Thread 508680810

Why do conservatives hate ranked choice voting?

Are they retarded or just evil?

>>508681059
No one wins "by 192%" and NYC would support Mamdani anyway

>>508680810 (OP)
in the end you just pick the lesser zog master.

>>508681260
How is that a characteristic of ranked choice voting and not just all voting systems? Ranked choice eliminates a two-party stranglehold, allowing non-ZOG candidates to win more easily.

>>508680810 (OP)
Because I do not want to vote for A or B.

>>508680810 (OP)
I'm not a conservative, and I dislike it. You still end up with either party A or B, same as it is now, and any calls for voting reform will be pushed back 50 years "because we've already had voting reform."

>>508681666
>You still end up with either party A or B
No you don't, whoever has the most actual support wins, there's no spoiler effect anymore and no two party system

>>508680810 (OP)
Ranked choice voting results in less favourable outcomes for voters. It is more likely for voters that their primary choice will not be elected. The process of elimination also leads to unexpected outcomes, for example in a tight race between 3 parties, the party that gets eliminated could have all their votes added to the far less popular candidate if everyone put them 2nd and they could beat the seemingly more popular candidate. E.g. in a tight race between democrats and republicans, all the democrats might put their second choice as socialist. If the republicans win the first round, all those losing democrat votes get added to the socialist vote, and you suddenly have a huge socialist victory.

>>508681932
>in a tight race between 3 parties, the party that gets eliminated could have all their votes added to the far less popular candidate
A less popular candidate wouldn't get more votes.

>>508681791
>no two party system
In reality you have a few very minior parties that just do nothing but act like bitches.
It sounds good in theory in practice nothing changes. See Australia where one of the majors has actually fractured into a thousand pieces and given a major party complete domination in the lower house. Senate is a shitshow but always has been.

>>508680810 (OP)
Conservatives have a wide range of beliefs. The candidate most likely to win will never get 1st choice. Democrats only have socialists and pretend socialists and will consolidate around whoever TV man tells them.

>>508683294
>The candidate most likely to win will never get 1st choice.
What the fuck does this mean?

>>508681932
>less popular
Which just means the party you don't like. But again in the case of Australia the greens for example LOST seats.
HAHAHAHA

>>508680810 (OP)
because it allow the losers of the election to win.
imagine not only support voooooting but also voooooting with this shit.
you should be shot.

>>508683431
Get out of my thread ESL retard

>>508681387
Then don't.

>>508683509
Touched you where it hurts?
just remade your thread, shill.

>>508683969
Those aren't phrases in English, Ranjeet.

The "loser" does not win in any system

>>508680810 (OP)
>Why do conservatives hate ranked choice voting?
Do they though?

>>508684198
https://x.com/search?q=%22ranked%20choice%22&src=typed_query

>>508680810 (OP)
>Are they retarded or just evil?
No but ranked choice voting is just like your mother.

>>508684397
Not an argument

>>508685763
>Not an argument
My reasons don't need to be an argument. Nor was I attempting to make one.

This introduces the possibility of a non Jewish non establishment candidate winning

Deeply anti semetic

>>508681932
But that would be the system working as intended. The democrats votes won't get "thrown away" just cause they voted for third place as their first choice. The idea is that your vote will always matter even if you end up voting for the least popular candidate as your first choice.

FPFP for all its evils, protects us from some deeply undemocratic backroom dealings and a party primary is more likely to produce a change candidate than a series of protest votes in a general election.
Euros would not understand

>>508687192
>FPFP for all its evils, protects us from some deeply undemocratic backroom dealings
No it fucking doesn't

>>508681932
If they're less popular why would they get all the 2nd preference votes?

>>508680810 (OP)
The issue is as follow

Give anon three candidates

One is white, the other is black the third is a woman

If you follow rankings based on first impression will go white cis looking male, female then black depending on your demo will be female first

But oy vey why if the guy is gay or the woman jewish, you can't tell visually

That's why ranked vote bad

You should only be able to vote for one person. This would lead to 100% victories for every elected candidate.

>>508687914
Are you opposed to run-offs?

>>508687702
correct. low info voters parsing the political landscape through an identity politic lens will basically just vote for what feels good over what makes sense, so not a huge change, just tricking more low info voters to turn out and vote for identity over substance which is basically the hallmark of any leftist party. Democracy is a stupid fucking system anyways.

>>508687963
Yeah you don't need those either.

>>508688121
Democracy is the only system that accounts for voter id

We have this in bananil (second round voting) for president. state governors and mayors (for cities with 200k+ citizens).
Doesn't work, just like in burgerland, there is no political solution. You only have a chance for being selected for public office, if you are part of the system.

