Ranked Choice Voting

[spartan max2]

In New York City today, they had on the ballot if they want to implement ranked Choice voting. 

Here is a short two min video on the concept.

 

Thoughts?

It seems pretty reasonable to me, might give third parties more room to exist.

Edited November 5, 2019 by spartan max2

[+Desertrat56]

It is a good idea for those of us who refuse to choose a party.  I think it has been implemented in Vermont.  I used to get emails about it, but it has been a while.  It already is used at the local lever all over the country, Santa Fe, NM municipal for example.

[spartan max2]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It is a good idea for those of us who refuse to choose a party.  I think it has been implemented in Vermont.  I used to get emails about it, but it has been a while.  It already is used at the local lever all over the country, Santa Fe, NM municipal for example.

This is the first time I've heard about it. 

I wouldn't mind if it got brought to the national level. 

[ExpandMyMind]

It sounds much better. I want it here.

Actually, after a search it appears we do have it here for some elections within government. It's called Alternative Vote. Huh.

[RAyMO]

32 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It sounds much better. I want it here.

Actually, after a search it appears we do have it here for some elections within government. It's called Alternative Vote. Huh.

We have stv for assembly elections over here and fptp for parliament.

I prefer stv

[Farmer77]

22 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

In New York City today, they had on the ballot if they want to implement ranked Choice voting. 

Here is a short two min video on the concept.

 

Thoughts?

It seems pretty reasonable to me, might give third parties more room to exist.

I really like the concept. It will be cool to see how it plays out in NY now that theyre going to be implementing some version of it. 

Edited November 6, 2019 by Farmer77

[RAyMO]

my preference is for the STV over the alternative vote.

As far as I understand AV as per the video above you still end up with 1 representative per constituency. 

At least as practiced in Northern Ireland, an STV constituency will return more than 1 representative, in our case you get 5 representatives (video below say 6 but its old). This doesn't mean you have loads of representatives - just fewer larger constituencies. 

Each party can put more than 1 candidate up for election in constituency, but due to the nuances of how the system works the bigger parties will seldom put up more than 2. (Splitting your first choice vote too many ways could be very disadvantageous).

If we were using first Past the Post its likely that the 2 big parties would dominate the results, almost to the exclusion of all other parties.

However under STV we find a greater and more diverse representation (8 parties and 1 independent in the last elections in a small country with generally polarized communities). I have no doubt some of these parties, perhaps many of these parties would not have made the assembly under any other means. Why does this matter - well it means your vote is more likely to be meaningful under stv than First past the Post or even AV. Under STV it is more likely that more people will feel that they have representation in the Assembly.

The bigger parties, the better supported parties will do well and will win the majority of the seats but sufficient others will also be elected to ensure diverse views and voter representation.

Thought this might help:

 

Edited November 6, 2019 by RAyMO

[Setton]

23 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

It sounds much better. I want it here.

Actually, after a search it appears we do have it here for some elections within government. It's called Alternative Vote. Huh.

We had a referendum on it in 2011. It's a good, fair system, to ensure the people are actually represented in parliament.

Obviously the Conservative government of the day put out as many lies as they possibly could to make sure it lost. 

[aztek]

more room to scam,, miscount, and falsify,  i'm fine with traditional voting, not that it matters anyway.  we'll still have dong candidates on one side, vs poop candidates on the other side,  no matter how you vote, you still pick crap

Edited November 6, 2019 by aztek

[aztek]

now if they had come up with a way to remove a candidate who isn't doing what he was elected for, without waiting for next election, i'd listen. 

[ExpandMyMind]

12 minutes ago, Setton said:

We had a referendum on it in 2011. It's a good, fair system, to ensure the people are actually represented in parliament.

Obviously the Conservative government of the day put out as many lies as they possibly could to make sure it lost. 

I've actually never voted (though I registered for the first time last year) so I had no idea. I'd have that and mandatory voting together. 

[Setton]

8 hours ago, aztek said:

now if they had come up with a way to remove a candidate who isn't doing what he was elected for, without waiting for next election, i'd listen. 

We do. But I'm sure you won't.