Ranked choice voting great for voters, state rep says | Dan Abrams Live

[@TK-mf5in]

Good stuff. This is a perfect example of why candidates matter more than the D or R behind their name. If we must have this two party system, then ranked choice voting is a great way to get the best PERSON in office.

[@writtenhousesecurity6499]

Yeah that has worked out better where ?

[@TK-mf5in]

@@writtenhousesecurity6499 uhhhh… in Alaska? Were you not paying attention? Didn’t watch the video? Didn’t understand it? Geezus dude

[@TK-mf5in]

@@namagemx so you’re claiming that “works” is only if republicans win. And it didn’t split the Republican vote… those voters could have voted rhe repulicans republicans 1 and 2, but they didn’t. Some of them voted for the democrat 2. If we had a smarter electorate, we’d have better elected officials.

[@TK-mf5in]

@@namagemx works for what? Define “works”

[@TK-mf5in]

@@namagemx so your definition of “works” is if republicans are elected? Is that how democracy works?

[@jaye8872]

It also eliminates runoffs. Sounds like a much more efficient way to vote.

[@nickb2912]

It also eliminates primary elections

[@ryant115]

@@nickb2912 No it doesn't. Primary elections are separate and are hosted by each individual party.

[@TK-mf5in]

@@ryant115 they still do primaries but it isn’t based on party. It’s possible for every candidate that advances to the general election to be from the same party

[@jacobmoreno9698]

@@nickb2912parties would still exist and they would still conduct primaries probably for a lokg time even after RCV. All RCV would do if implemented would lead to MORE party candidates

[@brittney3156]

Best way to be heard as a voter.

[@pamlewis1183]

These election deniers gotta go!

[@realhakimrasheed]

Ranked choiced voting should be nationwide.

[@acetorres8787]

Hell no

[@ryant115]

Hell yes!

[@memezoffuckery3207]

@@acetorres8787All Christian Nationalist and Democratic Socialist that disagree with the dismantling of the Two Party Monopoly, should have their citizenships revoked.

[@Matthewgb204]

@@acetorres8787 why? It strengthens democracy

[@USA50_]

I voted for Clinton in 2016, Trump in 2020, this year 2022 for US Senator I voted Green candidate Matthew Hoh. I also vote split ticket Republican & Democratic for state/local elections. I vote independent candidates if they get enough signatures as well - It's better to vote for ideas than parties. North Carolina needs Rank Choice Voting as well ☺️☑️🗳️🔢🇺🇲❤️

[@ryant115]

I can't image what idea you were voting for in 2020.

[@SonicBoomC98]

How was voting for Trump voting for ideas. And is it really independent if you vote for 3rd parties just for the sake of doing it? Exactly what ideas do most have better than the other 2?

[@fredtjack23]

It didn't matter she will always be number 2 can't fix crazy

[@richardcheek2432]

The complaint I have heard more often from opponents of ranked choice voting is that it is unfamiliar to people that are used to the old way of voting, and they just mark one choice and leave the rest blank. Peltola got 91k votes, Palin 86k in the final round. a total of around 177k votes, but the first round had at least 186,393 votes so about 9k votes did not follow their vote into the second and third rounds of voting. If they all went for Palin she would have won, but we wont ever know because of this new voting system that many apparently did not pay enough attention to learn how to do it completely. Candidate Votes % Democratic Mary Peltola 70,295 36.80 Republican Sarah Palin 57,693 30.20 Republican Nick Begich III 50,021 26.19 Republican Tara Sweeney 7,195 3.77 Libertarian Chris Bye[a] 1,189 0.62

[@ryant115]

One could also argue that 9K voters simply didn't want another candidate and intentionally left the 2nd and 3rd votes blank. If I lived in Alaska, I guarantee my ballot would have only had the 1st and 2nd votes filled in. The 3rd person on the ballot would NEVER received even my last ditch vote.

[@TK-mf5in]

You don’t know how ranked voting works, huh. You can’t mark a candidate as both your first AND second choice. And as the vote count progresses, of course it is fewer votes in total because the candidate that is last in vote total is eliminated and those are just gone.

[@jotne7649]

Assuming for a second that EVERYONE only wrote down 1st choice - and nothing else. It would still be the same result. Peltola would have won. The only thing we cant know or take into account is whether "Person-X-voters" are more likely to not understand the system than "Person-Y-voters"... If the "does-not-understand-people" are evenly distributed between the candidates, then it actually doesnt matter. As for those 9K... ofc if they ALL went for Palin she would win, but RCV is in place presumably to promote "moderate majority" - and if people view her as exstreme (even if she isnt) - she will get fewer votes.

