+- MacResource (https://forums.macresource.com)
+-- Forum: My Category (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: 'Friendly' Political Ranting (https://forums.macresource.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. (/showthread.php?tid=257662)
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - vision63 - 07-02-2021
August West wrote:
Election day was on the 22nd of June.
Am I wrong thinking that this was a primary, and not the "Election?"
It was a primary election, true. The winner will run against Curtis Sliwa.
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - vision63 - 07-02-2021
DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=vision63]
The people that support what the Heritage Foundation [which is strongly against RCV] is about… are the main beneficiaries of RCV...
Do these people “support” The Heritage Foundation and its stand on RCV or do they not?
They support whatever allows them to retain power or game their way into power. In places with clear red majorities, they don't like it. In places with clear blue majorities, they like it. Also Jungle primaries.
If NYC was most of California. The primary would be "open" with the top 2 vote getters in the General election. Mostly 2 Democrats. THEN the Republicans would vote for the Democrat that could knock off the Democrat they dislike the most. Most of the time it doesn't work. But it does occasionally and it's stupid. At least NYC has closed primaries.
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - Filliam H. Muffman - 07-02-2021
Ranked choice primaries allow the majority party to nominate clones of non-incumbent candidates to keep them from getting on the general election ballot.
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - kj - 07-02-2021
I tend to think those who are pushing this think they can game it better than the other side. They can't, and it will be a mess. I agree with Vision. We should support not gaming the system, even for our own side.
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - Ombligo - 07-02-2021
The system gaming is getting nasty. Florida a case of a GOP candidate getting someone to run as NPA. that candidate had a nearly identical name to the Democrat and split the vote just enough for the Republican to win the house seat.
That likely would not have happened with Ranked Choice.
With Ranked Choice, Paul LePage most likely does not win the 2010 Maine governor slot (he won with 37%) and save the state a huge amount of grief.
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - bfd - 07-02-2021
vision63 wrote:
[quote=Acer]
New system needs bugs worked out when massively scaled up? Never happens in the private sector, right?
Give it time. Rome wasn't built, etc.
We've had ranked choice in California (San Francisco/Oakland) for years. It's not new. But they effed it up anyway in NYC. Couldn't wait to do it. Our unfair "open" primaries in California are a whole other ridiculous system designed to uplift the unpopular. It hardly ever works. They're popularly known as "Jungle Primaries."
Everybody is afraid of people simply voting.
It's this kind of jungle primary nonsense that empowers weaker parties to go berserk in capitols from Sacramento to D.C. When a group starts feeling like they have "no chance" at representation, that's where bad trouble begins. It'll be interesting to see what happens to Newsom on Sept. 14. Without someone of Ahnalt's star-power running, we're left with a failed mayor from San Diego, and a hick with a bear for a sidekick (also from San Diego). Oh, and Caitlyn Jenner, too. Swimming upstream ain't gonna win her any extra votes. No one in their right mind - politically, anyway - will dare hop in as a Democratic candidate to challenge the San Francisco Treat … Now where's the tax rebates? Oops, only poor people will be getting these benefits. Those Californians who put in the most tax will get nothing but more nonsense in their accounts.
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - anonymouse1 - 07-03-2021
I thought the delay in NYC was due to the absentee ballots, no? I haven't been following it.
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - mattkime - 07-03-2021
IMO this whole thread is mostly going EWWWWW over something individuals don't like. At very least there hasn't been much persuasion.
Re: NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings.. - Buzz - 07-03-2021
vision63 wrote:
[quote=Ombligo]
[quote=vision63]
A democracy means the majority wins the first time. Not some round-robin tennis match.
Then the winner needs to be a majority, which means 50%+1. Maine and Florida both had to deal with two terms of Governors that never won a majority (LaPage and Rick Scott). Either ranked-choice or runoffs are needed until someone gets a majority. If it is a runoff, then it needs to be the following week, not two months later. Ranked Choice will work once the voters understand it.
Ranked choice always has the potential to be gamed. That's the problem with it. By the candidates themselves colluding to nuance the rankings. It can't be fixed.
RCV is inherently flawed, and is more so with more candidates. It's a logical failure after 3 or 4 candidates are involved. For RCV to have any chance of working in a big metropolis, you'd need logical branching for each choice, which would be an epic fail.... because there's no way to adequately explain/train proper logic to mass quantities of voters.
Big problem w/ mass runoffs is cost and participation. If you have 100,000 registered voters, and say 60% vote in Primary #1, and you cull all but the top two candidates for Primary #2 in which only 40% then vote, you can have a winner that 80% of registered voters didn't vote for, and may not want. We need serious voter reform. ASAP.
A fairer system would be multiple choice voting in a big metropolis, where voters cast their votes for up to 4 or 5 candidates in no particular ranked order. Then cut the pool down by at least half, or those getting a certain threshold of votes. Repeat as needed until there are only 3 or 4 candidates, then vote only for one. If no one gets 50%+1, cut the bottom candidate and try again, and again as needed. Still isn't ideal, and may not reflect the choice of the entirety of the voting age population. Sure seems like meaningful voter reform would be a great idea.
Stay tuned.
==
Wild Card! - RAMd®d - 07-04-2021
Why not kick it up a notch.