LIVE: VanderSloot, Erickson debate Prop. 1

[@PhantoMace2012]

If this debate was watched nationwide, “Brussel sprouts for dessert” or something similar could have become a meme.

[@jeanineharrophansen]

Thank you for facility this debate on this extremely important issue in this year's election!!!

[@frankchurch7271]

It’s telling that extremists on both sides don’t want RCV.

[@codyslaugh6769]

I hope Frank reads these. It saddens me that we share the same university education. The argument from Frank is as deceptive as possible. Ranked choice is a good logical system and what he doesn't want to tell you with absurd examples where over 50% of people vote for brussel sprouts for desert, which is an insane example, is that ranked choice wouldn't give power to Democrats, it would threaten both democrats and republicans by making third parties possible and giving voice to independence. Which is the reason democrats oppose it in blue states. Geeze, just use your brain, look at the system and ignore the bias from people who run pyramid schemes.

[@Toolstilediy]

👏

[@tygoulding2547]

No it’s not, it’s a way of multiplying votes so the loser can win. One person one vote. Why would you do it any other way?

[@bschiffy7510]

Thank you Hyrum. Very informative. I’m a conservative republican and support prop 1 because it’s allows more people to vote, and promotes more moderate candidates that need at least 50% support of the people. Frank offered no helpful information, he didn’t support any of his arguments, and did most of the talking. Don’t complicate 2+2 and then tell me I don’t understand it. I support open primaries AND ranked choice voting.

[@Toolstilediy]

👏

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

You are not very informed. Research! Alaska and California regret RCV and are working hard to remove it! DO YOUR RESEARCH!

[@bradleystiles7349]

"Conservative Republican" Same guy that probably had Republicans for Biden sign up in 2020. He literally spent 20 minutes breaking it down Barney style so even a child could grasp the concept of Rank Choice Voting using vegetables as examples to help you dummies understand. Just say you're a leftist, and you support liberal Republicans (RHINO's) or even democrats winning in one of the most conservative states in the country. Just don't hide behind "I'm a conservative.. and I support this" because you're not. If you were, you wouldn't want anything to change because we already have conservatives winning in this state.

[@js2567]

Comparing sugar filled junk food to actual food as the assumed preferred good thing for society is actually, ironically a great comparison between political views. "Eat what feels good now, or eat for a healthy future."

[@jacksmith4221]

A good debate, I appreciate that you have this EIN! I am a proponent of Prop 1, but I will say that Frank came on here much more prepared than Hyrum appeared to be. My biggest issue with Frank's presentation is that he did use a lot of intentionally pejorative language to stoke fear. I do think Frank's "Brussel Sprouts for Dessert" chart could be easily explained with a visual, and it would make sense. For example, a series of illustrations representing each vote as a series of 4, 3, 2, or 1 dot could be grasped visually much more easily than it can be mathematically. However, there was no way for Hyrum to represent it visually on the fly- which I'm sure Frank was counting on. As for the Alaska thing, well, a lot of the Republicans hated Palin enough to make a Democrat their second choice, or at least enough to not put a second choice at all (in which case I would conclude that they don't care who wins if their preferred candidate didn't). But, what Frank said at the end was laudable, and I think better of him for it- none of this should cause us to hate and abuse each other. As Idahoans, our day-to-day relationships are MUCH more important than any one vote we will ever participate in. Thanks again EIN, very well done!

[@ameliabarnish9135]

I agree with you. Franks loaded language is unnecessary and inflammatory imo. Honestly I wouldn't think it would be allowed in a debate for one party to bring props. Also, Frank was just more comfortable railroading the debate and speaking over his opponent. Probably a personality thing.

[@maryannjackl2679]

@@ameliabarnish9135 It's rich to complain about Frank's explanations when virtually ALL of the Prop 1 proponents ads say that Prop 1 is about OPEN PRIMARIES and never ever mention Ranked Choice Voting ... which is what it's really about.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

I do give Frank props for coming prepared with props. But it almost felt like either 1) he deliberately confused the conversation with his dessert chart, which does not properly tally votes under RCV, then demanded Hyrum explain the unexplainable, or 2) he just hasn't bothered to do his homework and understand how RCV actually works.

[@WiseChild1987]

31:47 Political scientists, who study outcomes of election systems, find that ranked choice voting does in fact result in more moderate elected officials (meaning candidates at the extreme ends of the political spectrum aren’t voted in with as much frequency). Edit to add: The other issue in this debate is that there’s two things here - (1) primary election selecting top four, everyone can vote regardless of political party affiliation; and (2) general election and ranked choice voting. We need to consider the outcome of both elections. I’m still undecided (urgh)

[@Jaredklingonsmith]

If you like Idaho the way it is vote no. If you have a progressive mindset and you want change regardless of the outcome vote yes.

[@WiseChild1987]

@@Jaredklingonsmith Thank you! It should be that simple; I’m probably overthinking it.

