Ranked Choice Voting Explained - with Cute Pets | Robert Reich

[@robinedwards6322]

We've been using ranked choice voting in Australia since 1918, and it works very well. Most politicians are from the centre-right and centre-left parties, but we also have a Greens party (further left) and Nationals (further right). In the last election, a coalition of independents challenged the conservative party in their rich inner-city seats, running on climate and anti-corruption (two issues the conservative party were seen to do poorly on), and won quite a few seats. Ranked choice voting made this much easier to organise. I think if it were introduced in the US: - The Republican party would split into a Conservative and MAGA party - The left of the Democrats would split into a Greens/Socialist party. - A lot more independents would run, as they're no longer acting as "spoilers".

[@RobCummings]

Parliamentary systems of government tend to be more moderate than the American winner-take-all system. Having lived in Australia for a few years, I can attest that it's a very well-run country and Aussies generally seem happier with their lives than Americans. They also spend a lot less time worrying about politics, maybe because they know that they have some representation in any government that's elected.

[@catprog]

I don't know if I would call the Nationals further right. Financial they are quite left. Socially they are right

[@filiptang113]

@@catprog that’s another benefit, parties and candidates don’t have to strictly follow to a certain dogma and can be more appealing towards their targeted base

[@dannydenison6253]

@@RobCummings I agree, however RCV is for sure the first step of reform. then restructuring the winner take all system comes next for sure.

[@Liesdestroylives]

Sounds good but has serious problems. It’s not as bad as First Past The Post, but it’s still relatively easy for extremists to gain the balance of power if we have a close election, and there are lots of candidates running in their electorate, and they have a strong base. Much better systems are the STAR system or a modified Borda system (where 5 boxes must be numbered (and only 5, where 5 or more candidates are running). any candidate who gets over 50% of the primary votes (number ones) automatically wins).

[@richardnwilson]

We use ranked-choice voting in the state of Maine and it does everything that that Robert Reich has said it does in this video. It works great.

[@sandal_thong]

I didn't realize it reduced negative campaign ads, but that's a bonus.

[@vvactivist]

No it does not do everything. It does not elect a true majority winner unless that happens in the first round.

[@nates9105]

@@vvactivist No... it is still a majority winner just not in the 1st bracket but the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, so on. Doesn't make it any less true or false. Being true doesn't equate to being 1st. The voters that choose to support a candidate that wasn't eliminated still get their vote counted. If no candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated. If your first choice is eliminated, your next choice will be counted, and so on. The process of elimination continues until there is a winner.

[@3_pancakes767]

@@vvactivist kiddo if you don’t want your second and third and so on votes to potentially help elect someone who didn’t get a first majority, then just don’t vote for anyone else except your first choice. Is that what ur missing? Do u not get anything else?

[@neilmicke1622]

@@nates9105 Think of this as a vote for a Senior Class President with 5 candidates and your constitution says the winner must have a Majority of the votes. Everyone of the candidates want to win and will NOT drop out or concede. So you to get to 50% just like the House just had to, you run election after election. But your bylaws said the candidate with the least number of votes MUST drop out. So you continue to run election after election until you are down to 2. So you will need to go through the ballot counting process up 5 times. However, this process can be done relatively easily on groups located in a single room, but when you have a process where you vote all day long, can you imagine going through the process many times. Then it becomes just like Georgia, another election. With Ranked Choice, you vote once, ranking your 3 favorite candidates, and then let the computer and election officials run the rest of the election. With Ranked Choice you can eliminate primaries too, just have a single election. I wish we had this in our state for the upcoming State Supreme court election. We will have a primary with only one thing on the ballot followed by the general with that being the only thing on the ballot. I know who I don't want, but not sure about who I want but would be satisfied with either.

[@JoshuaTrenge]

63 years old and this is the first I’ve heard of RCV…. thanks for the knowledge…

[@boneappletea3858]

I signed a petition for that here in MO. This explained it better than the dude who explained it to me first.

[@architeuthis3476]

Did the petition include a clause that limits each party to entering no more than one candidate per office? Because if not, Missouri will go from a two party state to a one party state.

[@boneappletea3858]

@@architeuthis3476 I don't think so or at least I didn't see anything like that. The last time I voted after that petition there were still multiple candidates for most offices so I don't think that's happened yet.

[@carolynblakeney966]

The first time I ever heard about ranked choice voting the skies opened up, the sun came out, the birds began singing, and I said why the hell hasn't the ENTIRE COUNTRY been doing this all along???

[@hegyak]

Money. Mostly.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

Because it's easier to stay in power when people don't feel safe to choose the people they actually want.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

@@Zach-ju5vi I would like to see the source you have for that comment since all the information I have seen doesn't support your statement, and the language of your statement implies a rigid view of the matter.

[@boneappletea3858]

@@Zach-ju5vi I can see that being a problem but not more than not knowing who they're voting for stands for the other way. So this should hopefully incentivise us to learn more about other candidates instead of just the one we like. If we can't do that than the other way likely isn't working for the same reason.

[@raylouis7013]

@@Zach-ju5vi It's been working in Australia for generations. Grow up and look at the world.

[@doug4699]

The money involved in politics or elections is definitely out of control. RCV sounds like a good idea.

[@ToyKeeper]

It does sound like a good idea, doesn't it? Unfortunately, it isn't really what it sounds like. RCV does *not* fix the lesser-of-two-evils problem... it just has a different type of spoiler effect which leads to approximately the same results. It also doesn't tend to make candidates nicer... because it mathematically punishes centrists while rewarding people on the edge of the spectrum. This center-squeeze effect plus the lesser-of-two-evils effect combine to make sure the two-party system remains intact. But RCV also has a variety of additional problems which the old system doesn't have... like ballot exhaustion (your ballot may literally not count), counter-intuitive mechanics (ranking someone higher can make them lose, ranking them lower can make them win), and significantly increased cost. Instead, we should be switching to something like Ranked Pairs Condorcet, Schulze Condorcet, or Approval Voting. They behave much, much better. But that would be a genuine threat to the current power structures, so none of the money goes into advertising those. Instead, the money goes toward RCV (a.k.a. IRV), which ... doesn't really improve anything that matters.