[@ryant115]

@@jotne7649 The other think to remember is that in the old run off method...not everyone who voted in the general election votes in the run off. In essence, the results are pretty much the same, we just save on time and expenses of running a second election.

[@ThundermaulWarrior]

Great breakdown

[@ryant115]

@@jeribear880 Sorry to hear that...get well soon.

[@captainaxle438]

Canada's system, how you like it now?

[@rockstarofredondo]

It’s shite.

[@robertbristow-johnson6362]

87000 Alaskan voters marked their ballots that Nick Begich was a better choice than Mary Peltola. 79000 voters marked their ballots that Mary Peltola was a better choice than Nick Begich. 8000 fewer voters preferred Peltola, yet who was elected? Sarah Palin was the spoiler. She was really stupid for telling Begich to drop out, to let her beat Peltola. In fact, it's the other way around. Had Palin not run, and Alaskans voted the same preferences with the remaining candidates, then Begich would have met Peltola in the final round and would have defeated Peltola by a margin of 8000+ votes. Palin could *not* beat Peltola head-to-head. Palin lost by a margin of 5000 votes. But the wrong method of RCV failed the voters in Alaska in August 2022. More Alaskans wanted Begich to go to Congress than wanted Peltola to. Yet who was elected? Palin voters that covered their ass with a 2nd-choice vote for Begich found out that simply ranking Palin as #1 on their ballots, they **literally** caused the election of Peltola. If about 3000 Palin voters would have anticipated that their favorite would not win, they could have voted tactically (the tactic is called "compromising") and insincerely ranked Begich above Palin and the result would have been that Begich meets Peltola in the final round and beats her. Palin voters were promised, as all voters were, that if they can't get their first choice, then their second-choice vote will be counted, but that promise was not delivered to these Palin voters. Their favorite candidate was defeated and their second-choice vote was never counted. If they **had** been counted, a different candidate for Congress would have been elected. The problem isn't the ranked ballot. Indeed, it is only **because** of the ranked ballot that we even know that Begich was preferred by a simple majority of Alaskan voters over Peltola. The problem is the flawed method of tallying the votes. This flawed method is called "Instant-Runoff Voting" and has been known for 200 years to cause this problem occasionally. Yet this is the only method that FairVote advocates.

[@SonicBoomC98]

I'm not sure how this for sure helps marginalized groups. What if you put no second choice, or what if that group has no second option they like? The two most well-known candidates are still likely to be a lot of people's 1st and 2nd choice. Also, a lot of people won't be so happy when their 1st choice just barely misses the mark the first time around and some how their 3rd choice ends up winning the whole thing. RCV doesn't mean unknown and smaller candidates always have a chance. This Alaska election is a special case. No one likes Palin. In other places the people who voted 60% Republican would have probably those two as their 1st and 2nd choice and not put the Dem at all. RCV will do nothing to protect us from uninformed voters who vote based off everything other than policy and track record

[@Mark-pb8kj]

why weren't there 2 dem choices?

[@theyoungcentrist9110]

Because only 1 Democrat made the top four.

[@mostlysunny582]

@@theyoungcentrist9110 and that one democrat won the election. Sounds like a scam.

[@ryant115]

Traditionally, each party puts up a nominated candidate...however, there isn't a rule or law that prevents more than one candidate from a given party from being on the ballot. Democrats simply didn't put up a second candidate as the Republicans did. Nothing nefarious occurred.

[@Mark-pb8kj]

@@ryant115 which RINO was funded by the deep state to draw votes from the other?

[@USA50_]

Yay! Good job Alaska, USA 🇺🇲❤️👍

[@JoelMMcKinney]

and i wil spew out the lukewarm hearts

[@dalley6570]

Three-card Monte.

[@SNAP-2-IT]

There goes the neighborhood- we know "THE FLOCK" does not always make the correct decision, many times they vote on POPULARITY NOT POLICY... but that's politics now too.

[@ryant115]

Voting for POPULARITY NOT POLICY....That's how we got the last three presidents. We got Biden, not because of popularity, but because of how UNpopular the other guy was.