[@maryannjackl2679]

"political scientists" .... All I did was look at the results in Alaska and Maine ... both of which were either Red or Purple states and which now are Liberal Democrat messes. Easy decision for me ... I don't want to become a Liberal blue state.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

@@Jaredklingonsmith false dichotomy. I do largely like Idaho the way it is, but there is ALWAYS room for improvement. Nevertheless, I do not have a progressive mindset, and I very much do understand various election systems, each with their flaws, and I am very much in favor of RCV over Plurality. I'm voting yes.

[@Jaredklingonsmith]

@@danejohannescaldwell7999 RCV definitely won’t improve it. Do what you will. The legislature will shoot it down anyway.

[@pdnwy]

Vandersloot's example makes NO sense. He claims Apple Pies would 2nd or 3rd rank peas & sprouts & brownies last. Essentially saying that an Apple Pie voter would behave like a Vegetable voter & vote for sprouts & peas over Brownies. May as well not be Apple Pie, but Spinach instead. 1 Republican vs 3 Democrats is the example he's actually giving. He's claiming Republican voters whose top pick gets eliminated would throw their support behind Democrats rather than the second Republican. That just doesn't happen. Vandersloot's numbers also make no sense when considering how the law actually reads. The Idaho Prop 1 says you don't have to rank/vote for any candidate you don't want. Which means apple pies don't have to include sprouts or peas in their ranking. Which means they don't automatically get apple pies votes. If pies are eliminated & they've placed brownies as their second choice or chose not to otherwise rank sprouts or peas at all, sprouts or peas don't get those votes. They only get pies votes if pies actually voted/ranked sprouts or peas above brownies & in reality pies wouldn't vote sprouts or peas since they fundamentally disagree. His dessert/veggie example is like saying a bunch of Republicans ranked a Democrat as their number two or number 3 pick before brownies (the other republican). That's not a realistic scenario unless a bunch of RINOS REALLY like that particular Democrat candidate over the remaining Republican for some reason. In reality an eliminated Republican's votes aren't generally going to go to a Democrat just so they can undermine the remaining Republican. If that were to EVER happen, that means Republicans who lost their top pick actually really hate the other Republican option & that one of the Republican options wasn't likely a real Republican to begin with. The way the law reads, as a Republican, I can have a ballot like this: [1] Republican [2] Republican [ ] Democrat [ ] Democrat like this: [1] Republican [ ] Republican [ ] Democrat [ ] Democrat or if I am fine with Democrats too, like this: [1] Republican [2] Republican [3] Democrat [4] Democrat or this: [1] Republican [ ] Republican [ ] Democrat [2] Democrat or if I'm a RINO as Vandersloot's example suggests, I could do this to help the Democrats: [1] Republican (RINO) [ ] Republican (Real conservative) [2] Democrat [3] Democrat Of course the Top 4 options could end up all Republican, all Democrat, some Libertarian or unaffiliated, etc. But the principle is the same. The first option is the most affective if I want a Republican to win whether it's my top pick or not. Because if your top pick gets eliminated, your second rank collects your vote. It is in your best interest to rank ALL candidates you are fine with & to NOT rank any candidates you absolutely don't want. If both Republicans are eliminated & both Democrats are equally bad in your eyes, your 3rd rank vote won't matter to you, so just don't rank them so they don't receive an inflated number of votes which would communicate an incorrect amount of support & an incorrect understanding of the voice of the people. Of course there's no downside to also ranking your choice of Democrat if you have a preference. If it comes down to two Democrats, you still have the option to rank them so that the best Democrat in your eyes can win. In this way, this gives Republicans the ability to sway the outcome between two Democrats if it came down to it & vice versa. Republicans would have the power to decide between Kamala Harris & RFK Jr for example if that was the Democrat scenario. Democrats would have power to choose DeSantis or Ramaswamy over Trump in the Republican scenario. This system gives the people more of a voice, more power in their vote, more options to select from, gives BOTH/ALL parties less power, may result in more moderate/balanced results, & should overall improve the outcomes of any election, aligning more with what the people want than what a party wants.

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

Do your homework! Alaska and California regret RCV and trying to get rid of it! Evil Soros is banned from 6 countries for funding Marxist communist laws! WAKE UP!

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

You are obviously not very intelligent... Why is Soros trying to change our elections in Idaho?

[@tygoulding2547]

His example doesn’t make sense because rank choice voting doesn’t make sense. Vote no on this crap. One person, one vote. A yes vote on this introduces a situation ripe to manipulate the will of the people.

[@DRY-C0WB0Y]

⁠@@tygoulding2547~ Incorrect. It’s actually much more accurate to the will of the people because ranking provides more data. It’s also not as complicated as the opposition would have you believe. If you can play a simple card game, ranked choice is a piece of cake. The open primaries would actually be a return to normalcy as well. It’s how we used to operate. The closed primaries have only served to bolster gerrymandering, which we all know is bullsh**. The actual voices of Idaho voters need to be heard, and a “no” vote on Prop 1 is how you keep them suppressed. The less data there is, the easier it is to manipulate (everyday logic tells us that much). Thanks for the lies though.