[@RobCummings]

Money and mistrust has almost broken this democracy. RCV looks like a good way to fix that. I trust the great American middle -- the sensible, moderate aspirations that most Americans share. @ToyKeeper, on the other hand, sounds like an RNC operative.

[@ToyKeeper]

@@RobCummings I'd love to ensure the R party never wins again, and a good voting system would probably accomplish that. Approval Voting and Condorcet methods are great at this. However, runoff voting (called RCV in this video) is notoriously bad at it. One of the big reasons why is a political science concept called Duverger's Law. It finds that, in Plurality and Runoff systems, the number of viable candidates is equal to the number of winners plus 1... and that this effect gets stronger the more people vote. In a single-winner system like most US votes, that means only 2 viable candidates, and anything above that causes spoiler effects. This is why the 2-party system exists. If you don't want a 2-party system, you probably don't want runoff voting (a.k.a. IRV or RCV).

[@MrMarinus18]

It's something I wish the EU would do but unfortunately I haven't seen much of it.

[@kennyholmes5196]

Along these lines, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (AKA NaPoVoInterCo) would unhook voting from the electoral college, making the vote more accurately reflect the will of the people as opposed to the will of the politicians.

[@hegyak]

@@Zach-ju5vi Say you hate democracy, while saying you hate democracy.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

@@Zach-ju5vi Ah yes, having a few dozen rich people decide on the President is "balancing the vote fairly". Sure.

[@sandal_thong]

@@renatocorvaro6924 More likely country-folk who've been manipulated by alternative media that support the rich agenda. They say Republicans in the Senate represent something like 40% of the population though holding 49% of the seats.

[@tfde1]

@@hegyak tell us you believe the 50% of the population that lives packed like sardines in 20% of country has more rights then the 50% who love spread over the other 80% of the country.

[@tristfall1]

@@Zach-ju5vi I've always found this argument very confusing. What is the next sentence after it? Are you supporting minority rule as somehow superior to majority rule? Why would you expect that to be better? What alternative is there other than these two?

[@missc.murphy3494]

Always appreciate Robert Reich. His videos are excellent and informative.

[@bryanalcantarfilms]

No doubt. I completely agree!

[@timothyjackson4653]

For all of you marveling at Reich’s ideas I would encourage you to also consider watching Milton Friedman and reading Aleksandr Solzhenitsynk’s From Under the Rubble, where he says that just as Freud speaks of the person having a death wish, intellectuals who promote capitalism share a death wish for society.

[@Metamorfeus]

Australia has had preferential voting for all levels of government since 1918. It's the only way every Aussie alive today has ever known.

[@tonyfike4330]

My sister moved to Australia in 1975. Politically everything is just peachy in Australia. Their politics has just as many issues as USA. At least the US did not imprison COVID VACCINE resistors, not yet anyways.

[@word2RG]

how do we vote for no more "donations" to politicians?

[@MF-ty2zn1]

Citizens United vs FEC made it worse. Now foreign donations are coming in for the RepubliKKKon party.

[@riceburner4747]

AMEN!

[@kgs2280]

Start a petition. And good luck with it. Of course, the moneyed interests will always fight against it, but if you can get it in the ballot, The People could get the job done.

[@Helen-qn5df]

Love this video! I want to see Ranked Choice Voting in our state of North Carolina!

[@i_am_a_freespirit]

Cute documentary Robert Reich, thank you! I don't think we have something like this here in Kentucky... it's important that the turtle wins EVERY election here in Kentucky... regardless if you voted for him or not 😠

[@i_am_a_freespirit]

@Nick Yankee Problem is I am an independent voter, and right now some of the worthless trash moved from other parties to independent parties...I guess now I have to change my party to progressive voter. I don't like worthless turtle or ANY of the Republican party... This system seems to be a great system, that may keep unwanted politicians out of Congress.

[@chrisdonovan8795]

You could move. It seems like a flippant statement, but I couldn't stand for that corrupt ass representing me, or tolerate the people that voted for him.

[@dr.OgataSerizawa]

@@i_am_a_freespirit I just don’t get why Kentucky thinks Mr. Turtle is good for them. The guy is a joke. While you’re at it, get rid of Rand Paul. He’s as useless as tits on a boar hog. Best of luck in 2024, KY!

[@brandon-a-adams]

Great points Robert! I’d also like to add that ranked-choice implementation in practice has a tendency to favor candidate-oriented voting behavior rather than institutionalizing a strict party-specific interpretation on politics. This could lead to a more holistic evaluation of specific candidates in their entirety rather than focusing on the platform around them.

[@davidlean8674]

You missed the most important benefits of ranked-choice voting (also known as preferential voting). 1. The more candidates on the ballot the more expensive/harder it is to "own" them all. If there are only two, & you have money, you can donate to both of them. Ensuring the winner will owe you regardless of the outcome. You can "rig the ballot" by eliminating the potential candidates you can't control before voting commences. 2. It can reduce the high cost of getting elected. Minor parties can get some candidates into office or at least get noticed without marketing to all America.

[@Timothy2963]

We have always had preferential voting (RCV) in Australia and it ensures a broader representation in our parliaments. Voting is also compulsory which also ensures we have a more representative parliamentary system.

[@elizabethdavis1696]

Do a video on shaping district lines based on the shortest split line method please!

