Doesn't matter, it is still two different votes for two different persons. So some people get a second vote while others do not.
Also note that everyone is free to include however many or however few options they want on their ballot. Again, only one will count at any one time, but there's no requirement for anyone to include a certain number.
Because if you candidate was at the top your vote for that candidate is the only one counted and you're not given a second vote. No different than if there were three candidates running and no majority winner and the allow the people who voted for the bottom candidate to c come back to the polls and vote again. That's not equal protection under the law.
If your top choice remains active through every cycle... that means that your top choice becomes the winner. "Equal protection, in United States law, the constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons or groups. In other words, persons similarly situated must be similarly treated." https://www.britannica.com/topic/equal-protection -Meta
And we should all vote equally, the best way to insure is a run off and everyone vote again. What exactly is your concern for a run off where the top two now have to campaign to retain the votes they got and get more of the ones they didn't and not some people get a second chance and others don't.
Ah, I see where you're coming from now. But assuming the amount of campaigning doesn't change, in an initially 3-way race, what exactly is the difference result-wise between a traditional multi-election run-off and an instant single-election run-off other than efficiency??? Other than reduced efficiency, I don't have any issues with traditional multi-election run-offs. Perhaps not quite to the same extent, but that sort of election system fixes the major flaws of a FPTP Plurality system almost just as well as Instant Run-off. So of course I would be supportive of moving more elections in that direction. (should be noted though that if we ever get to a point where there's more than 3-5 candidates then traditional run-off may begin to have more pronounced issues, but its pretty decent at 3-4 way races if you don't mind dealing with a little added time and costs) The folks who's votes shift aren't getting a second chance to make a choice. They choose once the order of their ballots, just as everyone else does. Now, if they actually got to physically come back and alter their ballot choices after the first round and folks who ranked non-eliminated candidates where not also afforded that same luxury, then you'd have a point here. But that isn't the case in instant run-off. Again, in instant run-off, everyone submits one ranked ballot based on the same set of information, and there's no going back to update things based on new information after that. The ranks are what they are at that point. -Meta
Who voted with Trump 67.5% of the time... I'd rather have had a D with a more realistic 20-30%, so it's time to replace both sides of that equation..
But but but but.. in most cases, people's 2nd choice is NOT the conservative (or what we used to identify as Republican).... That's their real complaint, but one they cannot voice out loud...
First of all, they don't change your vote willy-nilly. You have to explicitly state your second preference. If you choose not to, your vote lives and dies with your first choice. I do not follow your "essentially I, and all like me but not others, voting twice" phrasing. If you are going to equate each individual vote calculation at each stage as its own separate vote, perhaps you could save some time and just call it by its name: exhaustive voting. During exhaustive voting, while you do vote multiple times, you are voting in separate rounds. At no point can you cast two ballots and have your vote counted twice for the same individual. Notice that my responses were to: And These statements are blatantly claiming that instant runoff voting (or ranked choice) is akin to the existing rules of FPTP where an individual would vote in the same election twice. That is unequivocally false. While I am not completely clear on what the intention of your statement was, if you are implying that instant run-off is like exhaustive voting such that you would vote twice across separate rounds, then that is unremarkable and misses the point of what I was responding to.
See how the Right ignores reality. 1. "set up a process to insure domestic Tranquility" with ongoing BLM protests.... 2. "Promote" the general welfare but not provide for the general welfare.......resulting in entrenched (generational) disadvantage. 3. "which means meant not doing stuff that would materially interfere with the public pursuing their desires". ...according to your R/W fantasies of individual sovereignty, founded in a reaction to the divine right of kings, at the time of the birth of the Republic. Hence providing for the general welfare - by eliminating entrenched economic disadvantage - is seen by the Right as restricting individual sovereignty. Note: individual sovereignty is not "the public". Community - which is "the public" - is maintained by rule of law, to avoid the natural anarchy between self-interested individuals. So the current community dysfunction indicates systemic failure (actually the result of the current neoliberal economic orthodoxy in the US).
That's true too...something wrong here, you and I agree on two points....perhaps you might see my post above to RodB, to see if we are still in agreement re the political process..... Meanwhile you can pass the time arguing about how many angels can stand on a needle head ( eg, voting systems in 'blind leading the blind' democracies of self-interested individuals. ...)
Good luck with that. People don't feel safe with antifa running wild in blue states. Be ready for some of them to turn red in November.
And yours, for the top guy (for example) is counted in the second round as well. Does that mean you also got two votes? In any given round, the total of all votes cannot exceed the initial number of votes cast.
Yes, you do get a second vote in the second round. A second vote for the same person you voted for in the first round.
It's getting hard to follow the track of your initial assertions. I might need a scorecard, but....... 1. When the framers wrote to "insure domestic tranquility" they were not under the ridiculous expectation that there would never be any domestic strife. I maybe miss your point because on the surface is seems odd. Are you claiming the BLM movement is proof that the Constitution failed?!?!? The constitution more importantly limited the power of the federal government leaving most day-to-day authority with the states. The states have the primary responsibility for law and order. The framers did not want a federal police force; they did not even want a perennial national army (the navy was OK) even though national defense was their, and not the states, responsibility. The National Guard could and has quelled the rioting in short order where the state government asked for the help. 2. Promoting the general welfare does not result in "entrenched (generational) disadvantage." If anything it does the opposite by insuring that individuals are allowed to accomplish whatever they want and their skills permit. Providing for the general welfare means the government would determine how much welfare would be provided to each individual or class, and that would result in entrenched disadvantage for some. 3. I have no idea what you mean by the inane phrase "R/W fantasies of individual sovereignty." True, individual sovereignty was institutionalized in a government for the first time in the history of the world by the Constitution, so it might have been viewed as a fantasy at that time -- but certainly not a R/W one. It will only become a R/W fantasy if the L/W ever achieves its goal of totalitarian rule. The rule of law is focused on and for the benefit of the individual. It does benefit the community but that is a secondary result.
I have looked at this extensively and it feels too socialistic to me. It is not the Democratic way of casting votes for candidates.
No it gets counted in every round.Every person gets a single vote in each round. If their preferred candidate gets knocked out, their single vote is transferred to someone else. Your single vote remains with your first choice. This is a pretty simple concept. You are smart enough to get it. I can only conclude that you are better no deliberately obtuse.
