Ranked choice voting: yes or no?

[Erik62]

5 minutes ago, Erik62 said:

In Australia, you have 2 choices : 1) vote for one of the 3 MAIN PARTIES & ACCEPT their preferences & 2) if you don't like their preferred canditates you are required to number ALL of the Candidates, their is often 20 or 30 in one electorate. If you don't wish to number ALL, you MUST STILL CHOOSE at least 12.

Your second point: WE DON'T CARE, we do but none of the nominees ever door-knock, meet people in shopping centres or place campaign advertisements in local newspapers, IF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS ARE EVEN PRINTED.  

  I never said RCV mandates a coalition but I did say that this is how Australian elections operate. Our major parties are required to win a specific number of electoral seats, to govern in their own right. If that number of seats is not won, then major party with the most votes, say 39%, is forced to find support from minor parties or independents & form a MINORITY GOVERNMENT. In this case the independents can literally "blackmail" the major party for their own benefit when legislation is to be voted on & passed. As a result major legislation on health, housing, education, homelessness etc, fails to pass & things just get worse, eg: our current government wanted to pass legislation on housing. They wanted to build ex million houses. It failed because 1 of the 3 major parties refused because government wanted to spend TOO MUCH & the other party said it wasn't enough funding. Go figure because I can't 🙄😭😭. 

What would happen if both Dems & Reps only got 39% of the vote EACH??? 

NB: I mean no offence in any comments I have written, just exploring 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT systems & their faults 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫. 

Oh, if you DON'T fill the required number of boxes your vote BECOMES INVALID & if you DON'T REGISTER as having VOTED their are nasty fines that you get charged. Joys of compulsory voting. 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

7 minutes ago, Erik62 said:

In Australia, you have 2 choices : 1) vote for one of the 3 MAIN PARTIES & ACCEPT their preferences & 2) if you don't like their preferred candidates you are required to number ALL of the Candidates, their is often 20 or 30 in one electorate. If you don't wish to number ALL, you MUST STILL CHOOSE at least 12.

Your second point: WE DON'T CARE, we do but none of the nominees ever door-knock, meet people in shopping centres or place campaign advertisements in local newspapers, IF LOCAL NEWSPAPERS ARE EVEN PRINTED.  

  I never said RCV mandates a coalition but I did say that this is how Australian elections operate. Our major parties are required to win a specific number of electoral seats, to govern in their own right. If that number of seats is not won, then major party with the most votes, say 39%, is forced to find support from minor parties or independents & form a MINORITY GOVERNMENT. In this case the independents can literally "blackmail" the major party for their own benefit when legislation is to be voted on & passed. As a result major legislation on health, housing, education, homelessness etc, fails to pass & things just get worse, eg: our current government wanted to pass legislation on housing. They wanted to build ex million houses. It failed because 1 of the 3 major parties refused because government wanted to spend TOO MUCH & the other party said it wasn't enough funding. Go figure because I can't 🙄😭😭. 

What would happen if both Dems & Reps only got 39% of the vote EACH??? 

NB: I mean no offence in any comments I have written, just exploring 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT systems & their faults 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫. 

I think you're referring to the Senate.

BTW re: housing - NEITHER side wanted to spend enough - and then the govt told the Greens that they were assholes for "not respecting the government's mandate" because the Greens want to build 1,000,000 new homes over 20 years, while the government think that 30,000 over 5 years (including just 4,000 for social housing - which nobody is going to be actually eligible for) will "permanently solve the problem of homelessness".

[Erik62]

14 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

You forgot those who hand out "How To Vote Cards" ...

10 candidates? Yikes. I only had to choose between 3.

Our recent council elections were TOTALLY POSTAL. NOT EVEN any "how to vote cards". We got a post out of the 10 candidates values. None listed any policies for the over 50s & aged & gave NO CONTACT details🤬🤬. Only young families, schools & sports fields. How to vote cards, HA. They walk towards me & I just say, "FUCK OFF", they run away. Who arrives to a polling station & thinks they'll make their choice, there & then😱??? 

[TaKinGDeePanal]

2 minutes ago, Erik62 said:

Our recent council elections were TOTALLY POSTAL. NOT EVEN any "how to vote cards". We got a post out of the 10 candidates values. None listed any policies for the over 50s & aged & gave NO CONTACT details🤬🤬. Only young families, schools & sports fields. How to vote cards, HA. They walk towards me & I just say, "FUCK OFF", they run away. Who arrives to a polling station & thinks they'll make their choice, there & then😱??? 

We had 3 candidates in ours. One is a Reich Whinge loon who was actually suspended 2 years ago when he was a Councillor. One never goes under his real name. I voted for the other one, as one of my friends (who was running for Council herself) endorsed her.

Which Council, might I ask? My friend was running in Merri-bek (she was the Mayor there a couple of years ago, and was running this time as an Independent) and I'm in Hume.