[@maryhakkinen6936]

I love every one of your videos! I haven’t seen one that I didn’t like, and that’s saying some thing.

[@samsen3965]

Can't be any more agreeable with you.

[@yolyrom7233]

Ikr

[@Dan0__]

I'm totally for it! But somehow, the state of Tennessee has banned it! Is that even legal?

[@petergeorge2232]

We have had this in Australia since 1918 - we call it preferential voting. Our system and our politics are very far from perfect, but in this regard this system is far better than "first past the post" (what we call non-preferential voting). Far more choice and far more democratic. We have had it for more than a century, so the concept is very far from being unrealistic or radical.

[@neilforbes416]

We already have this in Australia, it's called *Preferential Voting!*

[@NandoCozzi]

Thanks, Mr Reich. A really very well- and clearly-argued point.

[@imalloutagum6083]

Amazing! Why isn't this a thing across the country?

[@tommyob4762]

A fascist supreme court

[@vvactivist]

Because it doesn’t work as advertised?

[@3_pancakes767]

@@vvactivist no because large parties like to stay large

[@3_pancakes767]

@@vvactivist you left so many dismissive comments but can’t seem to really explain any cons of rcv voting

[@kgs2280]

With RCV the Electoral College would necessarily be eliminated, as it should be.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

RANKED. CHOICE. VOTING. It is *so* fucking important for an actual democracy to work. It has problems, but all the problems it has are also problems that First Past The Post has, and it solves many problems of that system.

[@jimallen8186]

STV beats RCV; see Condorcet Paradox. STV is RCV plus Super-Districting.

[@architeuthis3476]

There's one drawback to RCV that can actually interfere with democracy. If there is no limit to the number of candidates a party can run, then what ends-up happening is that one party runs dozens of candidates for an office and all the other combined only run a few. The result is that one party gains a monopoly. The way to fix this is to have a policy that prevents any party from running more than one candidate per office.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

@@jimallen8186 Yes, STV is preferable, but RCV is the first step in getting there.

[@renatocorvaro6924]

@@architeuthis3476 Out of curiosity, how exactly is this a problem unique to RCV? It seems like they could do the same in FPTP and get similar results. I'm reasonably certain that most places have legislation preventing a party from running more than one candidate for an office (I'm very certain for my own local region), and there's no reason that legislation would be removed if RCV was implemented.

[@architeuthis3476]

@@renatocorvaro6924 Don't misunderstand. I never complained a party running multiple candidates for the same office is _unique_ to RCV, its a problem that can destroy the entire point of RCV. As for already existing legislation in the US that limits the number of candidates a party can run for an office, there may very well be places that have such laws, but here in Minneapolis where we have RCV but no limit to the number of candidates a party can run for an office, a single party controls the entire city - and while its true that I prefer the party in power to the other major political party, its a bit like saying I prefer being shot in the hand to being shot in the face.

[@chihuahuasrule1175]

I like this idea!..Let's get rid of the electoral college for presidential elections too.

[@terryjwood]

Dr. Oz would make statements that John Fetterman was "Kicking Authority in the Balls" to try to scare old people into voting for Dr. Oz. John turned right around and issued memes saying "John Fetterman: KICKING AUTHORITY IN THE BALLS!" and we all applauded John for turning a negative into a positive!

[@danacoleman4007]

I'm so glad he won!

[@terryjwood]

@@danacoleman4007 Dr. Oz had no idea how Pennsylvanian's think because he's from New Jersey. Oz didn't even know the names of the grocery stores in Philly, where he supposedly lived. John, on the other hand, was well known as the Mayor of Braddock, PA, where he plowed the snow and patched the pot holes -- a true servant of the people. There was no doubt that John was ONE OF US! Dr. Oz made it clear that he had no idea how food was priced or that we call it a "veggie tray" and not a crudité. Dr. Oz made it clear that he looked down on average Pennsylvanians. Oz thought he was better than us. Dr. Oz would NEVER look out for US because Oz wasn't one of us. It was clear that Dr. Oz was only in it for Dr. Oz. When Oz tried to use John's stroke against him, he lost all respect of anyone who has struggled with a medical crisis. John was so brave to debate Oz, on live TV. I saw John as the hero he was for that effort. I'm so glad that John won too!

[@kgs2280]

A whole lot of us in other states felt the same way and supported Fetterman even though we couldn’t vote for him.

[@Sfoxey]

​@@terryjwood The first rally I ever attended was for John Fetterman. Was held at the Bristol warf in Bristol PA. Wasn't long after his stroke, either. Was one of his first since it hapoened.. I didn't know exactly what it was that caused me to finally go to a rally, but I'm glad I did. It was like it just clicked in me.. after all he's been through, he's still out there fighting for us, and I just have to go show my thanks and support.. And i have been going to many rallies since then, lol

[@johnchessant3012]

"Ruff Nader and Bernard" hmm that's really subtle let me see if I can figure it out

[@rosascreativeworks5403]

Here's hoping. I know 'ranked choice' is spreading, and it's such a timely idea that I think it will continue to spread. But we do need to make sure the ballots are counted safely and appropriately. So my hat's off to all the brave, patriotic and dedicated folks running our polling places and counting our ballots. God bless.

[@eaglechawks3933]

Ranked choice will continue to spread in "blue states" because they know it protects incumbents and the party's choice through name recognition.

[@donnairn3419]

As an Australian RCV is the only way I have ever voted. As an outsider some versions of democracy don't seem vey democratic.

[@jonathanvilario5402]

Can you talk about Approval voting and Star voting too? I agree with all of these reforms over plurality, but there are a lot of other methods that people should know about too

[@14dolphins]

I got to do this in Queens NY last year it was great

[@LeCrenn]

We did that here in NYC during the last Mayoral race. A lot of people were confused by it, but I think once they figure it out and start to feel comfortable with the change, they will see that it is a better way of voting.

