Ranked choice voting faces cloudy future after election setbacks (stateline.org)

submitted 1 day ago by Joker@sh.itjust.works to c/politics@lemmy.world

21 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 21 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Nightwingdragon@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Voters: We need to break the two-party, FPTP system.

Progressives: Ok, so how about ranked choice voting?

Voters: Not like that!

Voters, later: Why doesn't anything ever change?

Nothing ever changes because the vast majority of the American public doesn't actually want it to change. The 2024 election is proof of that. People don't want change. They want something to complain about.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

"And though it lost in Oregon, she pointed out that the measure had majority support in jurisdictions that currently use ranked choice voting, such as Multnomah (home to Portland) and Benton counties."

Problem: In Portland, yes, a majority of voters did vote for the state wide ranked choice ballot measure... but 20% of voters completely SKIPPED the ranked choice races for Mayor and City Council.

https://www.oregonlive.com/politics/2024/11/portlands-ranked-choice-debut-causes-voter-engagement-to-crater-1-in-5-who-cast-ballots-chose-no-one-for-city-council.html

They had an option of ranking their top 6 choices and did not choose any.

[-] synae@lemmy.sdf.org 13 points 1 day ago

That seems like a indictment of the candidates, not RCV.

No single election outcome should be used as counter-argument to RCV as a whole.

[-] aubeynarf@lemmynsfw.com 2 points 19 hours ago

This is why approval voting is my preference: easy to vote, easy to count, and still works if ths voter doesn’t know a thing about it and just marks one candidate

[-] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago

You could still mark one candidate in Portland's RCV.

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 12 points 1 day ago

If they genuinely don’t have a preference, is it a bad thing if they refrain from effectively voting at random?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

For one person? No. For 1/5th of the voting population? It's a travesty.

Especially in the city council race...

These are photos of my ballot, I live in District 1. District 1 has NEVER had representation on the city council before.

This is why we voted to change the system of government, the city now has 4 districts, each district gets 3 councilmen.

Voters had a chance to rank their top 6 choices to elect 3 people per district and 20% of voters went "Nah!"

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

My city (Oakland) has ranked-choice voting for mayor and city council, and (as far as I’m aware) doesn’t have a similar issue with under-voting.

Was there another factor besides the number of candidates on the ballot (e.g., no candidate statements in voter guides, or an ad campaign against ranked voting)?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago

Could be a combination of first time with ranked choice and too many candidates. Somebody is going to earn a degree doing the analysis here.

[-] Zak@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

It's almost certainly the number of candidates. On the other hand, top three out of a much smaller number doesn't present voters with a lot of choice.

[-] AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

If it’s really just a matter of too many candidates, could they increase the number of signatures needed to get on the ballot?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

It was less the number of signatures and more that this is the very first election for a new system of government, it drew out a TON of people.

Previously, we had a mayor and 5 city councilmen. Each elected city wide in a typical first past the post election.

Now we have a mayor elected citywide in a ranked choice, choose 6 election, who hires a city manager to run the different bureaus.

Then the city is split into 4 districts, each electing 3 councilmen in a rank 6 ballot.

So the city council is going from 5 to 12 and each district is guaranteed representation where often not only was it not guaranteed, there WAS no representation.

All in all, between the mayor and the council seats, 119 people were running.

[-] credo@lemmy.world 7 points 1 day ago

That’s too many positions to research for just one race. Five to six would probably be about the right amount of candidates for a single seat RCV.

I think [open] primaries still have a place to help weed out the field and narrow in on specific candidates.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 2 points 23 hours ago

Not every party has the money or resources to run a primary

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 19 hours ago

These are all non-partisan races.

[-] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 hours ago

OK so then who should be running primaries?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 16 hours ago

In this case, the ranked choice voting is supposed to serve as an instant primary.

I guess you could run a 16 candidate primary and narrow it down to the top 6 for a rank 6 general election, but you'd still have the same problem, you'd just be adding a 2nd election.

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Fortunately, the research wasn't that hard because it's super easy to eliminate the looney tunes candidates.

Ex. this guy:

Still, stunning how many first round votes he got...

p.s. "Michael Necula"? Mike Neck? Spot the vampire running for office!

[-] Vraylle@fedia.io 8 points 1 day ago

I like RCV, but the Portland example makes a good case for STAR voting.

[-] almar_quigley@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

What is the Portland example?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

See my comments below...

this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2024

82 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19096 readers

3414 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News