Six people on the debate stage running for the nomination of the "Democratic" party. Only one of them affirms that the candidate with the most votes should win the nomination.
-
-
because they got the most votes
-
But they didn't get a majority
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
this is a good argument for ranked choice voting
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because it’s not an election between the candidate with the most votes and everyone who didn’t vote for that candidate.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Because people didn't choose the to vote for the other 4. They could've chosen to be non-voters if the 5th wasn't there. There's no way to say which of the 4, if any, people would've chosen. Most votes is the only fair way and only thing that makes sense.
-
I just worded this better responding to someone else: A vote for Candidate B doesn't mean you are OK with C and D just because you didn't like A. Ranked-choice voting would actually let people give the order of candidates they are OK with.https://www.fairvote.org/sen_bernie_sanders_at_new_hampshire_town_hall_endorses_ranked_choice_voting …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
have fun with an imploded party
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, the single person with the most votes should win. That’s what a plurality of votes means, and it’s a basic principle of democracy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.