Ranked voting?

[ZombieApocolypse]

Just seen something about this on RT while flipping through some channels .... Fair vote is pushing for this "ranked voting" system which is apparently this type of voting system is already in place in a few counties in California and a few other places i didnt catch.

It basically lets you choose your top 3 (or however many) choices for office. If your number 1 choice has the least amount of total number 1 votes then your vote one automatically go to your number 2 choice and so on and so forth.

If this system had been in place fo the Gore v Bush fiasco it might have had a different outcome. All of the people who had chose Nader would have had their Nader votes discarded, and their votes would have then gone towards someone else.

Curious on your thoughts about this as the way they were talking about it, this is how we could be voting in the not too distant future

 

[88GT]

In a nutshell, that's what the primary system does.

EDIT: and after having thought about it for a while now, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I still like the concept of one man, one vote. On the flip side, it does strike me as a bit ironic that voters who have done the same thing (chosen their second choice candidate knowing the first choice votes wouldn't be of consequence) with their single vote have been vilified.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

It doesn't matter what system you have in place as long as the voters choose to remain as ignorant as they are.

 

[Wreaver]

It doesn't matter what system you have in place as long as the voters choose to remain as ignorant as they are.

^
Winner

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

It doesn't matter what system you have in place as long as the voters choose to remain as ignorant as they are.

Actually it does matter, this system could have been the difference in Gore WINNING the election instead of Bush. As much as i dislike(d) Bushes policies i would not have wanted Gore in the white house for 9/11.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

In a nutshell, that's what the primary system does.

EDIT: and after having thought about it for a while now, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I still like the concept of one man, one vote. On the flip side, it does strike me as a bit ironic that voters who have done the same thing (chosen their second choice candidate knowing the first choice votes wouldn't be of consequence) with their single vote have been vilified.

Good point .... i wonder if this system would make more people feel confortable voting third party knowing if that party doesnt win they will still have a vote for someone else.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Sounds like it creates lots of opportunities for "mis-count" mischief at the polls; even more so than what we're experiencing with "early voting".

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Actually it does matter, this system could have been the difference in Gore WINNING the election instead of Bush. As much as i dislike(d) Bushes policies i would not have wanted Gore in the white house for 9/11.

You're assuming people would vote while educated and would have 2nd and 3rd choices. This is all about rearranging the deck chairs on the Titantic. Sorry, but my cynics' hat is on today.

 

[88GT]

Good point .... i wonder if this system would make more people feel confortable voting third party knowing if that party doesnt win they will still have a vote for someone else.

Very well could. I also wonder if it's compatible with the Electoral College. Or, if a move to the ranked voting would make a move towards popular vote of POTUS more likely. Just thinking out loud.

 

[BrianJacobsen]

This seems like a parliamentary system just with a different name, no?

 

[dross]

It's got some interesting aspects. One downside is that it would drive politicians even more to the lowest common denominator. It would reward playing it safe, so you wouldn't be as likely to get anyone with views outside the mainstream.

 

[jbombelli]

In other words a vote for Johnson is a vote for Romney instead.

If they start with that I will never vote again.

 

[rgrimm01]

...If this system had been in place fo the Gore v Bush fiasco it might have had a different outcome. All of the people who had chose Nader would have had their Nader votes discarded, and their votes would have then gone towards someone else...

Would Nader votes have gone to Gore?

In other words a vote for Johnson is a vote for Romney instead.

If they start with that I will never vote again.

If your list is populated with a total of 1 candidate, your vote would not go to anyone if your candidate has not garnered the most votes? That should still keep you happy. The rub would be if someone else decides that your vote should go someplace else by default.

 

[JoshuaW]

Actually it does matter, this system could have been the difference in Gore WINNING the election instead of Bush. As much as i dislike(d) Bushes policies i would not have wanted Gore in the white house for 9/11.

People say this, but I have a never understood it. What the hell would Gore have done so wrong? What did Bush do that was so special? Invade Iraq?

I'm not a big fan of the ranked voting system, but I do like their primary system where they take the two most voted candidates, regardless of party, and they run against one another in the general. The best option is to do away with the primaries all together though. It wastes campaign money which would be better spent in the general election.

 

[ZombieApocolypse]

People say this, but I have a never understood it. What the hell would Gore have done so wrong? What did Bush do that was so special? Invade Iraq?

If Gore had gone in the vain of Clinton, he wouldnt have done anything in retaliation. So yeah, i guess it depends on what gore WOULD have done We went to "war" with Iraq for all the wrong (fabricated) reasons, when we could have attacked them for their violation of terms imposed after the gulf war. I always thought we went to war in Iraq because it was easier to try and get the terrorists to go there than fighting in the Afghan mountains, while maintaining a front in Afghan getting rid of the training camps etc.

 

[lucky4034]

In other words a vote for Johnson is a vote for Romney instead.

If they start with that I will never vote again.

Wait... I thought a vote for Johnson was a vote for Obama? I'm so confused........

 

[jbombelli]

Wait... I thought a vote for Johnson was a vote for Obama? I'm so confused........

Depends on who you're talking to. Some people called me a lying, disingenuous, hypocritical Obama supporter, while others called me a POS smarmy ******* RomneyBot.

 

[Trooper]

It doesn't matter what system you have in place as long as the voters choose to remain as ignorant as they are.

Correct. Most of those who vote for democrats are low information voters who never read a paper other than the sports pages (most men). Or women who know far more about Honey Boo-Boo than politics.

Of the rest of the democrats voters, most seem to want a god-king, at least a messiah. Look at those in the Black community referring to Obama as their Lord and Savior.

 

[Trooper]

In other words a vote for Johnson is a vote for Romney instead.

If they start with that I will never vote again.

Not voting or voting for some loser is the same thing.

 

[Trooper]

In a nutshell, that's what the primary system does.

EDIT: and after having thought about it for a while now, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I still like the concept of one man, one vote. On the flip side, it does strike me as a bit ironic that voters who have done the same thing (chosen their second choice candidate knowing the first choice votes wouldn't be of consequence) with their single vote have been vilified.

Many states in the south have an open primary for local elections as those states have one party rule. Thus everyone, and party does not matter, runs against everyone else. If no one gets over 50% then there is a runoff election in November.