[@trennalepage2970]

We need open primaries. The advertisements are a little vague about what RCV and how it works. This is really different than what people are used to. Do some research…check out other states where it’s in place, where it’s been repealed… this was pretty informative.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

Yeah, if there is one thing I would hope every voter would take away from this, it's to truly understand what RCV is and how it works. And then I'd beg people to follow that up by studying and understanding: - how Plurality (our current system) fails us and BADLY. - that RCV isn't necessarily the ideal format, and that others like STAR voting are superior, but that it is a marked improvement - and then be able to say why - the Condorcet principle and why it matters. - Arrow's Impossibility Theorem and form opinions on which of his criteria are most important. - other principles of fair elections - what tactical voting is and why a system should disincentivize it - what vote splitting is, particularly its two flavors, Spoilers and Clones. - the difference between single-vote ballots, ranked ballots, and score ballots - then understand which systems use those and their flaws. Honestly, choosing our leaders is perhaps the most important civic duty we as citizens have, and its simply not ok to shrug off learning about it.

[@Ordinaryguy40]

I vote hard NO! on Prop. 1. It would take a book to list all the ways and reasons this is a bad choice for Idaho, AND it would take a second volume to spell out all the absolute Dishonesty being used to promote this evil idea.

[@phylxguy5547]

Exactly

[@colossalist]

Frank is the only one being dishonest here. The fact is that in his deluded example, most people wanted brussel sprouts over brownies. By Frank holding an election for dessert, he is setting you up to think that this is somehow the incorrect outcome. It is a bad metaphor meant to deceive you.

[@phylxguy5547]

@@colossalist only thing deceiving is RCV period don't give us that manure anyone who supports it is either someone who doesn't truly understand the outcome or is equally dishonest for selfish reasons. The voting system has been working for longer than me or you have been alive Idaho's conservative for a reason such as California is liberal for a reason the United States needs balance not one party system & as an independent we get to pick & choose from the best of both sides not have loyalty to one party or another. No true independent would be for RCV the only thing we want is an open primary which has nothing to do with RCV.

[@colossalist]

@@phylxguy5547 Just because a system exists does not imply it is working. I urge you to think about this: California has more conservatives than Idaho. Probably more than most states, yet California is "blue." One party rule is not good for democracy. RCV would benefit California conservatives by helping elect people that are more attuned to their concerns. Maybe not their first choice, but perhaps a centrist that is a little closer to their beliefs. By the way, Idaho is becoming more because the Idaho GOP closed their primaries and there is a large influx of California conservatives. Idaho was more moderate in the 90s.

[@colossalist]

@@phylxguy5547 Brussel sprouts wins. The numbers are right there in front of you. No deception at all.

[@mariewells3323]

Go brussels sprouts

[@mr.t1941]

Rank choice could allow YOUR vote to be switched to another candidate. Ask alaska how it's going?

[@DoodleSamurai]

"Switching your vote" would only take place if your most preferred candidate drops out of the race. At that point, it would go to your second-most preferred candidate. Your vote would not be deliberately switched to further rig an election in favor of one candidate over another

[@adamlambert2163]

It's just saying "ok now say your favorite candidate wasn't in the race, who would you choose among the other 3 options?" and you get to vote again. It's just a traditional runoff, or Iowa caucus except you are allowed to primarily vote for the person who best fits your values not just a simple lesser of two evils choice.

[@suewomack5528]

​@@DoodleSamurainot if they drop out. If they lose

[@DoodleSamurai]

@suewomack5528 I mean, yeah, but I think it's semantics at that point. Either way, folks can no longer vote for that candidate

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

@Mr.t19141: Um, that's exactly what I as a voter want to have happen. I have expressed my preferences. If my preferred candidate is eliminated, I want there to be another round of voting, and I want to have a voice in that round. What you may not realize is that EVERYONE is getting a voice in those subsequent rounds. Please (re-)listen to Hyrum's explanation about how it's no different than having a series of runoff elections. Also, (re-)listen to Hyrum's detailed account of what really happened in Alaska.

[@IFVandal]

I appreciate factual arguments that aim to inform. I felt Hyrum was doing that. Frank seemed frantic and was leaning on unproven statements in an attempt to promote fear.

[@suewomack5528]

He may not be a polished politician. But he makes sense! Prop 1 is a Bait & Switch

[@colossalist]

@@suewomack5528 I wouldn't call a precinct committeeman a "polished" politician. It's about as low profile and thankless as you can go in terms of party politics. I've heard Frank talk about a few other topics he doesn't know much about. He's just a rich asshole afraid that he won't be able to buy his way into politics anymore.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

Yeah, I really appreciated Hyrum's thoughtful approach to each statement he made. I appreciated how he took notes on Frank's statements so he could address each one, and then did. I'm more rational than emotional, so Frank's failure to explain his own platform left me feeling like he doesn't have a solid footing.