>>508687963
how about literal run-offs? all the candidates are forced to tackle an obstacle course that includes a reading and writing portion, as well as middle school level math. the top two candidates advance. no more retards, infirm, or uninspired will ever hold office again.

>>508680810 (OP)
If I only want one candidate to win, then either my voting power is weakened by not selecting someone I don’t want to vote for or I vote for someone I don’t want to win. I don’t like that. It is rare to have even one candidate I actually want in office, two is almost unheard of. I don’t want to vote for people I don’t want in office at the cost of disenfranchising myself if I don’t vote for them.

>>508688365
What do you mean it doesn't work

>>508688451
Your voting power is not weakened.

>>508688393
Would be neat.

>>508688474
>Doesn't work, just like in burgerland, there is no political solution. You only have a chance for being selected for public office, if you are part of the system.
What exactly don't you understand from this sentence? Voting doesn't work, fancy voting doesn't work either.

>>508688517
If you only support one candidate it is. Everyone else gets more votes.

>>508688637
Everyone gets the same vote.

>>508688632
Why even bother posting if you're gonna say shit that's this meaningless

>>508688701
No some get second place votes.

>>508680810 (OP)
Because I want to vote for C, not A, nor B.

>>508680810 (OP)
Evil

>>508688701
Retarded burger. Other countries have tried it, France, Brazil, etc. Are their (S)elected leaders what their people want?
Kill yourself, "vote harder" faggot.

See Alaska.

>>508688822
If there's a runoff election, would you say everyone is voting again, or would you say the people whose chosen candidate survived the first round have "less votes"?

>>508684086
is called monotonicity failure, literally issue number 1 in election methods.
you should have demanded for better notes from your handlers, bangladeshi shill.

>>508688969
Lula was all sort of popular natsocs, the ones who never like anything, aplauded him dennouncing the Gaza genocide, sort of what they wanted, they also like being an economical powerhouse on brics, also a Lula achievement

You people ain't me you don't hate him for neutering the south america worker movements or for making brazil the capital of police abuse

>>508689242
What the fuck are you talking about, boric cocksucker? He has a biden level of rejection. Even the latest polls from the mainstream media (who hates the kike cocksucker bolsonaro) show a rejection rate above 50%.
Just like biden, kikes put this unpopular commie criminal into the presidency (all mainstream tv networks are kike owned and the supreme court wanted bolsonaro out). Bananil has no natsocs, and the few who would fall into that category either didn't vote at all or voted for the kike cocksucker. I have never voted in my whole life. Voting is for retards.

>>508689173
I'd say it's an unnecessary extra hurdle for the most popular candidate to have to pass to be elected.

>>508688517
It is weakened if you only vote for one candidate, of course you have the ability to vote for two and not voting for a second is your choice, but that is my point, it forces a choice between weakening your own voting power or voting for someone you don’t want in office in cases in which you only support one candidate.

>>508690706
That's not an answer. The answer is no, everyone has an equal vote.

The "most popular candidate" doesn't matter. Ideas matter. If 2 right-wing candidates each have 30% support, and a left-winger has 40%, the minority wins under your system.

>>508690870
>It is weakened if you only vote for one candidate
It is not.

>>508689994
Lol popularity polls on elected officials you can't legally remove

Why you think that matters at all?

>>508690940
>30>40

>>508691307
60 is more than 40. If 60% of the populace is supporting an ideology, that ideology should be represented in the government. Why should it matter how many candidates or how many parties there are?

>>508691390
You don't get to elect ideologies only candidates.

>>508691469
We do get to vote based on our ideological allegiances. It's called ranked choice voting, and it's better than the retarded dogshit you support.

>>508681387
But that is the point of ranked choice.
If you hate A, tolerate B and like C, then you can vote for C without fucking over B and getting A elected.

>>508691052
Because those polls are fake in favor of the selected criminal, you moron. Even then, they can't fake it out of rejection, just lower his rejection to pretend the nation is "divided".
You are a massive moron if you can't understand any of this, e.g. mainstream media poll for mainstream media loved politician.
Besides, I already knew you were a retarded boric-type of a guy by saying stupíd shit like "brics is *insert retarded drunk criminal here* achievements", kek. He crashed the economy harder than the kike cocksucker (under hoaxvid).
Can't wait for pinochet to come back from the dead and reopen his helicopter riding business.

>>508691798
>allied candidates
>running against each other
>not retarded

>>508692022
You're right, that IS retarded. That's one of the problems that ranked choice solves.

>>508692072
but you said 30 was actually 60

>>508692145
I have no idea what you don't understand. All that matters is what the voters want, not which politicians happen to be running. No one is "allied." But candidates sometimes represent similar platforms, and that shouldn't make it less likely for those ideas to win.