[Erik62]

44 minutes ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

You have to rank EVERYONE (apart from your last choice) on a House of Representatives Ballot in Australia. For the Senate, it's different, but I rank everyone as the Parties have decided IN SECRET where votes are directed if you don't rank everyone. For example, one Senator (Malcolm Roberts) won a seat with only 77 Primary Votes - however, due to aforesaid backroom Party deals, he won enough Ranked Choice votes to take office (and yes, he's pretty much the closest thing we have to a fascist in the Senate): [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.tallyroom.com.au/29932; [think before following links] [think before following links] https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/one-nation-and-the-rise-of-fascism,10149

Ranked voting is a way for shit candidates to direct their votes to even more shit candidates.

For example, say Trump has 37%, Harris 47%, Green Party 2%, RFK (who is still on some ballot papers) 10%, West 4%. If Stein and Kennedy advise their voters to put Harris last (and we ALL know they would, plus generally their voters are as bad as they are) - and West puts out a 50-50 advisement (as some candidates do), that means that Trump picks up 14% (2+10+4/2), which puts him in the White House. You also would then have the spectacle of people handing out "How To Vote Cards", which in a country where people are being encouraged to attend polling stations with automatic weapons, could very well see things turn deadly on Election Day.

While it is compulsory for voters to attend a polling station and collect their ballot, it is actually NOT compulsory for them to cast a valid vote. Some people fill it out incorrectly. Some people drop a blank ballot into the box. Some people deface their ballot paper. It usually runs at 4-6% of the vote (I've scrutineered before).

Scrutineering, WHY WHY, WHY. What an absolute nigtmare 😱, watching your choice going down like the Hindenburg😭🤣🤣🤣. You're certainly a better man than me😜😂😂.

[TaKinGDeePanal]

1 minute ago, Erik62 said:

Scrutineering, WHY WHY, WHY. What an absolute nigtmare 😱, watching your choice going down like the Hindenburg😭🤣🤣🤣. You're certainly a better man than me😜😂😂.

The RW loons never send any scrutineers. In both instances, the candidates who I was scrutineering for both won their booths.

 

[Erik62]

26 minutes ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

I think you're referring to the Senate.

BTW re: housing - NEITHER side wanted to spend enough - and then the govt told the Greens that they were assholes for "not respecting the government's mandate" because the Greens want to build 1,000,000 new homes over 20 years, while the government think that 30,000 over 5 years (including just 4,000 for social housing - which nobody is going to be actually eligible for) will "permanently solve the problem of homelessness".

Thanks, it gets dfficult to maximise info, without writing War & Peace. I admit to often forgetting the Senate. I'm over 60, so age is playing games. That's my excuse & I'm going to stick with it 🤣🤣🤣🤣. 

[Erik62]

21 minutes ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

We had 3 candidates in ours. One is a Reich Whinge loon who was actually suspended 2 years ago when he was a Councillor. One never goes under his real name. I voted for the other one, as one of my friends (who was running for Council herself) endorsed her.

Which Council, might I ask? My friend was running in Merri-bek (she was the Mayor there a couple of years ago, and was running this time as an Independent) and I'm in Hume.

Melton council & South Melton. Problem is South Melton, itself has Weir Views, Koolibah???? (spelling) & 2 or 3 others. None are working for me, so I just flipped a coin 10 times 🤣🤣🤣🤣. 

[Erik62]

22 minutes ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

The RW loons never send any scrutineers. In both instances, the candidates who I was scrutineering for both won their booths.

 

LUUUUCKY🤔

[TaKinGDeePanal]

10 minutes ago, Erik62 said:

Melton council & South Melton. Problem is South Melton, itself has Weir Views, Koolibah???? (spelling) & 2 or 3 others. None are working for me, so I just flipped a coin 10 times 🤣🤣🤣🤣. 

2 towns away from me lol

[Erik62]

3 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

2 towns away from me lol

With everything happening around here, murders, stabbings, I sometimes feel a VERY, VERY LONG WAY from civilisation😱🤣.  

[viking8x6]

OK, sounds from what I hear like it is, plain and simple, faulty implementation. And likely intentionally faulty, due to probable skullduggery on the part of the parties.

A FUNCTIONAL implementation would work something like what @BootmanLA suggests. Compare that with:

17 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

You have to rank EVERYONE (apart from your last choice) on a House of Representatives Ballot in Australia.

..the Parties have decided IN SECRET where votes are directed if you don't rank everyone. For example, one Senator (Malcolm Roberts) won a seat with only 77 Primary Votes - however, due to aforesaid backroom Party deals, he won enough Ranked Choice votes to take office (and yes, he's pretty much the closest thing we have to a fascist in the Senate...

#1 requires you to vote for candidates you don't want.