[@suewomack5528]

Open Primary = GOOD Rank Choice = BAD Bait and Switch..ugh

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

Why do you feel that ranked choice is bad?

[@frankchurch7271]

means you don’t choose to understand it.

[@JaneTalbot-bd4kq]

Frank may not be a polished politician but he loves Idaho and doesn’t want to see it go from a red state to a blue state. I’ve lived here my entire life and have already witnessed my state capitol go from conservative to very liberal in the last 10 years. Idahoans need to band together to keep that influence out of our conservative state.

[@maryannjackl2679]

YES.... we must work to save Idaho from becoming a blue state.

[@colossalist]

You know we used to have a democratic governor, right?

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

I can appreciate your fears and your desire to keep Idaho conservative. I feel the same way. That said, if the capitol went from red to blue, it did so without the help of RCV and open primaries. Either Idaho voters' views have changed or the deep flaws in our elections are manifesting. That said, I was deeply unimpressed with Frank's seemingly deliberate attempts to muddle the issue. I was unimpressed with his underhanded attempt to make Hyrum look foolish when he couldn't explain in real time a largely vague chart that I could barely follow, even after pausing the video. And I understand RCV quite well. I was also disappointed in Frank's continued refusal to address any of Hyrum's rational and well-spoken arguments, retreating instead to stabbing brussel sprouts like they made his point for him.

[@suewomack5528]

Then why are rural counties being grouped into vote areas with the larger cities?? To overwhelm the conservative votes with the larger city more liberal voters.

[@colossalist]

Kinda the opposite is happening. Boise's vote is diluted/gerrymandered by splitting it into two districts.

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

WELL STATED!

[@AaronSteinkamp-yg8us]

I was ONLY spoken to about Open Primaries when I signed the clipboard. Ranked choice wasn’t even on their sheet. I’m wondering if even the volunteers knew that Ranked Choice was being proposed either. I wish I could take my signature back!

[@wendywamack1588]

Very informative discussion! Speaking as an independent voter in Idaho that signed petition were open primary/rank choice voting. I’m Excited for the possibility of being able to participate in the primaries 270,000 independent voters in the state of Idaho. Don’t have that privilege currently.

[@teralynyoung-ux5ws]

Every legal voter can vote in the primaries, you just have to declare a party.

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

Whaaa!

[@william_mac]

I already voted. Full disclosure: I'm a registered independent, and fairly liberal. I don't like being locked out of the primaries, but I've dealt with it for years. I'm not sure that rank choice voting is following constitutional law. However I made my vote on prop one based on my understanding. NO! The top two should be put on the ballot... End of story. However Vander sleuth gives me the creeps.

[@bradleystiles7349]

I appreciate your honesty on your comment. 👍

[@cybernescens]

"We are disenfranchising Apple Pie and Brownies."

[@tomwagner3790]

This is dem BS at its finest. Save Idaho, VOTE NO on PROP # 1

[@sweettoothmomma2621]

It's all about the dark money!

[@frankchurch7271]

In Frank’s example, 51% of people wanted ANYTHING BUT brownies. That’s what won.

[@helleobinso3304]

Please vote “No” on this, this will not affect the will of the voting population. We vote for our desired candidate, keep it that way. If your candidate loses, your candidate is free to run again next election.

[@l.chrisjones7775]

Can we have Open primary without the rank choice voting?

[@suewomack5528]

That is what the original Proposition was... Bait & Switch

[@maryannjackl2679]

The Proponents of Prop 1 don't really care about open primaries .... they are only using it to trick voters. Thats why they are pounding the airwaves with ads touting "open primaries" when the real goal is Ranked Choice Voting... A democrat ploy to turn Idaho blue like it did with AK and ME

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

Honestly, while open primaries will allow independent voters to participate in the primary election, which is a good thing, taken by itself it would be disastrous. You WOULD see independents and democrats getting elected, due to vote splitting amongst the republicans. You would have to invent a pre-primary election to avoid that, making elections three-levels deep instead of two. The reason we have primaries today is so that we can pare the field down to two candidates for the general election. Any more than that, and the deep flaws in single-vote ballots are readily apparent. Just look at how Ralph Nader and Ross Perot spoiled their respective US Presidential elections. RCV counters that problem by largely eliminating the problem of vote splitting in the general election. You also can't just have a general election of only RCV, because it doesn't scale well. It's easy enough to rank 4 candidates, but 20? There would be a flood of spoiled ballots. To me, the only rational reason to vote no on this initiative is to hold out for something better, like STAR voting. But it was hard enough to get this measure on the ballot, so I'm certainly not going to make perfection the enemy of improvement. I do intend to promote and support STAR voting in the future, though.