>>508689186
Of course the memeflag ESL hating on anti-kike measures is talking about "bangladeshi" shills. Lmao.

>>508692404
LMAO
It's so on-the-nose it has to be satire

anyone opposed to ranked choice voting should just be fucking shot. it is objectively superior to FPTP voting at achieving democratic outcomes and there are no real arguments against it. whatever shit people make up is just incoherent 'muh feels' nonsense from retards that has no place in designing a political system to achieve outcomes or, worse, just a blatant attempt to literally rig the voting system to produce favourable outcomes.

i am entirely serious. if i had a button on my desk that would kill every single american who did not support ranked choice voting i would press it twice to make sure they were dead.

there is zero argument against it and people who nevertheless attempt to make one are not human.

>>508692366
ok if they're not allied though they won't magically get all their opponent's votes

>>508693488
They will get their votes if they're similar enough, which is the point. We don't have to speculate about this. The spoiler effect is a well documented problem. Don't you think something should be done about it?

>>508680810 (OP)
Because it always helps the left.
In every country the leftist tactic is that they try to appeal to minorities, faggots, socialists, marxisits, liberals, greens, centrists, etc, etc.

If there is only one candidate, it becomes obvious that they cannot possibly satisfy all those conflicting directions. In Europe they solve this problem by having 5 different parties running separately on election to collect all of these votes, and then forming a coalition even though they promise before the elections that they are totally different and aren't interested in teaming up.

Ranked choice massively boosts this idea and now they don't even need a fragile coalition, they can just say sorry chud, you put socialist on the 3rd place and that one became the best compromise.

>>508693630
so it's allied candidates running against each other

>>508693965
I don't know why you keep saying the word allied. Was Ralph Nader allied with Al Gore? What are you talking about? Why should it matter who decides to run? It should only matter what the voters want.

>>508691936
Our economy is exactly like before give it or take a few points, it was going up at the end of last year

Please mind that before pretending we can't do democracy correctly

You know who can't?

People who like Pinochet

>>508680810 (OP)
Wouldn’t this encourage someone to just be the safest, lukewarm candidate possible to get every sides secondary vote rather than actually stand by any belief and risk alienating all secondary picks. Example, Kamala probably would have won this election because there were more people willing to mark her as their second option than mark Trump as the second option to a massive difference.

>>508695551
How is that not already the case? How is FPTP better in that regard? And what would the "safest" candidate actually advocate?

>>508680810 (OP)
only a homosexual would come up with this system

>>508695896
Not an argument

>>508690989
Then you do not possess a sufficient level of cognitive ability to have this conversation, as quite obviously does.

>>508696106
Voting in a run-off for the same person you voted for in the first round does not weaken your vote. You are a retard.

>>508692404
>system to allow losers of elections to win due to shenanigans
>anti-kike

>>508680810 (OP)
Added complexity means added points of vulnerability, plus even more dissuasion for the exhausted and the stupid.

Not to mention the extra administrative weight as there are rarely only three choices.

>>508680810 (OP)
yay so we can get the radical centrists

It's just another way to obfuscate the voting process and make it as opaque as possible so they can do their hijinks

>>508696287
What vulnerability?

>>508696310
There's no subjectivity involved

>>508680810 (OP)
RCV is very popular on the left. I like pointing out to them that any change to the voting process is an outright attack on democracy just to watch them explode.

>>508696350
Willful manipulation, errors, sabotage, shitty tactics, etcetera.

>>508694328
>muh democracy
KEK, retard

>>508697044
FPTP has all the same problems, not an argument

>>508684262
Retard

Isn't this what europoors do and that's how they end up with leaders who got 17% of the popular vote?

>>508693256
>believes voting matters
>calls others retarded
Kill yourself, Chang.

>>508694328
I was also talking about the drunken retard from my country crashing the economy, not yours drunken retard.

>>508680810 (OP)
The only disadvantage of ranked voting is that it has some complexity, as demonstrated by the very posters in this thread who are too dumb to understand what it is and isn't. The general public is even dumber than modern /pol/. It should be a thing though, absolutely.

>>508697365
Maybe 17% of the first place votes. Why does that matter? All that matters is that the will of the people is represented, which ranked choice does better than FPTP.

>>508697569
>Make system complicated to understand
>So it's easy to cheat because few even know what's going on

>>508697887
How would you "cheat"?

>>508680810 (OP)
It seems that vote manipulation backfired big time.

>>508697951
The usual way. "Finding" boxes of votes in broom cupboards at 4am.

>>508698093
What are you talking about?

>>508698125
So the same problem as FPTP? How is that an argument against ranked choice?

