RANKED CHOICE VOTING
Ranked choice voting allows a voter to
support a third-party candidate without throwing the election to the
major candidate most opposed to that voter's viewpoint. It is also a
way to simplify primaries because the selection from a
long list of candidates can be done with one round. RCV allows a broad range of candidates and dialogue without robbing the best mainstream candidate of support.
How does it work? For each position on the ballot, the voter selects from the list of candidates not only their first choice, but also their second and third, etc. For more information, see: https://fairvote.org/
For an example of how a third party can shift an election, see discussion of the "No Labels" movement around the 2024 presidential race. With RCV, this controversy would not exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Labels
- entry added to this blog 1/6/2024
NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE INTERSTATE COMPACT
Not long ago, a US president was selected who had lost the popular vote by approximately 3 million votes. To some of us, it would seem more democratic to select the president based on the popular vote. An effort being made toward that end has been initiated in Congress. The following information is taken from wikipedia 1/20/24. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
"The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential ticket wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide is elected president, and it would come into effect only when it would guarantee that outcome.
"By 2019, NPVIC legislation had been introduced in all 50 states. As of January 2024, the NPVIC has been adopted by sixteen states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 205 electoral votes."
- entry added to this blog 1/20/2024
WHAT HAPPENS WITHOUT RANKED CHOICE VOTING
In most presidential US elections, some portion of the electorate votes against their own political self interest in order to feel better. Why do they feel better? They've hurt the mainstream candidate most closely aligned to their interests, in order to get revenge for the fact that mainstream candidate isn't perfect. Such voters probably wouldn't feel good about their votes if they could think things through more clearly; it's a very emotional voting strategy. However, one can see this in election after election and talk about it endlessly with no effect. No degree of observation is going to change the situation unless we implement Ranked Choice Voting, where such voters can vote with the hearts for their first choice, and vote with their minds for their second choice.
For example, today, many voters are opposed to the Harris/Waltz ticket as being too pro-Israel. On the other hand, it's generally believed by the same group (and most of the rest of us) that the alternative, Trump, is more in favor of Israel. The leaders of such movements often try to change direction at the last moment, to swing their followers toward the candidate who would best represent the movement's interest, but such attempts usually fail. Many of their followers are still too pumped up with the previous messages to shift course emotionally. This appears to have happened, for example, with followers of Bernie Sanders when he advised his followers to support Hillary Clinton. Many seemed unable to shift course emotionally even though it would be difficult to imagine that the positions of Sanders were better aligned with Trump policies that what would have happened under Clinton. Not even close.
- entered 10/26/24
