Maine Ranked-Voting System Used for First Time in Primary: A Look at the Process

Exactly! and great point.

These Ranked voting systems are just giving voters more of a choice.
And if they want...they can choose to continue only voting for one option with no backup rankings.

-Meta

 

If you vote for the candidate who ends up wining a majority of votes outright as your first choice pick,
why exactly would you want your other rankings to count?? @RP12 was right, in Instant Runoff (IR)
only one of your ranked choices counts at a time, so if your first place pick wins,
what do the other ones matter? The fact is, they don't matter at that point,
and you should simply be happy that your number one pick won the election.

-Meta

 

If a candidate gets a plurality (but not a majority of the votes) and ends up getting eliminated in a subsequent round, under IR, people who voted for that eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their votes move to their second choices instead. (in which case, their second choice picks do matter quite a lot)

-Meta

 

My view is that ideas should be evaluated based on their own merit. (or lack of it)

-Meta

 

Why would they be confused?
Ranking choices in order of preference isn't exactly a complicated process...

(also, what exactly was the point of singling out urbanites?)

-Meta

 

What are you talking about???
What does any of that have to do with Ranked Voting?

-Meta

 

Can you be more specific in your example? Like...are we talking a three person race here, or 4 or 5?
Generally speaking though, if someone only ranks one option,
then there's really no one to blame but themselves if that option gets eliminated and they have no other options picked after that.
Note that in comparing a ranked system with Plurality, Plurality means that a voter is likewise out of luck if their initial pick doesn't make the cut,
only in this case they can't exactly be blamed for not providing backup choices, since one doesn't have that option in a Plurality vote. Plurality Voters are essentially forced into making just one choice, while Ranked systems give voters the choice of one or the other; picking one choice or providing a list of preferences.

-Meta

 

They are certainly concentrated, but beyond that I'm not sure where exactly you're getting your information on that one, or why its even necessary to point out at all. What makes you think that anyone who currently typically votes in this country is so uneducated to a level such that they wouldn't be able to understand what rank by preference means?

I know a lot of old folk, and plenty of young folk too. The young-in's (young as in around 18 or so) actually tend to be pretty quick at grasping new, and sometimes fairly complex, concepts. Don't underestimate them. And for a few of the older ones...it may on occasion take a bit more time and effort to teach them something like how to transfer files from their newfangled smart phone to their computer so that they can attach it to an email, but unless they have dementia or something, its not as if they are incapable of learning and retaining that new information. And something like simply creating a ranked list on a ballot that's already laid out for you wouldn't be nearly as challenging. You shouldn't underestimate them either.

-Meta

 

If someone cannot figure out how to rank options, which I highly doubt, then as has been mentioned earlier in the thread, they are free to simply fill in a single circle next to who they want not much unlike as they've done in the past.

And it should be noted on top of that, that there are several differences between a change like requiring certain types of IDs to vote and a change to the ballot. I will only mention one for now. That being that an ID law typically requires folks who don't already have said ID to actively go out and obtain it from somewhere. There is opportunity for confusion as to what ID is needed, or, depending on pre-vote communication (or lack of it), whether one is needed at all, and there can be hidden external blockers to getting them, all of which may lead to some people showing up without ID or with the wrong ID and being turned away from the polls as a result. In contrast, there is no added risk of people being turned away from the polls just because the ballot changes to allow for ranking.

And I don't believe wayward administrators are going to be able to cram 100's of names onto a ballot. There is limited space on ballots as it is, which is precisely why there exists strict requirements as to who's names get on those ballots. I don't see those requirements going away any time soon. If they need to be more robust or something, that's certainly an option, though keep in mind that this really has nothing to do with whether or not the ballots allow for ranking. If we switch to a ranked system, administrators will be no more able to cram it full of names than than they are able to do so now.

On the racial disenfranchisement thing....I haven't heard anyone at all mention that with regards to ranked voting before now.
So people must not think its an issue. Which makes sense...because it clearly isn't one...

-Meta

 

This recent Main election was just for the primaries, yes.
But it sounds like the results of the voter referendum vote that Mainers took at the same time
means that Maine is now carrying the ranked system to the upcoming general election too and possibly beyond.
At least for U.S. House and Senate elections. And it makes sense that they keep the system.
If it works well for the primaries, then why not other elections?

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/392045-maine-votes-to-keep-ranked-choice-voting-system

I actually think that Ranked election systems ought to be used at all levels of election.
There may of course be additional hurtles for getting it incorporated in certain places,
and it may be more difficult to set it up for some elections than others for legal reasons.
But from a practical and utilitarian standpoint, if it works well at one level of election,
it should be able to work just as well at any other level. Right?

If not, what would be the reasons for why it wouldn't?

-Meta

 

From the standpoint of those at the fringes perhaps. But does anyone really think its preferable to have things constantly flip back and forth between leaders that one half of the country or the other really hates? (edit: besides, they're just going to be trying to reverse everything the previous group did anyways, right?) If that's the only other option, then having that compromise candidate starts to not sound so bad.

The vast middle America though isn't going to see such a middle-of-the-road candidate as "mediocrity". To them, they'll just be a good candidate, maybe even the best candidate. And given the increasing levels of political and societal polarization that occurs under our current setup, I'd say that letting the constant evermore extreme back and forth flipping continue is itself a recipe for increasing levels of instability.

Again, those in the political center aren't going to see a compromise candidate as mediocrity, they will see them as balanced. And a balanced candidate should really be what we want. But if we did all consider that candidate to be mediocrity instead,...still....rather to have mediocrity than instability in my opinion.

-Meta

 

Well said!