Ranked choice voting is an amazing electoral innovation that lets you mark one of the two major party candidates as your “first choice” instead of voting for them outright.
-
-
I don't see that as true long term. In SF, ranked choice and jungle primaries have allowed for an ad-hoc two party system to develop within the democratic party, between "progressive" and "centrist" candidates (note: this is along local politics axes so it mostly is abt housing)
-
I think people are leaning too hard on changes in voting mechanics to fix a broken political system
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I've only ever voted in ranked choice systems, and my number 1 preferences rarely got elected, but I'm glad I could do it without my vote just being wasted or contributing to spoilers.
-
This is what ranked choice is actually good for. Signaling disagreement on pet issues while still letting you vote for one of the two parties. It's not good for actually getting the third party elected except in very rare cases where an independent could get 2nd place without RCV
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I guess i'm not getting the distinction in your mind here. You're just saying that ranked choice for a single office with only two candidates is the same as majority vote? (which it is, of course).
-
Complaint I think is that RCV is marketed as "vote your real preference" which people assumes helps 3rd parties. But the only way to end up with a 3rd party winner is basically if tons of people in the less popular of the existing parties strategically lies about their preference
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
It provides all flavor of increased choice with none of the calories.
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.