[@frankchurch7271]

@@suewomack5528you’ll end up with vote splitting and that’s bad for everyone.

[@illdecide9932]

Vote NO. Rank choice is whacked. Most can’t understand how it even works.

[@DoodleSamurai]

So how it works is that you rank your candidate choices in order of preference- 1, 2, 3, 4. Whoever you voted as 1, your vote goes to them. Votes are counted in rounds. If your most preferred candidate loses the first round, they're dropped from the race and your vote is recast to whoever you wrote in as 2. So on and so forth until there's a winner. Did I lose you anywhere in that?

[@colossalist]

Most can. It's a change for sure, but I think most people can figure out how to rank in order of preference.

[@phylxguy5547]

This is the common consensus that provides the best proof if every other person is concerned about confusion or understanding how exactly works is all the proof necessary to show it is indeed confusing and difficult to understand, these crazy examples people repeat on nauseum trying to convince people to take a chance on something they don't fully understand, well the safest choice is to avoid any chance of getting fooled or regrets which is clearly vote "NO" everything has been working perfectly fine without this problem therfore don't allow it to pass changing the time tested current method.

[@stephentaylor3789]

Reading the comments and watching the debate makes it 1000% clear. Lets do an open primaries bill. Everyone, conservatives, libs and independents are on board. Tacking on the rank choice is a bad choice agreed upon by a red state and a blue state as stated by Hyrum. Whats cringy is how all politicians have to sneak manure into good recipes. Open primaries alone? Cool!

[@LizZee-uj7ty]

No- no one is on board!! You have to ge a fool to fall for this- a fool or a cheating Democrat

[@maryannjackl2679]

The proponents don't really care about open primaries... their goal was Ranked Choice Voting ... so you won't see them proposing just open primaries.

[@colossalist]

​@@LizZee-uj7ty Prop 1 = More Freedom

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

KEEP IDAHO CONSERVATIVE! VOTE NO ON PROP 1 Independants stiil have a vote...! Small counties will lose their votes with RCV!

[@terrihall2092]

It's very clear. The under dogs would always win, which in Idaho would be a Democrat. It would turn Idaho BLUE! Frank is RIGHT!

[@LizZee-uj7ty]

Exactly- this is how the destruction of California began- and because the Democrats cheat, in CA not one more Republican was ever elected- they have devised a system to make that happen, I lived there for 20 years and just left- it is a cesspool- Dems are such bad managers of everything, unable to see cause and effect. I left because as a Republican I became a non citizen- they always package their shady ideas up so pretty as they take your rights away to gain power- every aspect of your lives. Do not vote for Ranked Voting, it’s so bad!!

[@colossalist]

Frank is not right, but he's on your "team" so you blindly accept his position. This would most likely elect more moderate republicans. The idea is to get representatives that actually represent a true majority of Idaho's citizens. The reality is that more people ultimately preferred brussel sprouts over brownies. It's a bad analogy, and that's why you think he's right.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

No they would not. I invite you to learn how RCV actually works. A debate is great for hearing both sides, but not for truly understanding the system. If the underdog is an extremist candidate, of either party, they will lose in the first round. If they are a strong candidate who is very similar to another strong candidate (two Republicans in Idaho) vs a Democrat, yes one of them could very well be eliminated in the first round, but the other will progress to the second round, the final round in this case. At that point, it comes down to a head-to-head race between them and the Democrat, which will be NO DIFFERENT than if only those two had run. That's the key point of RCV is that the winner will ALWAYS be someone who is preferred by a majority of voters (not just a plurality) over every other candidate still under consideration. Now ask yourself what would happen if, in this year's general election, a Republican, a strong, right-leaning independent, and a Democrat all run for, say, governor (which they aren't, but just consider)? Let's assume that, head-to-head, the voters prefer: * The republican over the independent, 51-49 (very close) * The republican over the democrat, 60-40 (not at all close) * The independent over the democrat, 60-40 (not at all close) Common sense tells us that the republican should win. They are preferred by a majority over both of the other candidates. Common sense further tells us that the democrat is the least popular candidate and should NOT win. You know what happens today? The democrat wins 40--31-29, because the other two split the same block of votes. This problem is not simply theoretical. It has happened twice in Presidential elections and countless times in less prominent ones. I recommend researching Ralph Nader and Ross Perot and how they spoiled their respective elections in favor of the less popular leading candidate.

[@phylxguy5547]

Exactly just research the places that have adopted RCV once in place hard to get rid of this Trojan Horse which is the easiest way to manipulate the outcome.

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

WELL STATED!

[@js2567]

So my Mom posted on FB last week this desert analogy, and I was impressed how confusing it made RCV sound. It's not all that confusing...

[@DRY-C0WB0Y]

Saw that one too. It was so twisted it really didn’t make sense. “Baffle them with bullsh**” as they say.

