The problem with ranked voting...

[Jolly]

So, a majority of people can choose a candidate as their number one selection, yet that candidate can lose the race?

That's not democracy, my friend.

[Jolly]

BTW, as I understand it, Nevada is going to ranked choice voting.

[LuFins Dad]

@Jolly said in The problem with ranked voting...:

So, a majority of people can choose a candidate as their number one selection, yet that candidate can lose the race?

That's not democracy, my friend.

A majority of voters selected Warnock in GA, but that’s going to a runoff…

[Jolly]

@LuFins-Dad said in The problem with ranked voting...:

@Jolly said in The problem with ranked voting...:

So, a majority of people can choose a candidate as their number one selection, yet that candidate can lose the race?

That's not democracy, my friend.

A majority of voters selected Warnock in GA, but that’s going to a runoff…

We have the same law in Louisiana. A majority is considered 50% + 1.

[LuFins Dad]

@Jolly said in The problem with ranked voting...:

@LuFins-Dad said in The problem with ranked voting...:

@Jolly said in The problem with ranked voting...:

So, a majority of people can choose a candidate as their number one selection, yet that candidate can lose the race?

That's not democracy, my friend.

A majority of voters selected Warnock in GA, but that’s going to a runoff…

We have the same law in Louisiana. A majority is considered 50% + 1.

Well, in that case, a majority did not select the other Republican in Alaska. It’s 42-41 if I remember correctly.

[Jolly]

Then have a run-off. One man, one vote for a candidate of his choice.

A pox on multiple choices.

[George K]

@LuFins-Dad said in The problem with ranked voting...:

a majority did not select the other Republican in Alaska

Or a president in, 2016, 2000,1996,1992, etc..

[Jolly]

@George-K said in The problem with ranked voting...:

@LuFins-Dad said in The problem with ranked voting...:

a majority did not select the other Republican in Alaska

Or a president in, 2016, 2000,1996,1992, etc..

Different system. Interestingly enough, I've seen some mutterings about trying that on a state level.

[George K]

@Jolly said in The problem with ranked voting...:

Different system.

Of course. But in all those years that I cited (and many, many more before that) a majority of the population didn't chose the man who became POTUS.

[Axtremus]

@Jolly said in The problem with ranked voting...:

So, a majority of people can choose a candidate as their number one selection, yet that candidate can lose the race?

That's not democracy, my friend.

A majority of Americans can choose a candidate as their President yet the candidate can lose the race. Yet I don’t see you complaining about the electoral college.

Anyway, got a university or community college near you? Take a game theory class if one is available, else a statistics class.

[jon-nyc]

@Jolly said in The problem with ranked voting...:

So, a majority of people can choose a candidate as their number one selection, yet that candidate can lose the race?

No. Ranked choice only comes into play if no one gets a majority.

It’s basically just a pre-registered set of runoffs. If Murkowsky beats Tshibaca it will be because more Alaskans prefer Murkowsky over her, period.