Talk to me about ranked choice voting

[mrspez07]

CO has a ballot measure (one of too many) that makes the primaries not party-affiliated, and then the top 4 candidates go to the election. Only in certain races (not prez or local, for example).

Do you have it, have you participated in something similar?

[wanderingback]

Yes, I’ve done it. (Not sure if you had a more specific question)

[lilac05]

We do not have it, but I love the idea.

We would have never had Trump as a Republican candidate in 2016 if ranked choice voting had been a thing.

[mrsslocombe]

We had it for the last NYC mayor’s race. I was enthusiastic about it in theory, but we wound up with Adams so…yeah.

We also had an over crowded primary with way too many candidates, it will be interesting to see what happens in next year’s race.

[aurora]

I've followed how it's worked in Alaska and I like it there. I think it's why they have Rep. Peltola.

I admit I'm not sure how different the setup is in the CO version vs Alaska.

[AdaraMarie]

I am still trying to make up my mind. This article about it was just on my google home page: www.kunc.org/news/2024-11-02/why-did-colorado-progressives-turn-against-a-ballot-measure-for-ranked-choice-voting

[neverfstop]

Overall, I think it's a great idea. it's a way to help break the 2-party system or at least nudge candidates to the middle and away from hyper-partisanship. It also help people vote 3rd party & NOT feel like they are throwing away their vote by at least allowing a first-round "protest" vote & then voting the person you'd tolerate.

[jlt19]

MO has it on the ballot to ban it. There isn’t much of any information being shared about it and TBH, if I didn’t belong to a local “liberal moms” FB group wouldn’t have known about it and DEFINITELY wouldn’t have known which way to vote.

I don’t even think it will institute ranked choice voting if it fails, I think it just completely blocks it from ever happening if it passes.

I’m 95% sure it’ll be a toss up because no one will know what it means either way.

[mainelyfoolish]

Maine has ranked choice voting but our primaries are still party affiliated. The big impetus to implement ranked choice voting came after a certain governor served two terms by winning pluralities but not majorities. Ironically, the wording of our state constitution prevents us for using ranked choice voting for state general elections, but we use it for federal primaries and general elections and state primaries. A couple of cities also use it for local elections.

I really like the ranked choice voting. It lets people vote for independent candidates without feeling like they’re throwing their vote away because you can still select a second (third, fourth) choice that will apply if none of the candidates received a majority in the first round. In the above referenced governor’s race, the candidate from the other major political party would most likely have won if ranked choice was used because the independent on the ticket tended to pull voters from that side of the political spectrum.

[UMaineTeach]

youtu.be/3Ez3aEUjRQo?si=RarLu5ZVOzp6EOau

This is how it works in ME. (I did like in the video that blue wins and orange is the first one out.)

It’s supposed to eliminate third party spoilers. It came in wider public awareness when it was perceived that LePage got a second term because the independent drew votes away from the democrat. (The independent who turned out to be a TW level terrible person)

I’m not sure how eliminating party affiliations being listed for (open, I assume) primaries would be helpful.

[StrawberryBlondie]

Certain cities here have it but I do not live in a place that has it.

One city is voting on whether to get rid of it and both support and opposition don't seem to follow partisan lines. I see people with democratic candidates signs in their yard with repeal signs and people with Republican candidates signs with keep signs just as often as democratic candidates signs with keep signs and Republican candidates signs with repeal signs.

[taratru]

With Prop 131, the open primary is not ranked choice. The top four vote getters move to the ballot, which is ranked choice.

I voted no on it.

[pixy0stix]

Nov 3, 2024 13:28:16 GMT -5 taratru said:

With Prop 131, the open primary is not ranked choice. The top four vote getters move to the ballot, which is ranked choice.

I voted no on it.

Agreed. I don't understand why people can't get it through their heads that primaries are for the parties, no one else.

[definitelyO]

We have a legislative affairs person at my company. His bottom line summary is that it moderates extremists on either side. And should lend itself to a top 4 who are more “moderate” vs extremists (like bobert). He was able to explain it well verbally. No political primary - everyone can vote for one person. Top 4 advance. We “could” end up with 3 of one party and 1 of another. Then we rank. Someone has to win by 50% plus 1 vote.

[mrspez07]

Nov 3, 2024 19:21:33 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Nov 3, 2024 13:28:16 GMT -5 taratru said:

With Prop 131, the open primary is not ranked choice. The top four vote getters move to the ballot, which is ranked choice.

I voted no on it.

Agreed. I don't understand why people can't get it through their heads that primaries are for the parties, no one else.

CO language specifically states: "establishes an all-candidate primary for all voters regardless of their political party...and advances the top four candidates to a general election where voters rank the candidates..."
This means primaries are not for the parties, it's a free for all. And yes, while the primary is not ranked choice, it certainly indicates that way, with "top 4 moving forward" and if I'm confused as an educated voter, I can only imagine less savvy voters.

[AdaraMarie]

Nov 3, 2024 13:28:16 GMT -5 taratru said:

With Prop 131, the open primary is not ranked choice. The top four vote getters move to the ballot, which is ranked choice.

I voted no on it.

I ended up voting no on it because of the primary change too.

[sonrisa]

Nov 3, 2024 19:21:33 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Agreed. I don't understand why people can't get it through their heads that primaries are for the parties, no one else.

I like CA’s system where the primaries are for the people, not the parties.

If the Republicans can’t get enough people to the polls to get someone on the ballot, that’s on them.

We are not an evenly divided state that ‘leans’ blue. Giving Republicans a guaranteed candidate favors one third of the electorate over the other 2/3rds. We’ve had ballots with almost 50 candidates on them and ended up with Schwarzenegger because of name recognition.

[pinkdutchtulips]

Nov 4, 2024 9:35:47 GMT -5 sonrisa said:

Nov 3, 2024 19:21:33 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Agreed. I don't understand why people can't get it through their heads that primaries are for the parties, no one else.

I like CA’s system where the primaries are for the people, not the parties.

If the Republicans can’t get enough people to the polls to get someone on the ballot, that’s on them.

We are not an evenly divided state that ‘leans’ blue. Giving Republicans a guaranteed candidate favors one third of the electorate over the other 2/3rds. We’ve had ballots with almost 50 candidates on them and ended up with Schwarzenegger because of name recognition.

The name recognition part is so key for ANY race. I'm really hoping that Steve Garvey's name recognition is limited to die hard baseball fans of a certain age and everyone else is like Steve who ?

Name recognition though is how Alabama voted Tuberville in as a US Senator. Former Auburn football coach whose name everyone knew ... of course he wins. :/ 

[lilac05]

sharonmcmahon.com/podcast/fair-voting-on-the-ballot-with-deb-otis?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAab_iYzmRBT6SE9ky6EBzKuZujEiTo93AJ0fCwNSubTUzfzmJpSklkMFCss_aem_52X23LA8Ad_GQlS1a_oE6w

I haven’t listened yet, but this podcast just came out and includes info about ranked choice voting.