[@sandal_thong]

We just had the Academy Award nominations which is part ranked-choice voting. Since there are 10 slots for best picture and 5 for actors/actresses, etc. they also use a variant of the Single Transferable Vote. So let's say that a movie gets 15% of people's first choice for best picture, when it's "in" at 10% then their 2nd choice may be added as 5% to other movies, so their vote isn't wasted. This seems hard when there's a lot of movies (or actors) nominated, so maybe they do the addition after reducing the candidates, or in this case their 2nd choice gets half a point? Anyway, there's controversy in the nomination process as Cate Blanchett pushed not just for her nomination as best actress, but also for a competitor: an unknown film's actress Andrea Riseborough of _To Leslie,_ using her social connections seemingly at the last minute. This likely knocked out Danielle Deadwyler for _Till_ and/or Viola Davis for _The Woman King_ either of which might have been beaten her, while Andrea is said to be a sure-loser. Also, since these two Black-led movies don't have nominations in other categories, they won't get the return engagement that nominees usually do at this time. I thought these two Black movies may have split the vote, but if one was eliminated, the other would have got their votes as their later choice due to ranked-choice. It's also possible that the two Black movies just didn't get enough 1st and 2nd choice (and third) from the largely Caucasian Academy to make the fifth spot. But it seems very Rocky 3 for Cate Blanchett to try to choose her competition, like his manager did, so he wouldn't face opponents that could beat him.

[@hughobyrne2588]

Technically... the way I learned it, when there are n 'winners', the quota - the number of votes one candidate needs to accumulate in order to get elected - is 1/(n+1) of the total valid poll. For example, if there are 3 winners, and one person gets just over 1/4 of the total valid poll - it's not possible for any 3 other candidates to each get more than him, that'd be more than 3/4 in addition to the 1/4 he has. So he gets elected to one of the three positions after exceeding 1/4, even if his fraction is less than 1/3. For 10 winners, the quota isn't 10%, it's 9.090909...%.

[@sandal_thong]

@@hughobyrne2588 That sounds like good math, but whether they do it that way, I don't know.

[@catprog]

Some use 1/n as the quota

[@Charon85Onozuka]

Most important aspect of changing our current voting system. Introduces actual competition into the process. Everyone that screams for capitalism being the best system ever made should support the idea of actual competition in our politics, right? Not to mention that allowing more than 2 parties in congress could help with deadlocks when everyone is expected to negotiate instead of stonewalling until the next election so they can blame the other side for not getting things done. Just imagine if the 2016 election had Bernie Sanders, Hilary, Ted Cruz, Trump, etc. all on the ballot instead of just the 2 least liked among them. We keep hearing that parties can't nominate certain candidates because they're worried about those candidates not winning the general election, but they're never willing to actually test that and we all might end up being surprised at the actual results.

[@galiantus1354]

Well see, that's the problem: RCV doesn't actually introduce competition to the political process. It still tends toward a two-party system, just like Plurality. And compared to other systems created with the intent of giving the people more real options, it is far more difficult to administer.

[@monsieurdorgat6864]

Had a public vote for thus initiative recently in Washington!

[@supernamek]

Rank choice voting would be a game changer in primaries which would increase voter participation.

[@PvblivsAelivs]

Personally, I would like to eliminate parties and primaries altogether.

[@epincion]

Its significant that SenTom Cotton who is one of the 2 or most extreme right senators commented on the use of RCV in Alaska by saying that he wants a federal law banning its use in all situations. The extremists see that it will doom them.

[@etzool]

I learned about ranked choice voting a few years ago, and... like with the subjects of many of your videos... I couldn't help being really sad. At the time, I think it was Maine that was being used as an example where two of the candidates going to the final ballot were a bit different but still friends and still not campaigning against each other, and it's incredibly frustrating that that sort of thing can only really happen in a handful of states.

[@brianshank1343]

Re: "We can vote FOR the candidates we like most, rather than voting AGAINST the candidates we like least." It is perhaps dangerous to use the terminology "vote for" and "vote against" when referring to RCV elections, or any version of ranking method. In an RCV election, voters do not vote for or against candidates, they only communicate their relative preferences. A voter may detest all the options on a ballot, but may detest some more than others and can thus rank them. Voters may do harm to their own power and political influence if they misunderstand this very important distinction, and the most-preferred candidate may fail to be elected. All voters should be strongly encouraged to rank all the candidates or as many as they can.

[@virginiathomasakaicedragon6579]

We did it here in ST.PAUL MN a few years back and we loved it and it didn't take more than usual to count. Maybe a couple hours more

[@cygnals524]

@Robert Reich I am really enjoying the video you have been posting recently. I love Ranked Choice Voting!! I tell anyone who will listen to me talk about it & encourage them to do their own research on it. I wish I had resources I could hand out to people about it. I am so happy to see you giving this issue the publicity it deserves. Thank you for taking the time to make these videos and then post them here for free. I really appreciate it & I enjoy watching them.

[@eugenechelsea]

We call it Preferential voting system in AUstralia, however the state is devided by several districts and a voter can only vote within a district. The system would work much better if candidates are selected state-wide because it would allow people of similar political views unite across the state and get legislative representation.

[@skippymaster57]

Yes, but in Australia as you have mentioned, this only applies to the Lower House (also known as the State house in US). It doesn't apply to voting in the Senate (or Congress in US) as all the available Half Senate seats are available to be selected with your vote.

[@leealexander3507]

I've been hoping we would go to rank choice voting.

[@ThisIsToolman]

This is absolutely the thing to do.

