The Oregon Legislature on Sunday's final day of the session passed House Bill 2004, which puts a proposal to move to ranked choice voting for federal and statewide races on the statewide ballot in November 2024.
What will suck is the states slowest to adopt will be the red state that are 100% Republican electoral college votes while the blue statss will dilute their electoral college. The destination is worth it, the journey will drag on and on.
Ranked choice doesn’t mean proportional elector distribution. It means you vote for candidates in order of preference, and if your preferred candidate is last, your vote goes to your next preferred candidate.
Ranked choice does have it’s own problems, but it’s better than first past the post. Star voting improves the formula quite a bit.
It is far more likely that a blue state will switch to ranked choice first, and the fewer non-red states there are the more red states have influence on the electoral college, so it is important to push for this everywhere. That is all I am saying, and nothing more.
I think you are speaking to a disinformation person, who is deliberately introducing some nonsense-logic into the equation as a reason not to use RCV, in the hopes of fooling some people into not wanting to do it because they don’t want to hurt the Democrats.
I thought they were just confused about proportional elector distribution vs ranked choice, too, up until just a second ago, and then it all made sense. They’re still blandly doubling down on their misinterpretation and ignoring what you’re saying and just repeating the original message, too.
I don’t think we are real close to third party candidates winning the whole state in a federal election. What this is producing, in the short run, is a way for third parties to gain some traction in the federal election without producing a spoiler effect which fucks up everything and sends everyone running back into the arms of the 2 mostly horrible options that are the current menu
That, and genuine choice and sensible voting for all the statewide and local offices, which is not a small immediate benefit
In the long run it is producing a proof of concept for something other than the FPTP awfulness, including but definitely not limited to the possibility of introducing a better voting system federally once people are happy with and accustomed to a better model and it’s not some weird untested thing. That might lead to genuine representation of the people even in our federal election system if it goes further
I won’t say you are completely wrong about a medium term future where the third party gains so much traction that they win the whole state in a presidential election and create a spoiler effect. That could happen. But the potential gains and avoiding a bunch of other failure modes in the current system to me are a vast improvement and not undone by the existence of that one very specific and very temporary failure mode
OP didn’t say anything about third party candidates? You make some good points but not really related to what OP said.
They said the changes are more likely to be adopted by democrat states before republican states. That does have a lot of potential implications, including the ones raised but supporting the change is not the same as supporting or considering all the potential implications.
Unless I’ve missed something very fundamental, RCV is not related to what electoral votes go up to the federal election unless third party candidates are involved. A ranked choice election between 2 candidates is the same as a FPTP election.
Right? I feel like I’m not the one missing something here.
democrat states
Ooooh
Okay, it makes a little more sense now why you and the parent comment might be inducing a pointless and confusing argument here, and a reason why not to do RCV, based on logic that doesn’t hold up…
IDK, tell me if I’ve missed something, but I think I just realized what’s going on.
I am all in favor of ranked choice voting.
What will suck is the states slowest to adopt will be the red state that are 100% Republican electoral college votes while the blue statss will dilute their electoral college. The destination is worth it, the journey will drag on and on.
Ranked choice doesn’t mean proportional elector distribution. It means you vote for candidates in order of preference, and if your preferred candidate is last, your vote goes to your next preferred candidate.
Ranked choice does have it’s own problems, but it’s better than first past the post. Star voting improves the formula quite a bit.
It is far more likely that a blue state will switch to ranked choice first, and the fewer non-red states there are the more red states have influence on the electoral college, so it is important to push for this everywhere. That is all I am saying, and nothing more.
I think you are speaking to a disinformation person, who is deliberately introducing some nonsense-logic into the equation as a reason not to use RCV, in the hopes of fooling some people into not wanting to do it because they don’t want to hurt the Democrats.
I thought they were just confused about proportional elector distribution vs ranked choice, too, up until just a second ago, and then it all made sense. They’re still blandly doubling down on their misinterpretation and ignoring what you’re saying and just repeating the original message, too.
?
I don’t think we are real close to third party candidates winning the whole state in a federal election. What this is producing, in the short run, is a way for third parties to gain some traction in the federal election without producing a spoiler effect which fucks up everything and sends everyone running back into the arms of the 2 mostly horrible options that are the current menu
That, and genuine choice and sensible voting for all the statewide and local offices, which is not a small immediate benefit
In the long run it is producing a proof of concept for something other than the FPTP awfulness, including but definitely not limited to the possibility of introducing a better voting system federally once people are happy with and accustomed to a better model and it’s not some weird untested thing. That might lead to genuine representation of the people even in our federal election system if it goes further
I won’t say you are completely wrong about a medium term future where the third party gains so much traction that they win the whole state in a presidential election and create a spoiler effect. That could happen. But the potential gains and avoiding a bunch of other failure modes in the current system to me are a vast improvement and not undone by the existence of that one very specific and very temporary failure mode
OP didn’t say anything about third party candidates? You make some good points but not really related to what OP said.
They said the changes are more likely to be adopted by democrat states before republican states. That does have a lot of potential implications, including the ones raised but supporting the change is not the same as supporting or considering all the potential implications.
What do you believe ranked choice voting is?
Unless I’ve missed something very fundamental, RCV is not related to what electoral votes go up to the federal election unless third party candidates are involved. A ranked choice election between 2 candidates is the same as a FPTP election.
Right? I feel like I’m not the one missing something here.
Ooooh
Okay, it makes a little more sense now why you and the parent comment might be inducing a pointless and confusing argument here, and a reason why not to do RCV, based on logic that doesn’t hold up…
IDK, tell me if I’ve missed something, but I think I just realized what’s going on.