[@tygoulding2547]

No on prop one!! It’s not about giving the underdog a chance, it’s about introducing a voting system that most people won’t understand and will force them to vote for people they don’t want. Why would you agree to that? With ranked choice voting if you don’t rank every candidate then your vote counts for less than other people’s vote. So your alternative is to vote for someone you don’t want? Why agree to this? It is bad news! No on prop one!

[@alexmiller1511]

Aside from being a loaded topic on desserts, (why not just colors or something?) why did you expect brownies to win when everyone else ranked brussel sprouts above it?

[@adamlambert2163]

Mr. Vandersloot, all this means is that given the option between Brussel Sprouts and Brownies, 51 people ranked Brussel Sprouts over Brownies. Thats called a majority. The example is obviously silly in this regard because who would do that? But as Hyrum said, all this does is create runoff elections between each successive matchup. I believe this leads to higher Republican turn out because the lesser of two evils/ hold your nose situation that qe have been in goes away. I could still put trump as my #2 while being able to vote for a more principled conservative as my #1. Everyone goes to the polls excited about participating and Republicans in Idaho win by even more. alaska happened because sarah Palin is so bad that manny who had the other Republican as their #1 put the Democrat as their #2. Once again, run good candidates and this is alleviated.

[@LizZee-uj7ty]

No there is no win in this, unless you are a Democrat- this totally destroyed California- I just moved from there, this ranked voting made it possible for the Dems to cheat and no Republican was ever elected again, and the Dems had total power and made life miserable, all Republicans became non citizens- this is why they came to Idaho! Don’t be stupid, don’t let them talk you into this horrible idea! They are trying to push this in every state- they did recently in Alaska, no conservative has ever won again!

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

It occurs to me that 1) Frank deliberately contrived his example so that the majority preference was for an unexpected "dessert", and 2) Frank had to have understood RCV thoroughly in order to contrive this example, then deliberately steered around what was obvious to those of us who understand RCV (albeit after having to freeze the video and pick apart his poorly rendered chart): a majority of voters actually PREFER Brussel Sprouts to Brownies 51-49, and therefore RCV, not Plurality, got it right.

[@briannacc3983]

Sounds like insanity to me

[@Epicmusicness1]

It's easy for me to armchair quarterback this debate but I had wished that Hyrum had answered this fictional dessert story by saying that every one else had voted that the "brownie candidate" as their worst or least favorite choice. It wasn't that the votes magically went towards the least likely "dessert" or the minority. To have this story work is only if everyone who voted for apple pie and peas voted brownies underneath brussel sprouts.

[@Idaho27]

“The only person that keeps voting is the one that voted for the biggest losers.” That’s exactly the issue with ranked choice voting. In other words, it’s really the minority who picks the winner if the top candidate doesn’t get 50% of the vote. Vote NO to prop 1 if you don’t want democrats or RINOs to have a greater advantage.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

That was Frank's claim, but it is a flat-out miscarriage of the truth. RCV is simply a sequence of runoff elections where the least popular candidate is eliminated each round. Then we ALL vote again the next round. That's it. Whether we conduct each runoff a week apart from each other, or run it all instantaneously using each voter's ranked preferences, makes absolutely no difference except in how long it takes. If you are opposed to runoff elections, that's one thing, but to sum RCV up as "losers getting more votes" reveals either a fundamental misunderstanding of how it works, or in Frank's case, a seemingly deliberate attempt to confuse us.

[@mariewells3323]

Frank talks about disenfranchised people. Majority doesn't vote here because it is rigged. We are already disinfrancized

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

Yeah, it struck me that Frank is trying to hijack that word for the sake of causing fear. True disenfranchisement is where individuals cannot vote at all, or whose votes are made essentially irrelevant.

[@jackiekatz8286]

I don't live in Idaho but if I did I would vote NO! On prop.1. Why make it so complicated?

[@colossalist]

It's not complicated.

[@jackiekatz8286]

@@colossalist ok know it all. When dark money is coming in to support it and they aren't open about where its coming from ( Soros or Bates) that's sketchy. This isn't the first video I've seen on this topic. It is a wolf in sheep clothing, vote for this prop.1 and live with the consequences. Do your research.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

To answer this question, you need to understand all the flaws in Plurality voting. Once you do, you will realize that the simplicity of our current system is no substitute for getting elections right.

[@colossalist]

Most people wanted brussel sprouts, Frank. It's not that hard.

