The problem with ranked voting...

[taiwan_girl]

As we discussed in the other thread, it is a good way of minimizing the fringe candidates.

Think of going for a banquet meal where they ask for your choice of food. The leading vote getter will be served to all guests. The choices are:

1. steak
2. chicken pasta
3. salmon
4. fake imitation meat vegan meal

Of the 100 people at the banquet, 26 are hard hard core vegan, and the remaining 74 are split equal among #1-#3. Most of the other 74 dont hate vegan but would greatly prefer #1- #3.

If the banquet hall just does top vote choice, vegan will win and 74 people will not be super happy.

If the banquet asks for a first and second choice, and then picks the one menu item to serve based on that, more than 74 people will get a meal that is acceptable.

[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.