[@russellosborne4051]

Anytime they do something new it's just another way to cheat I know too much about them to ever trust them again every one of them is rotten

[@TK-mf5in]

“They”… and who is “they”…. The people of Alaska? They’re now evil? How about Utah? Are the people of Utah “they”.

[@davediamond7228]

RCV is not new

[@tommyanomaly6193]

Who's "they"? A lot of Republicans support Ranked Choice Voting as well.

[@MuffinsAPlenty]

Good description of the modern Republican Party. Indeed, everything they do is another way to cheat.

[@RalfAnodin]

RCV came from a ballot initiative to make elections better. It came from citizens, not politicians. Bot Republicans and Democrats are against it. Small parties and independents like it though cause that give them a little more chance.

[@tobinprowant8021]

I personally give very little weight to Saint Louis's newspaper in regards to Alaska elections. Remember of course Saint Louis does not use rank choice voting. So obviously there is a disconnect.

[@JonGreen91]

It looks like the reason it failed was because it was held in the primaries. If Republicans combined beat the Democrats in the most popular republican should win.

[@ryant115]

We don't elect leaders based on which PARTY got the most votes....we elect them based on which CANDIDATES got the most votes. Otherwise...why have a candidate name there at all? That's like saying elections are based on how many counties are red or blue.

[@thewastednukes]

Essentially the least worst option wins. Thats RCV

[@jerriserpas7344]

So ridiculous

[@RalfAnodin]

In a Begich against Peltola round, Begich would have won. He is the only candidate that would have won against the two other ones. Yet RCV put him out of the race in the first round, isn’t that as unfair as plurality vote? Just like plurality vote, RCV forces you to do tactical voting. I know Palin can’t win the second round so I should better put Begich in number 1 vote so he makes it to the runoff, although I would have preferred Palin. Basically RCV is not really better than plurality vote. If it was me I would go for something proportional like STV like they have in Ireland or open-list PR like they have in the Netherlands.

[@ryant115]

I argue RCV is better than convention voting...because it punishes extreme candidates and favors moderate candidates. Look at it this way, Peltola won because 12% of the 128K Republican voters did not want Palin. So in a head to head match between Peltola and Palin, the results would most likely have been the same with a Peltola win. However...let's assume Begich had more 1st round votes than Palin. It's very likely that most of Palin's voters would have put Begich in as their second choice and far less would have crossed over to the other party. The result would have been the Moderate Republican beats out the Moderate Democrat. So, in all...RCV pulls the candidates more to the center and allows more people to be represented properly.

[@RalfAnodin]

@@ryant115 We could assume that Begich got more votes than Palin. But the thing is that with RCV people give their first vote to their “less likely to win” candidate and then their second choice to a more moderate “boring” candidate. This led to Begich, or any other moderate candidate, to become eliminated early, and the final opposition to be between Peltola and Begich. Sure RCV prevents the most divisive candidates to be elected, but it also has this well know effect that it “weeds out” the most center candidates. You basically end up with candidates that are “moderate but not too much”. Still I agree that it represents better than plurality voting.

[@ryant115]

@@RalfAnodin Not necessarily. That scenario is most likely when there is a split vote for a particular party. If that is the case, the party needs to reformulate their strategy to ensure their "primary" candidate is capable to beating the "primary" opponent. If they constantly put up fringe extremist candidate that can win a primary election, but not a general election, they need to rethink their platform. Adapt or die, if it were. Either way...RCV gets rid of the extremist candidates that only represent the smallest percentage that got them past the primary. In a conventional election, this means when they win, that party tends to see what is electable and organically moves further to the extreme. Whether or not the party as a whole agrees with the extreme view. This is true for either party, btw. The issue with STV is that it assumes more than one winner for the group, so that wouldn't work for our system of government. It might if there were At-Large position like in local school boards, etc. So RCV is better suited for state and national elections.

[@RalfAnodin]

Yes I do see the point with STV, it does not make sense when it is about electing a single person. But yeah overall I’m really excited about the fact that RCV is taking ground in the US. It also helps that ballot initiatives are a thing in many States. Most voting systems are much “fairer” in Europe and lead to more peaceful societies, but ballot initiatives is really where we lag behind. Even in rather democratic places like Danemark the parliament has full control over the political system, and although it is elected in a satisfying way there is no way for the people to sharpen the system if the MPs in parliament don't agree with the change.