[@BWNSPTV]

Voting for an animal is not a situation in which most people have encountered in their everyday lives. It may be an easily understood scenario but it's not very relatable. A far more relatable scenario is that of a group of people deciding on what to order for dinner. ie. 5 of 12 people's first preference is Chinese food, 3 for Thai and 3 of the 12 first choice would be for Malaysian and a single person prefers pizza which is the second or third preferred option of the other 11 making pizza the clear preference of the group overall. A group of people trying to establish a preferential consensus as to what type of takeout to order is a scenario that almost everyone in the Western world can directly relate to. It also I believe, clearly highlights the benefits of a Preferential/Ranked-choice vote for each individual and as a group overall. It has seemingly, worked reasonably well in Australia for over 100 years. It provides valuable feedback to inform policy. If a candidate for a party only wins election based on the second preference vote of an electorate whose first preference was for a candidate or party with clearly articulated differences in policy, it is highly likely that enlightened self interested candidate or party will seek to broaden their electoral appeal by realignment if their policy positions to be more representative of the electorate's overall preferences. It's not the only element or even the most important element of a representative democratic electoral system. I would argue it is none the less an extremely important element as it recognises the wisdom of that age of saying, you can't please all of the people all of the time and accepts as not good enough however that it is possible to please some of the people most of the time. Pleasing most of the people, most of time is what well functioning representative democracy is all about and that it first past the post voting system virtually always never allows for that outcome. I am very strongly of the opinion that a lot of the problems the United States faces today would sort themselves out if the United States had true representative democratic government by; Mandatory participation of citizens eligible to vote whom are automatically enrolled to vote using pencil on paper secret ballots in preferential/Ranked-choice elections held on a federal paid public holiday governed uniform laws across all States in and of electorate divisions and electoral rolls administered & maintained by an impartial non-partisan statutory authority in addition to all voting of all elected representatives being done so in a non-personally-identifiable way in accordance with the principles of the secret ballot. ✌️☮️❤️🇦🇺🥂

[@catprog]

It would only take 2 Chinese options in the 2nd preference to make Chinese the preferred option

[@thelmus3914]

This is how our representatives are elected in Australia. It works quite well and means prominent independent candidates or those who might represent niche issues popular to a particular electorate can be elected, forcing major parties to take a more inclusive approach to politics and allowing issues otherwise ignored by major parties to be given air.

[@letsRegulateSociopaths]

I have a new term: Bully Capitalism we live under economic authoritarianism

[@georgeh6856]

To be fair, the first three candidates on your ballot in the video would still do a lot of "mud slinging", especially if there were a dog treat buried in the mud. Seriously, I don't understand how California is so far behind other states in implementing RCV. We do, however, have "jungle primaries" for some races where the top two candidates regardless of party advance to the general election, instead of just the top Democrat and the top Republican.

[@sandal_thong]

California needs to get rid of the Recall since it's being used as a backdoor way of getting someone out and replaced when they can't do it in a normal election for governor. It's like doing a poll that results in low approval ratings, without asking how that person compares with an opponent.

[@3_pancakes767]

@Nick Yankee That threat is a good thing and introduces competition against the two giant parties, making room for independents (like Bernie) or even new parties to get into the mix. This is in fact one of the main reasons people support rcv in the first place so why the “but”?

[@Laura-LaFauve]

I'm sharing this! ❤️💯

[@xrotarebil]

We do this in Australia.

[@Kneedragon1962]

As an Australian, this system sounds very familiar. We call it Preferential Voting, and we have done it for some time. Respectfully ~ Bring in Preferential, but the thing you (America) really have to fix, is the electorate themselves choose the winner ~ not the College of Electors. That's not democracy, that's a hack to allow slave owning states to continue. Now forgive me, but I though you guys fought a civil war about this in the early 1860s, and slavery was outlawed. So why do you keep the College of Electors? It introduces a cut-out where the people vote, and then the 'adults in the room' decide who the real winner is going to be. That isn't how Democracy works. That turns Democracy into public entertainment, like Days of our Lives, or International Wrestling from Madison Square Garden. The winner is decided by who the network thinks will get the best ratings. That's not actually a Democracy, that's like a Medicine Show in a tent!

[@murdelabop]

I've been using RCV in an institutional setting with the Hugo Awards for over a decade. It just works. I also wrote proposed amendment language for an amendment to the Florida State Constitution, but I haven't gotten any traction on it.

[@kaelon79]

One other reform that should be made is to require that all ads be truthful and show who is paying for said advertisement.

[@Aran.Tech.Television]

I voted for it in MA, shame it didn't pass.

[@alxjones]

This video makes it sound like RCV is perfect, but it's not. It still tends to create two main parties, and centrist candidates tend to get pushed out. That said, no voting system is perfect (this is a mathematical theorem), and it's infinitely better than FPTP, so we should absolutely be implementing it. We should just _also_ be transparent about it.

[@eatmorenachos]

Ranked choice voting would reduce the influence of political primaries and the negative impact of gerrymandering. It would force candidates to appeal to a broader spectrum of voters, rather than just riling up their base for the primary and skipping their way through the general election.

[@sandal_thong]

Not sure how this would affect gerrymandering. The solution for that is to take it away from the legislature so the majority party can't choose their voters.

[@eatmorenachos]

@@sandal_thong in a highly gerrymandered district, the real election is in the primary. Anyone running for office just has to rile up the primary voters without worrying about having broader appeal, because the general election is a foregone conclusion. Ranked choice voting would mean candidates would have to appeal to a broader range of voters, instead of just the party faithful.

[@edolon]

Honestly STV would better make gerrymandering much more difficult As well as better do some of the stated things

[@brianshank1343]

I would hope that not only would the influence of primaries be reduced, but that use of RCV or any alternative voting method like approval voting would make primaries obsolete, and allow them to be abolished entirely.