[@suewomack5528]

No most people wanted Brownies. That is why Rank Choice is NOT an honest representation of actual voting

[@colossalist]

@@suewomack5528 Sorry, Sue. If you think about this, most people ultimately wanted brussel sprouts. Frank is using a bad analogy to play with your emotions. There are a few problems with Frank's analogy. First, 3rd and 4th choices are not votes against. If you don't want to vote for someone here, you don't have to, and why would you if you don't want your vote going to them? Second, by using the analogy of voting for dessert and then throwing in peas and brussel sprouts, Frank is being disingenuous because dessert is typically sweet and your gut reaction is to think that of course people want brownies. He also failed to mention that the Alaska republicans told people NOT to rank their second choice.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

@@suewomack5528 Its really very simple, notwithstanding Frank's attempt to confuse the issue with a muddled tallying of the ballots. Let's assume that ONLY Brussel Sprouts and Brownies were on the ballot, but otherwise accept all of Frank's assumptions about voter preference. We know: - Everyone who liked peas best prefers Brussel Sprouts over Brownies (not what you'd expect, and Frank is counting on this) - Everyone who liked apple pie best likewise prefers Brussel Sprouts over Brownies. THEREFORE, if it were only Brussel Sprouts and Brownies on the ballot, even in today's election, Brussel Sprouts would win 51-49. You cannot make a rational argument, accepting Frank's numbers as our starting premise, that Brownies are more preferred than Brussel Sprouts. Apple pie and peas are irrelevant to that comparison. Funny enough, RCV wasn't bamboozled by having the two additional options on the ballot like our current system would be. Today, Brownies would win, contrary to the will of the 51-49 majority who WANTED Brussel sprouts. In fact, the more I think about this, the more I realize that Frank absolutely had to understand this principle so he could contrive his example to work the way it did. Which means, he's not simply misinformed like I had charitably thought at first, he is deliberately trying to pull the wool over our eyes.

[@colossalist]

@@danejohannescaldwell7999 Well said. Frank knows that this will dilute his financial influence over Idaho politics by giving more power to the citizens of the state. He understands it completely. The metaphor is cunningly crafted to deceive.

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

Remove RINO Eirickson! He does not represent Republicans in Idaho! NO ON PROP 1!

[@colossalist]

Are you afraid of people with different opinions? Must not be a big fan of democracy.

[@NunYoBizz1977]

No on Prop 1 - it would make the vote too easy to manipulate to get the candidate, whether it be a republican, democrat or conservative, into office that would be obedient to the establishment

[@anthonyzaccheo]

No, it opens up voting for independents. You shouldn't have to declare for a party to have your voice heard. Political parties aren't set in stone into democracy, thus they shouldn't dictate how we are able to have our voices heard equally.

[@Idaho27]

I’m more opposed to ranked choice voting than I am open primaries. Independents need to consider that when voting. There could be another prop in the future that addresses independents access to primaries without changing the rules of the general election.

[@sweettoothmomma2621]

​@@anthonyzaccheo It is more than open primaries. It is the ranked choice voting. I think most can agree open primaries are good but there is a mess waiting to happen with the rest of the proposition that voters are seemingly ignoring.

[@jetboatnation1601]

Yes to Open Primaries, No to ranked choice, Revote a week later for top two. Done. 18 pages give me a break.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

You do realize that that is the very problem we suffer from today?

[@CrowDazzle]

Libertarians vote for carrot cake.

[@kirkmitton4768]

Erickson comes across as a RINO. He is not a Republican or true conservative. Open primaries can be done without ranked choice voting. Vote no on Prop1.

[@colossalist]

...based solely on nothing. Is anyone who disagrees with your echo chamber a "RINO"? Think critically for once in your life.

[@l.chrisjones7775]

Can't you just pick a party to be registered to and then just decide how you want to vote anyway after that?

[@DoodleSamurai]

Why should I have to lie about who I'm affiliated with in order to vote?

[@SAMeyer-hh7cv]

Hell yes, just vote on open primaries! VOTE NO ON RANK (DISGUSTING) CHOICE VOTING!

[@SaltandPepper8010]

‘Maybe we were wrong about ranked choice voting’ on Mr. beats KZbin channel. Check it out at minute marker 53 where they talk about it and 1 hour 30. Two professionals whose jobs are all about gathering data about different types of voting (who’ve done this for years and years) do not like RCV. They found that because of the way contestants are eliminated, only 38% of the time the winner received more than 50% of the votes cast. 61% of the time the winner actually received less than 50% of the votes cast. The candidate that the majority of the state actually want only win 38% of the time!! They talk about different kinds of voting and star voting is the way to go. Where truly every candidate is ranked and all your rankings are counted so the one with the true majority will always win. Yes we should have open primary’s. No we should not have ranked cast voting.

[@SaltandPepper8010]

The only second and third votes that count are the ones at the bottom of the barrel. Candidates who have the majority in round one may end up losing because they are the lowest % now at the end of round 2 or 3. And those people’s second votes don’t count because their second choice has already been eliminated. We do not get more equal voting this way. And it is not a safer option. It has gone wrong many times in NY and Cal.

[@DRY-C0WB0Y]

⁠@@SaltandPepper8010~ Everybody’s votes count in every round. Nobody’s votes are discarded, it’s simply that the person with the lowest amount of votes is eliminated from the race, but not the next round (tier) of votes their constituents cast (their voices are still heard). It is highly more representative of the will of the people, as there is simply more data to represent their will. More data =‘s Higher accuracy and harder to manipulate. Less data =‘s Lower accuracy and easier manipulation. Singular vote based on party alone =‘s Forced choice.

