Comments on: Give Ranked Choice a Chance

By: Erik Connell

Erik Connell — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 18:17:24 +0000

Pat,

Saying RCV winners don’t get a majority is like saying winners in a runoff election didn’t get a majority because they did not get a majority in the initial election. The fact of the matter is, in the final round of counting, one of the two candidates does receive a majority of the available votes.

By: Pat T.

Pat T. — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 19:36:20 +0000

WIth RCV, the winner does not get a majority from the voters who came out and cast votes for that race. It’s not like you show in your diagram.

In SF, no declared has ever achieved a majority, even though everyone who promotes RCV and as stated above “This process repeats itself until one candidate has a majority of the votes.”. These are great talking points and many will agree but what if you said this continues until a candidate gets about 35 – 40%. Would you approve this system?

It’s smoke and mirrors. Approval voting is the way to go.

By: Jen Drake

Jen Drake — Fri, 22 May 2009 19:20:50 +0000

RCV is not confusing. The Hacks are saying it is confusing because they are also saying that the voters are stupid (sorry, but I’ve heard several say it in recent days, and I’m always disappointed and pissed afterwards).

Voters are not stupid.

Maybe not the best informed on every minute agenda, but definitely not stupid, especially when it comes to RCV.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Sat, 16 May 2009 01:03:04 +0000

@Erik Connell,

While the “too confusing” argument is not compelling to me at all, my faith in people to place ordinal preferences on ice cream flavors, yet alone political candidates is marginal. With that said, I’m all in favor of a system that provides disincentives for idiots to vote.

By: Erik Connell

Erik Connell — Fri, 15 May 2009 19:35:04 +0000

All ranked choice voting supporters out there, make sure to join the “Save Ranked Choice Voting in Pierce County” cause on Facebook: http://apps.facebook.com/causes/203109/872348?m=6d54c0aa

Walker, I actually live in Silver Spring also. I live in the Hillendale area (near White Oak). Not the best area, but its nice being so close to DC. Working in Takoma Park is nice, though, definitely good people here.

By: Walker Lindley

Walker Lindley — Fri, 15 May 2009 17:49:36 +0000

I couldn’t agree with you more, I think IRV is a really great way to run elections. On a completely unrelated note, how are you liking Takoma Park? I did that move in the opposite direction, living just outside Takoma Park in Silver Spring during high school and then moving to Tacoma to go to UPS.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 15 May 2009 16:08:18 +0000

I couldn’t agree more. There has been so much misinformation and misunderstanding about something that should be fairly simple to explain and understand.

I had friends, very smart friends, trying to figure how to game the system … “what strategy should I use when choosing the order?” My response was that it’s pretty simple … your favorite gets your first vote; your second favorite gets your second vote. There is nothing else to it.

I also got an email from a candidate, a candidate I had voted for and supported, for county office who claimed that RCV had cost him the election.This was simply wrong. He lost either way, but RCV put a candidate into office more in tune with his beliefs than would have the simple plurality that would have elected the candidate from the other party.

There are probably ways to improve the system, but it would be a shame to throw RCV out, simply because it was explained poorly and apparently misunderstood by some.

If RCV were in place for national elections, you could vote for a third party candidate without “wasting” your vote. Remember 2000?