[@galiantus1354]

All districting is gerrymandering. Whether intentional or unintentional, the act of drawing single-winner districts alone predetermines the ideological makeup of the voter base in each district.

[@awkwardllama0509]

CGPGrey does another excillent video on this topic, Im glad to see more coverage!

[@jimallen8186]

CPG also highlights the Condorcet Paradox as problem for RCV then suggests adding Super-Districting which is also mentioned in Netflix Whose Vote Counts episode three. Combining RCV with Super-Districting gets you Single Transferrable Voting (STV) which resolves Condorcet issues.

[@chrisdonovan8795]

I have questions: When did David Letterman know so much about money and politics? Also, why does he sound different?

[@nickiemcnichols5397]

Ranked choice voting makes total sense! Why aren’t we doing t?

[@chrisdonovan8795]

Because the corrupt pieces of shit running things don't want to.

[@architeuthis3476]

Because the two major political parties are trying to destroy their competition, not increase it

[@jpe1]

The reason the Democrat and Republican political parties hate RCV is because RCV empowers third party candidates, and that threatens their current duopoly power. Take, for example, the Presidential election of 1992: with RCV, the third-party candidate Ross Perot might have actually won, but even if he hadn’t, with RCV he likely would have had much higher number of votes, and also the threat of a “spoiler effect” goes away, both of which undermine the power of the establishment parties. The Democrat and Republican parties like their duopoly and will do everything they can to prevent any threats to that status quo.

[@chrisdonovan8795]

@@jpe1 Are you telling me that there are more than two points of view and shades of gray? Inconceivable!

[@galiantus1354]

@@jpe1 For the most part I don't think either the major parties or RCV advocates have put much thought into RCV, because in practice it isn't much different than Plurality. It still leads to a two-party system. As an example: Australia uses RCV in its lower house, and a form of proportional representation in its upper house. Despite the upper house being a vibrant mix of parties, the lower house is still effectively two parties. If you actually want to help third parties, RCV is not the answer.

[@ibanezaxe8]

When I moved to San Francisco and got to use ranked choice voting in local elections for the first time I was shocked it wasn’t used in more places. No more “if two candidates with similar policies run they might split the vote and elect someone who has minimal support” I hope this can be adopted at the state and even federal level after some organizing

[@EarlofNottingham]

Nevadan here, this is on the ballot, I voted Yes on 3!

[@SolomonUcko]

Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), ambiguously referred to here as Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), is better in some ways than our current voting system (First-Past-The-Post, FPTP) but is worse in other ways. In contrast, Approval Voting, which is like our current system except that you can vote for any set of candidates, not just one, is strictly better than FPTP. In particular, IRV fails the Participation and Monotonicity criteria, which both (Plurality) FPTP and Approval Voting satisfy: (For the sake of ignoring ties, assume you are actually a voter bloc of 6 like-minded voters.) The Participation criterion states that voting honestly cannot harm you. For example, assume the state of the election before you vote is: 9 C>B>A, 8 B>C>A, 4 A>B>C. There is no majority, so A is eliminated, causing B to win. Then your bloc of 6 voters honestly votes A>B>C, resulting in 9 C>B>A, 8 B>C>A, 10 A>B>C. This causes B to get eliminated and then C to win. The Monotonicity criterion states that increasing your vote for a candidate cannot change them from winning to losing and decreasing your vote for a candidate cannot change them from losing to winning. But if instead 4 voters of your bloc of 6 voters instead vote C>A>B, the votes would end up as follows: 9 C>B>A, 8 B>C>A, 6 A>B>C, 4 C>A>B. A gets eliminated and B wins. So moving C from the bottom to the top changes C from winning to losing. Additionally, Approval Voting is much cheaper to count, since each precinct can total the votes for each candidate, and then the votes from the precincts can just be added, rather than in IRV, where all of the different possible ballots have to be kept track of.

[@catprog]

Approval voting can elect a winner that the majority of voters dislike over every other candidates. As for the count on the night. Pick the two most likely candidates. Now you just need to report the total 1st votes and which ever one of the two above is higher.

[@SolomonUcko]

@@catprog Yes, under most models, Approval Voting does not satisfy the Condorcet loser criterion. However, in doing so, it often elects a compromise candidate, which I believe is a good thing. If you want to prevent that, you could run a primary election where voters rank (or pairwise-compare) all the candidates; determine the Smith or Schwartz set (which should exclude a Condorcet loser if one exists); if it has only one candidate, they are the Condorcet winner and are chosen; if there are multiple candidates, run an approval voting election with the candidates in the set. Here is an example, from “Critical Strategies Under Approval Voting: Who Gets Ruled In And Ruled Out” by Steven J. Brams and M. Remzi Sanver in January 2005: We have 3 candidates: A, B, C We have 7 voters, with the following ordinal preferences: A>B>C (x3), B>C>A (x2), C>B>A (x2). If each voter votes for only their favorite candidate (like FPTP), then A gets 3 votes, B gets 2 votes, and C gets 2 votes, so A wins. But A is in fact a strong Condorcet loser (SCL), since A is ranked last by most (4 of 7) of the voters, which implies that A is a Condorcet loser, i.e. A would lose in an election against any single other candidate. However, if each voter votes for their top two candidates, then A gets 3 votes, B gets 7 votes, and C gets 4 votes. B wins. B is also the Condorcet winner, because B beats A and C individually. Picking the two most likely only works if you have data on that, though otherwise you could just track everyone's first-place votes. However, any of that only works if some candidate gets a majority (otherwise you're just running a disguised plurality FPTP election); if not, you need to go through all the ballots whose first-place vote was the eliminated candidate and add their second-place votes; etc. In contrast, in approval voting, just count the number of votes for each candidate, see who has the most, done. You can trivially count it in precincts and add the counts before determining the winner. In contrast, to do that in IRV, you'd have to count the number of times each of the n-factorial possible rankings occurs, or have complicated back-and-forth feedback. What do you think of the Participation and Monotonicity criteria I described in my original comment?