[@gryyphyn8639]

"Their second choice didn't count." It did. The made a conscious decision to not list a second choice, just as if they wouldn't show up for a runoff ballot. The difference RCV provides is for those of whom, for instance, would prefer a Libertarian candidate for instance, have our votes discounted without our consent. Hyrum's response was 100% accurate and correct. We, the proponents of RCV, also don't believe, or at least hope that, our fellow citizens are as stupid as Vandersloot believes they are.

[@danejohannescaldwell7999]

My thoughts as written down over the course of this hour: Frank deliberately obfuscated that example with his chart. I know exactly how RCV works, and yet I couldn't figure out his chart because he left out Important details. That is not how you tally RCV. Then he handed his nonsense chart to Hyrum and asked him to explain the arithmetic on the fly. Hyrum did the right thing by declining. Frank's claim about liberal money assumes the premise that all out of state money is liberal. All he demonstrated is that he doesn't know where it came from. Hyrum turned it around and with a clear explanation demonstrated that it actually doesn't even matter. Understand the system and you don't need to care who's in favor of it. Frank seems to be doing all the talking. Hyrum is soft spoken and quiet. And yet all of Hyrum's arguments strike me as rational and well thought out, while Frank's seem like he's running a carnival. It sounds like Frank is the most confused of anyone about how RCV works. Or is being deliberately obtuse. I would appreciate his arguments more if he could say what is happening and why, then say why that's a bad thing. Instead, he continues to stab at Brussel Sprouts like he proved his point. It's really not complicated. I appreciated Hyrum's explanation of a series of runoffs. That's really all RCV is, except framed so that it can be done on one day. One of the fundamental principles of free and fair elections is the Condorcet principle. Neither side talked about it, probably to avoid confusing the issue, but it is this: the winner of an election should be the candidate who is preferred over all other candidates when compared head-to-head. In other words, if Lion is preferred over Crocodile 60-40, then Crocodile should not win just because Tiger runs and splits a block of votes with Lion. RCV honors the Condorcet principle much more often than Plurality (our current system). Speaking of, how do you solve the problem of Spoilers and Clones, what Hyrum calls vote splitting. Frank doesn't even address it. Frank's example of Trump vs Kamala seals the doom on his case. If you like me are appalled at the two terrible choices we have, understand that it is single-vote ballots that drive us to a two-party domination of 100% of elected offices. You can't tell me that there are but two views on every single issue in America. Frank keeps obtusely avoiding Hyrum's arguments. Why won't he just address them? If he stabs Brussel Sprouts one more time... 40 Million is Frank's first good argument. It comes down a value judgment. Is a one-time expense of 40 Million, plus some cost each election higher than what we pay now, worth improving the integrity of our elections? I say yes, but I can understand how others would judge that too high. Frank's argument about voters being "disenfranchised" in Alaska because they didn't put a second place vote falls flat. They COULD HAVE. The ballot even tells them to do so. They chose not to. Hyrum even explained why many rationally chose not to. It's not a gimmick, and I don't think Frank even knows what true disenfranchisement is. Props to Frank for having props. Even if I hate how he shakes them in my face every 30 seconds as he cuts Hyrum off, then barks at Hyrum the one time he tries to interject. Frank quoting Donald Trump about his views on RCV is pretty rich. Like Trump, or hate him, you cannot deny that half the stuff he says is flat-out made up to serve his narrative. Frank showing 8 elected officials then claiming "they all got elected and therefore they should have gotten elected". This is the classic Begging the Question logical fallacy. If we accept that they could have been elected under a broken system, we cannot use their election to justify their election. Hyrum then made the poignant argument that all 8 of those stand to lose if Prop 1 passes. Not to democrats but to other, but to more preferred republicans. Frank arguing in favor of parties. I'm flat-out opposed to them being an integral part of American politics. I don't object to voters banding together for a common goal, but very much object to the need to be a member of one of two parties to even stand a chance. Frank arguing that just because we've been doing something for 200 years, it must therefore be good. This is the Appeal to Tradition logical fallacy. Frank keeps going back to his same arguments that Hyrum has already addressed. Not once did he address any of Hyrum's arguments, nor did he even attempt to explain why he feels Hyrum is wrong. He keeps claiming "liberals in conservative states" right after Hyrum shows how that doesn't happen - except once, where RCV did EXACTLY what the Alaskan voters expressed with their ballots. Frank doesn't even know the website for his own side? Hyrum quoted his without missing a beat. Maybe I'm wrong, but it sure sounded in that moment like Frank hasn't done his homework. "Hyrum, do you want to respond?" "No, there wasn't anything there." haha, that sums up the entire hour.