[@dannyshipley3399]

great way to cheat

[@TEDDYLEEGRAY]

Rank Choice Voting is rubbish!!!

[@TK-mf5in]

Super deep analysis. It works very well if we want a more representative government.

[@juanrestrepo1017]

…Said the Trash

[@RalfAnodin]

@@blakejohnson3864 Begish would have won in a run-off against Peltola or against Palin. He was the overall favorite candidate. Yet he got kicked out of the race. RCV ain’t perfect, it squeezes the center out and can produce weird results that are not much fairer than plurality voting. Only real good thing is that people can vote for smaller parties without fear of losing their vote. Maybe that will allow some more independents to gain seats, won't be bad.

[@jotne7649]

@@RalfAnodin Your statement may be true, but for the wrong reason... Begish wouldnt win because he was the favorite - he would win because he is republican, since Palin-voters probably had Begish always higher than Peltola. Its precicely this party-voting the RCV wants to prevent. If GOP wants to promote Begish, then do so. Maybe he would be alot more 1st choice.

[@RalfAnodin]

@@jotne7649 There are many good reasons to defend RCV. I’m still trying to point to the real drawbacks of RCV though, so that the conversation can become more intelligent. I’m personally in favor or proportional representation system, be it RCV in multimember constituencies like in Ireland, or the system they have in Denmark, or the system they have in Switzerland… all could work perfectly well to elect the House and many local legislatures and councils. Of course we won’t go there in a day, and RCV can be a good path towards better representation.

[@teronnierichardson4374]

That's some BS

[@justincaver324]

No it’s not he’s right

[@Dang329]

You sound like Conald...... A Crybaby LOSER! 😂😂😂😂

[@TK-mf5in]

What is? Expand on that. What is “BS” in this piece

[@davediamond7228]

its bs only if your candidate loses... rcv is more equitable then our electoral collage voting system for president is ..how crazy is it that a person who gets 4 million less votes wins ?(clinton/trump)

[@JoelMMcKinney]

Alaskan here. WORST voting scheme EVER. Who the heck is Petlota?

[@Tola5657]

One there get most votes even in first rundt

[@tommyanomaly6193]

Isn't Palin wildly unpopular in Alaska?

[@Alan_Kress]

🤡

[@thienphucn1]

@@Tola5657 Alaska Republican shot themselves in the foot by splitting the vote into 2 GOP candidates and now they are blaming rank choice voting. Even if there were no rank choice voting Petlota would still win because she still have the most vote (again due to the presence of 2 GOP candidates on the ballot)

[@thastayapongsak4422]

She's the one that got the most votes

[@redteam9881]

Only Vote for 1 person Even if it’s ranked choice ! Ranked voice voting is a scam !

[@acetorres8787]

Rank voting is the worst system

[@TK-mf5in]

Worst for what? Avoiding that we have extreme pols elected by a plurality? Yes, in that case it is. It’s the worst system if you long for fascism, or a dictatorship, or for deterioration of your rights.

[@acetorres8787]

@@TK-mf5in I would never participate in this system and would like vote 3 times for the same person

[@TK-mf5in]

@@acetorres8787 you want YOUR vote to count THREE times? You’re obviously not interested in democracy. Sit down

[@acetorres8787]

@@TK-mf5in don’t you vote 3 times in rank voting

[@TK-mf5in]

@@acetorres8787 not for the same person! Wtf dude.

[@robertwilson5427]

It’s a scam

[@davediamond7228]

palin is like trump... a poor loser

[@tommyanomaly6193]

Do your own homework

[@thastayapongsak4422]

It's actually better

[@metalstonk2633]

So the liberal Democrat wins, but the majority vote Republican. How is that moderate 😂 Sure, Alaskans want a moderate Republican, but instead got a liberal Democrat. The minority is pleased with the outcome 🤣🤣🤣

[@RalfAnodin]

I agree with you. But then it’s up to the Republicans to push for an electoral reform that would give Alaskans the moderate Republican they want. But Republicans don’t do nothing but crying for a return to plurality vote, which would have given exactly the same result. Explain me that logic. You can’t have representative results if you reject basic democratic principles.

[@ryant115]

Incorrect, the majority voted Republican as their first choice...a majority did not on their second. No different than during a run off if 15K of those who originally voted switched their vote during the run off. Believe it or not, but there are A LOT of people who are NOT do or die straight ticket voters and only vote based on the R or D next to the candidate's name.