[@catprog]

​@@SolomonUcko I am from Australia so this influences what I am saying. We have a week for postal to arrive so I belive the final count is done with all the ballots in one place. The indicative count on the night is not actually offical and indeed if it is not obvious that the final two were correct it can I am not at expert at the voting systems creteria so I am not sure which creteria are better then others. -- I would put forward the electorate of Brisbane in 2022 as a discussion for approval voting however. The right wing party got 37.71% of first votes. The center party got 27.25% of first votes. The left wing party got 27.24% of first votes. If you are left aligned do you add your votes to the center party to make sure the right wing party does not get elected even though it makes the actual left party less likely to win?

[@SolomonUcko]

@@catprog I see, got it; I am American, so FPTP (usually plurality, sometimes majority) with multiple precincts is what I'm used to. Basically, with IRV (what Australia uses AFAIK), voting honestly can make the result worse for you, increasing your ranking for a candidate can cause them to lose, and decreasing your ranking for a candidate can cause them to win. With approval voting, you'd have to decide whether to support your favorite or to oppose your least favorite, based on what you think is more important.

[@VitaInDC]

"Ruff Nader" and "Bernard", lol! They'd have my votes! 😆😅😂

[@twilighttime952]

Australia uses this system but call it the preferential voting system. Works fine.

[@zevfarkas5120]

Great idea, but how do you get people to agree to use something that's slightly more complicated than the present system? Remember the mess in 2000, when it came down to a few poorly-marked ballots? Nonetheless, I'd like to see it happen here in Israel as well as the US and other places. I'm sick of how things have gotten so extreme these days. There used to be a middle. Maybe this is a way to find it again.

[@architeuthis3476]

An easy way to do it would be a similar system called approval voting in which every marks down whether or not they approve of each candidate on the ballot, and the person with the greatest number of approvals wins. But with both RCV and approval voting, if there isn't a policy that limits each party to running no more than one candidate per office, then a single party will run dozens of candidates while the rest will collectively run a few, and the one party has a monopoly.

[@epincion]

Ranked Choice (sometimes called Single Transferable Vote) is what is standard in the European Parliament elections inside the EU and is also the system used in domestic elections in almost all member states.

[@catmonarchist8920]

Only Ireland and Malta do lol. Almost all member states use list-PR which is a different system entirely

[@kylestubbs8867]

I’d actually joined a club in college that advocated for this. Sat at tables outside the cafeteria and everything.

[@yoavshati]

RCV can still cause the spoiler effect, but it's more complicated and less likely to happen

[@anthonydelfino6171]

We have this system in San Francisco, and I love it. Though it does rely on having multiple candidates. Too many races still only have two or three candidates.

[@constitutiongoing]

anyone who sees Rank choice voting needs to do whatever they can to stop it we cannot allow this ,, at all !!!!!! it will ruin everything for us all

[@rparl]

I like it. But in Oakland, California, the rank choice voting seemed to take a very long time to tabulate. Not sure why. As a former computer programmer it would seem to be pretty easy to do.

[@themeanhornet1070]

I don’t bother to vote because nothing changes.

[@handsfortoothpicks]

Yeah because you aren't voting

[@NoelleSmith-m4x]

Always appreciate Robert Reich. His videos are excellent and informative.. Always appreciate Robert Reich. His videos are excellent and informative..

[@alanhilder1883]

Similar to the system here in Australia but some still push the nasty.

[@Jabid21]

RCV definitely helps prevent influencing results by bankrolling a spoiler candidate with similarities to one’s opponent.

[@d.virgallito3490]

I gave up TV, and it saves money!

[@RobCummings]

The other really important thing that RCV does is that it makes gerrymandering obsolete. Instead of playing to the extremes of whatever district they are running in, candidates would have to play to the middle in a ranked-choice system. It has the effect of restoring actual democracy. But to be really effective, RCV has to be used at the state level. Currently, only Maine and Alaska apply Ranked Choice Voting at the state level.

[@matthewnewland8242]

Ranked choice voting is not good. Look at the Burlington, Vermont mayoral election from 2009. It can still elect candidates who are not preferred by a majority of the electorate.

[@ViewSlayer]

Wow, I didn’t know there was an established term but ever since I was a kid I thought “why don’t we just choose from everyone who runs?” I’m going to try to organize a bipartisan effort to get RCV in place in my county, district, and state!

[@chrisolmsted5678]

In addition to ranked choice, we should replace voting boundaries with geographic distance. Rank the top five of the physically closest 10 candidates for a state wide office. No strict boundaries, no gerrymandering.

[@ceherr5921]

I would definitely back RCV. I would also hope you would endorse a change to Federally funded elections through an 'election tax', it would eliminate dark money from our elections and level off the 'exposer' field for candidates to the public.

[@tinamclaughlin1991]

I love the new fuzzy faces, especially Bellatrix the Brindle! Quite the example of RCV! I love in Pa and went it here dear!

[@tailwaggindragon]

I really like this system. I'm tired of people not voting cuz we're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils.

[@RandolfLycan]

It makes a whole lot of sense. America will never implement it.

[@galiantus1354]

I would encourage you to spend some time studying many voting methods. Because RCV, in fact, does not make a whole lot of sense.