#2 causes you (if voting a straight party line) to vote for candidates you may not want, nor even know anything about.

Yeah, that's solid CRAP. But it's not because it's RCV, it's because the devil is in the details (in this case, literally).

😪

 

[BootmanLA]

On 10/27/2024 at 3:59 PM, TaKinGDeePanal said:

You have to rank EVERYONE (apart from your last choice) on a House of Representatives Ballot in Australia. For the Senate, it's different, but I rank everyone as the Parties have decided IN SECRET where votes are directed if you don't rank everyone. For example, one Senator (Malcolm Roberts) won a seat with only 77 Primary Votes - however, due to aforesaid backroom Party deals, he won enough Ranked Choice votes to take office (and yes, he's pretty much the closest thing we have to a fascist in the Senate): [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.tallyroom.com.au/29932; [think before following links] [think before following links] https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/one-nation-and-the-rise-of-fascism,10149

Ranked voting is a way for shit candidates to direct their votes to even more shit candidates.

For example, say Trump has 37%, Harris 47%, Green Party 2%, RFK (who is still on some ballot papers) 10%, West 4%. If Stein and Kennedy advise their voters to put Harris last (and we ALL know they would, plus generally their voters are as bad as they are) - and West puts out a 50-50 advisement (as some candidates do), that means that Trump picks up 14% (2+10+4/2), which puts him in the White House. You also would then have the spectacle of people handing out "How To Vote Cards", which in a country where people are being encouraged to attend polling stations with automatic weapons, could very well see things turn deadly on Election Day.

While it is compulsory for voters to attend a polling station and collect their ballot, it is actually NOT compulsory for them to cast a valid vote. Some people fill it out incorrectly. Some people drop a blank ballot into the box. Some people deface their ballot paper. It usually runs at 4-6% of the vote (I've scrutineered before).

It sounds like there is a shitty implementation of RCV then in Australia's House races. In no case should ANYONE'S vote be cast for ANY candidate he didn't rank. That's a fundamental violation of people's ability to control their votes, which ought to be (but sadly, sometimes isn't) fundamental.

I don't dispute the result of your numbers in your US example. But the reality is that there's no way those numbers would ever reflect reality. RFK would never pull close to 10% - he'd be lucky to get 2%. Stein got 1.06% in 2016, In fact, only one third-party candidate (Ross Perot) since 1970 has gotten over the 10% threshold, and that was back in 1992. And if Stein and RFK advised their followers to vote Trump, I guarantee you some number of voters would switch from voting for them, because a small but measurable number of those voters are pretty far leftist and their beef with Harris is that she's not leftist enough.

As for "How to vote cards" - we call those sample ballots, and they're already abundantly provided by organizations and parties here. 

 

[BootmanLA]

On 10/27/2024 at 4:23 PM, Erik62 said:

  I never said RCV mandates a coalition but I did say that this is how Australian elections operate. Our major parties are required to win a specific number of electoral seats, to govern in their own right. If that number of seats is not won, then major party with the most votes, say 39%, is forced to find support from minor parties or independents & form a MINORITY GOVERNMENT. In this case the independents can literally "blackmail" the major party for their own benefit when legislation is to be voted on & passed. As a result major legislation on health, housing, education, homelessness etc, fails to pass & things just get worse, eg: our current government wanted to pass legislation on housing. They wanted to build ex million houses. It failed because 1 of the 3 major parties refused because government wanted to spend TOO MUCH & the other party said it wasn't enough funding. Go figure because I can't 🙄😭😭. 

What would happen if both Dems & Reps only got 39% of the vote EACH??? 

NB: I mean no offence in any comments I have written, just exploring 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT systems & their faults 😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫😵‍💫. 

Here in the US, the 39/39 split you're talking about is irrelevant, because we don't have a parliamentary system and seats are allocated geographically. If the Democrats get 39% of the votes cast, that doesn't mean they get 39% of the seats in Congress. It could mean they get ZERO seats in Congress, depending on where those 39% of the votes fall. Within any particular congressional district (of which there are at least one, often more, per state), it's only the votes in that district which determine who that district's representative is.

So within such a system, RCV here would work very differently than it apparently does in Australia. We also don't "form a government" because the president, who heads the executive branch, is elected separately from Congress, and so we don't have "ministers" heading up executive branch agencies. Those are run by presidential appointees, most of whom have to be confirmed by our Senate.

[PozBearWI]

I follow how ranking candidates can be informative of public opinion.  The risk of course is that public opinion changes moment to moment.  "Now" has always been a moving target.  

If we have a pool of five individuals and we rank them by whatever metric we're using at the moment; they will line up in a chosen order.  But once we eliminate one of them and consider four, those metrics are most of the time going to change somewhat as well.  

Thus, once we start to narrow down the choices; evaluation becomes more a "now what" thing.  Difficult to do if one's "stand out" person is clamoring for attention.