07-03-2021, 06:02 PM
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.
==