[@jannepeltonen2036]

Dogs and cats are the best way to explain voting systems

[@BWNSPTV]

It's a good way to explain it but it's certainly not the best in my opinion. Voting for an animal is not a situation in which most people have encountered in their everyday lives. It may be an easily understood scenario but it's not very relatable. A far more relatable scenario is that of a group of people deciding on what to order for dinner. 5 of 12 people's first preference is Chinese food, 3 for Thai and 3 of the 12 first choice would be for Malaysian and a single person prefers pizza which is the second or third preferred option of the other 11 making pizza the clear preference of the group overall. A group of people trying to establish a preferential consensus as to what type of takeout to order is a scenario that almost everyone in the Western world can directly relate to. It also I believe, clearly highlights the benefits of Preferential voting for each individual and as a group overall.

[@charlesmrader]

I'm an engineer and I think about how to do the counting. Say there are 5 candidates. Then there are 5!=120 different ways to rank them. Say there are 100000 voters. Do you want to count 100000 votes five different times? No, count how many voters chose each ranking. Then you do the later rounds of counting with only 120 "ballots" each.

[@ezrapotter4631]

RCV should be used for congressional primaries! The person who wins a primary is usually not the most popular if the get

[@TheRealLaughingGravy]

I think RCV is too complicated for most Americans. First, it provides too many chances for someone's vote to be disqualified - if, for example, the voter mistakenly picks more than one candidate for the same rank. It adds extra layers of vote counting that people won't understand and, therefore, will be suspicious of. I think it will also result in long lists of candidates for each election, making voting more difficult and more susceptible to gamesmanship by political parties. I don't really buy all the arguments presented in this video except that it would eliminate runoff elections, which are indeed wasteful and have historically been used to neutralize minority candidates.

[@13noman1]

Gosh, I wish we'd move entirely in this direction nationally, state level and locally -- IMMEDIATELY

[@architeuthis3476]

We have RCV in Minneapolis, but its *_terrible_* because there's no limit to the number of candidates a party can place on the ballot for a single office. Because of this, one party enters dozens of candidates for a single office while all the other parties combined enter a handful of candidates, and as a result one party has a monopoly over the entire city. The only thing worse than a two party system is a one party system. Therefore, for RCV to give more choices and not fewer, it needs to include a policy limiting the maximum number of candidates a party can run for a single office to ONE. ...also, even better than RCV is approval voting (but again, there needs to be a one candidate per party limit, or it gets the same problem as above)

[@noose7348]

Hi mr reich, how do you feel about star voting?

[@karlaboerger3619]

There is head people and staff think closing the boarder will fix everything wrong in US. Including voting. But to their mind they only closed south one and not also the north one.

[@mallisaunders4565]

I've wanted this for years. I'm glad it is taking hold at least in some places.

[@anthonydelfino6171]

It's great if you can get it. But both major parties are typically opposed to it since it opens up the ability for more political parties to gain more influence.

[@samnicolson1197]

Australia uses ranked choice voting, or as we call it, preferential voting in federal, state and local elections. It allows smaller parties and independents to be elected and issues that aren't necessarily important to the large parties to be raised.

[@OrenLikes]

Can this (or something else) be applied to multiple parties (say 40) competing for a limited number of seats (say 120)?

[@tmr3volver]

right now we have 3 options, rep, dem, or burn your vote picking an independent that's never going to win. we need this in every state.

[@architeuthis3476]

This is faulty logic. Its the same as saying any vote other than those for the person who wins is a wasted vote. If that's the case, then forget about democracy. The only way anyone can throw their vote away is by giving it to someone they don't want to hold the office. If yoo don't vote for the people yoo want to win, then the person to blame for their loss is yoo.

[@sandrak.robbins6305]

Yes! this and get rid of the electoral college.

[@grayisgood]

Do you know what has to happen before we get any positive voting reforms? WE the voters have to choose to elect people who will enact positive election reforms. We have what we have voted for and that's exactly what we will keep on getting. WE have to make better choices. Demand candidates who will work for all of us.

[@ladyspirit2493]

Thank you for an excellent overview! 💖

[@DaisyIdes]

Maine has had RCV for a while now. In essence RCV is an system that requires the winning candidate to have 50% of the vote; and when no candidate wins 50% RCV rolls the runoff race into the original voting ballot. RCV saves the state a lot of money by not having to have runoff elections.

[@skippymaster57]

Robert, what you have just explained is the way Australian people have voted for it's Federal, State and Local (Municipal) Governments for over the last 123 years. I'm glad you have caught up to us and others who do the same. We find it very fair and provides the voter such as myself with the re-assurance that at least some of my decisions are respected and followed. There have been a few disputed results, but they don't usually resort to litigation or insurrection. Unlike a first-past-the post voting, this allows everyone to get a say in who is the most popular of ALL the voters, and doesn't ignore those who just received the majority of votes between two parties or people. In the end one person has to win, but the process allows for all voices to be heard and not just ignored. This process should be the way Party Primary voting should decide a candidate and would eliminate the person whos gets less than 50% winning a candidacy. For example, Trump can only command around 30% of total GOP votes, YET he can win the total vote, where there are multiple candidates who together are 70% of all the votes, thus eliminating the decision made by all the other voters, very unfair for them!! If the other candidates preferences were respected, the outcome would be very different and someone who commanded over 50% of the total would win. The only part we don't have a say in is, who leads the Party in power in Australia, however there seems less likelihood that the top position is inclined to act as a despot or authoritarian, due to the reduced powers available to the leader and controls within the Party structure. Yes we do have wildly unpopular Prime Ministers, but the party can just hold a vote and they no longer have that power anymore. Ie. unpopular Scott Morrison and the party he led was voted out out before a leadership spill occurred, but this has happened with other PMs in Australia it seems the disparity of excessive power held by the head of state in US needs to be looked at to prevent the egregious examples in the recent past. Just a suggestion

[@catprog]

Except for multi member local elections in QLD.