I will never understand the appeal of ranked choice votinghttps://twitter.com/thehill/status/1004952685253201922 …
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
As you can imagine, it is ALL the talk in political circles here in the city.
Yes! I just think The Hill's tweet and headline are bullshit because they ignore the whole point and reality of what ranked choice voting is! The article continues in that vein.
I've read why people like ranked voting. They make good points. But all I can see is "the person with the most votes can still lose." THAT SEEMS WRONG, CHRIS. I AM STILL SCARRED FROM 2016.
It's not "the person with the most votes"! It's the person with the most votes in the first round of voting. But the whole point is that, if that person doesn't get 50%, they didn't win. So, then the ranked-choice comes into play, and that person might not be the person with ...
... the most votes in the second round. And, if they are, but are still not at 50%, they didn't win. So, you go to round three — and so on, losing the lowest person until the top vote-getter gets about 50%. And see: It will be the top vote-getter — in that round — who wins!
I've been told this system produces the same winner a runoff would (and of course saves the cost of a runoff) — is that an assumption or is there evidence of it?
You can’t definitely say — because you could always learn more about the candidates in the interim — but there are many arguments that it makes it more fair and more democratic.
It has the same effect as a runoff - it is also referred to as instant runoff. The second and third place candidates were both to the left of the top vote getter. Their votes together exceed the first place candidates votes. Very fair.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.