Ranked choice (which we use locally) has tended to make campaigns more civil, as candidates don’t want to alienate voters who might list them as a 2nd choice. In 50%+1 elections, it means you don’t need a runoff, and 2 or 3 candidates with similar politics don’t cancel each out.
Not for those interested in more unifying, effective leadership for America.https://twitter.com/brianschatz/status/1224821507744043009 …
-
-
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Trump wouldn’t be President if it were used in 2016, even with the electoral college.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We have an immediate run off preferential system in Australia. It seems to work ok
-
Well it would work ok if the parties didn't keep ousting their leaders
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Ranked choice would give voters a chance to vote for who they really want, with the security of knowing if that their vote will still count if Choice #1 isn't viable. It would give both parties important information about how voters really feel.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
We've used it in Maine!
-
How did it work? I like the concept.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
Solid reasons? No. Reasons given as excuses by Democrats and Republicans who have benefited significantly from the existing system? Plenty. Look for them to throw up roadblocks rather than allow a system that would benefit moderate candidates.
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.