NYC. You wanted ranked choice elections despite my warnings..

[mattkime]

While it surprises me that vote counting is taking so long (it must not be fully automated), for the life of me I can’t understand why it’s a problem that it’s taking as long as it is. IMO, it doesn’t help that the nytimes is covering it as a horse race when the whole point of the system is that the winner might not be the person who gets the highest count in the first round.

Why the hell do we get so many partial counts in this country?

[vision63]

DeusxMac wrote:
[quote=vision63]
Ranked choice just a ploy to allow marginal candidates an avenue to negotiate their way to a potential victory. Candidates form alliances and make deals to steer their constituencies. It's not a straight vote. A democracy means the majority wins the first time. Not some round-robin tennis match.

The Heritage Foundation agrees with you. https://www.heritage.org/election-integr...bad-choice
The people that support what the Heritage Foundation is about are the main beneficiaries of RCV and Jungle Primaries. It keeps them in the game even in state as blue as California. Clearly, they won't like it where they hold clear majorities.

[mattkime]

vision63 wrote: A democracy means the majority wins the first time.

and if the majority didn't vote for the candidate with the largest vote share?

[Ombligo]

vision63 wrote:
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.

[SteveG]

No ranked choice for me here in NYC.

Among other things, it's got that 'parliamentary' favor I dislike.

[vision63]

Ombligo wrote:
[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.

[August West]

Election day was on the 22nd of June.

Am I wrong thinking that this was a primary, and not the "Election?"

[JoeH]

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.
So does the normal voting system used before it. What's your real point?

[vision63]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=vision63]
[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.
So does the normal voting system used before it. What's your real point?
I disagree with your statement. Yes, there are runoffs (which isn't in the conversation). Yes, there is an electoral college (which i hate). My point is pretty clear. RCV is not only dumb and confusing for voters, it's potentially unfair.

[DeusxMac]

vision63 wrote:
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?