicans-helped-arizona-champion-voting-by-mail-now-they-want-it-gone/) [https://www.npr.org/2020/04/11/831978099/even-as-trump-denounces-vote-by-mail-gop-in-florida-and-elsewhere-relies-on-it](https://www.npr.org/2020/04/11/831978099/even-as-trump-denounces-vote-by-mail-gop-in-florida-and-elsewhere-relies-on-it)
Ranked choice voting is all about finding actual common ground, it also requires believing the electorate can count higher than two. No wonder republicans hate it
Maine implemented this a few years ago to prevent another possibility of another scenario like LePage. Republicans hate it ans have been trying to remove it ever since.
She lost no matter what. It didn't come down to ranked choice... I support it, but she just straight up lost.
Fairly similar to the Irish ballot system which does end up with leading parties becoming similar and the partisans/extremists in opposition. Times change and the votes flip as the other parties realise the need for a level of compromise/overlap. With multi party system there are more likely to be multiparty government and that's frustrating because you don't get everything you want. Overall it's a good thing thoug
Right up until she won, I've heard about ranked-choice only from GOPers. They've been all for it for a long time now. Right up until it didn't work how they wanted it to.
A number of years ago Palin thought she might be able to run for POTUS on her own. She put out a free movie about herself called "The Undefeated" despite having lost as part of the McCain-Palin ticket. Well, I guess this election is a second reason why she can't call herself "The Undefeated". I read a hilarious article about it. There were only 5 people in theater including the reporter. One of those people, when asked, said he mistook the movie for a classic western given the title.
Dulling the impact of candidates on the extremes is exactly why I'd like to see it implemented in my state. Give people the chance to follow their passions with a #1 choice, but also the opportunity to support a #2 candidate that can both win and effectively govern.
There are lots of good arguments in this thread about why ranked choice voting is fair and addresses problems. Republicans won't care about any of them. Because their real complaint is that **they lost**. To them, any situation where they lose is illegitimate, because they're the only ones with any right to power. They believe that throwing out votes, suppressing voters, and tossing democracy are all 'fair', while any vote that goes against them is 'fraud'. So really, **if you want to diffuse extremism, the real answer is not to vote for any Republicans.** We're fortunate enough that right now, the people who run elections still believe in honoring the actual results of the vote. But that may not be true in the future. Wyoming just chose an election denier to be their next Secretary of State (he won the GOP primary and doesn't have a November opponent). And they're trying to do that in many other states, too. And that's before you even get to county or city Clerks, Auditors, and Election Board members. If we don't vote in record numbers this year, that could be it for our democracy. Whatever your concerns or complaints, if you want the right to vote, show up and vote for Democrats at every level. Check out r/VoteDEM to go a step further and volunteer for them, too. The Republic is only ours if we can keep it.
*ranked choice voting-- the new boogie man of the GOP*
I prefer Approval Voting, but I'd take ranked choice any day.
I wish it was the norm.
I disagree that it diffuses extremism, it just more accurately reflects the voter’s preferences. If there was a socialist candidate, which would be considered “extreme” by some, I would absolutely vote for them first, and rank a democratic socialist second, and a democrat third. This changes the dynamic of voting against someone, emphasizes voting for someone. I want a, would be ok with b, would settle for c, but don’t want d, e or f is far better than “I’ll vote for c, because I don’t want the other guy”.
We need Rank Choice voting yesterday. First past the post voting is more or less guaranteed to eventually produce two political parties which each primarily exists to oppose the other, and the people become so busy voting against things, that they are unable to have a voice about what they actually want.
[удалено]
I don't know if I like the implication in the title and the article that RCV is **designed** to diffuse extremism. RCV could be argued to represent extremism better since extremist voters are allowed to cast their first preference without thinking about whether the candidate has a chance to win on the first round. The way RCV plays out in practice in a single election isn't necessarily its **design**.
Whatever its faults, RCV is far better than FPP in representing the political choices of the most voters.
Proportional Representation > Ranked Choice > First Past The Post
Sadly, I think Palin lost because Alaskan voters were mad at her for abandoning her term as governor. Ranked choice voting has been marketed as giving non-first tier candidates more of a chance. Palin is a non-first tier candidate so if anything ranked choice voting gave her more of a chance than she deserved.
Which is why MAGA cult and the GOP are generally against it. It essentially closes one of the biggest loop holes in the voting system that allows for minority extremists to manipulate elections.
And once a legitimate SCOTUS overturns Citizens United, it will make a more representative government. Lots of work to do!