>>508698173
Because as I said, it's more complicated to understand, and the main defence against cheating in the vote is watching (and understanding) what they are doing.

>>508680810 (OP)
i think it is you who hate ranked choice voting and you presented this loaded question as a sort of consensus cracking to bait conservatives into hating ranked choice by implying they already do.

>>508697887
It's not complicated, people are just too dumb and civics are not properly taught any more. Any cheating that could happen under ranked voting could also happen under the system we already have. You'd just have dumb shit like sub-100IQ voters thinking they have to select every candidate, or still only voting for one candidate when they actually could have voted for a lower preferred candidate.

>>508698247
1. How is ranked choice complicated to understand?
2. Even if it were complicated, how would that make it more likely for people to "find boxes of votes in broom cupboards at 4am"?

>>508698310
No, I support it. There's a ton of right wingers whining about it online right now

>>508698433
The guy with the most votes does not necessarily win for example.

>>508698538
The candidate with the most votes DOES win. Everyone understands what a run-off is. Ranked choice just simulates multiple runoffs

>>508698643
No. As you can see in the picture in the OP the guy in 3rd gets their votes added to other candidates which means that a guy can get less votes than another guy, but then get a load of "secondary" votes added, that means they can actually win over the guy that got more straight votes.

>>508698136
In reality, few people have a second candidate pick. It's either him or bust. They eliminated that.

>>508698786
There are no "straight votes." Everyone has an equal vote.

>>508680810 (OP)
Just make it simple, make it open so everyone can check the system credibility and make in only for people with private property in the country so they have a motive to improve the country not destroy it

>>508698913
Are you being retarded on purpose?

>>508680810 (OP)
because it keeps getting that cunt in alaska elected

>>508698962
I'm being correct on purpose. The first choice votes aren't the only "real votes." The whole ranking matters. The correct person wins.

>>508699154
Straight as in unprocessed retard. Like a shot of straight whiskey.

>>508699308
I don't give a fuck. Make an actual argument or STFU

>>508699381
I have retard.

>>508698499
in a few days make another thread
>Why do liberals hate ranked choice voting?
>Are they retarded or just evil?
and compare the results to this thread

>>508698962
>asking rhetorical question
He has 40 posts on his own thread to defend a system which can be observed in practice from the many countries implementing it.
Extremely popular and well loved president macron got elected through such a system.

>>508699416
No you haven't. You said ranked choice is more susceptible to fraud because it's "complicated" (it isn't). I asked how it's complicated and you said the person with the most votes doesn't win (they do). Even if we grant your retarded premise that the person with the most votes doesn't win, FPTP allows the same kind of "fraud"

>>508699589
Go back and correct the error you made.

>>508699515
That would be interesting, but "liberals" barely use this board

>>508699622
I didn't make any error

>>508699539
Macron was elected in a regular 2-candidate runoff

>>508680810 (OP)
Anything is better than first past the post, but ranked choice is pretty bad about encouraging strategic voting.
Republics are gay. Sortition is the way.

>>508699742
Ok clearly this bot is too dumb to hold a conversation with.

>>508699742
>Macron was elected in a regular 2-candidate runoff
Retard as usual.
>In the first round Macron finished first with 28% of the vote, followed by Le Pen with 23%, Jean-Luc Mélenchon of La France Insoumise with 22% and Éric Zemmour of Reconquête with 7%. Valérie Pécresse of the Republicans received 5% of the vote and Anne Hidalgo, mayor of Paris and Socialist Party candidate, 2%.
>In the second round, Macron beat Le Pen with 59% of the vote to her 41%, a narrower margin than in the 2017 election.

>>508681059
This. Americans are dumb and obfuscating voting behind anything more than 1:1 vote parity would cause riots.

>>508699798
Not an argument. I win.

>>508699976
That's what I fucking said you moron

>>508700067
Note to the developer: Your bot lacks the capacity to remember its own posts. You can reference things it said in the past but it treats it all like a new session. Like talking to a goldfish.

>>508700067
>That's what I fucking said you moron
No, it's not, you kike. A second round involves choosing from the two winning candidates of the first round, which means, people who didn't vote for them are now voting for their "plan B" candidate. How is this any different from your shitty screenshot from OP?

>>508680810 (OP)
>Let's create another opaque and manipulatable system to slime our way in to via endless tweaks and interpretation
Get fucked nigger. Start a new party if the demoshits are communist enough for you, faggot

>>508700348
That's what a fucking runoff is, ESL retard

>>508700256
Why do you keep embarrassing yourself, no ones reading this thread, no one will notice that you lost

>>508699634
you`re missing the point
if you tell conservatives that liberals hate something you`ll get more positive responses in favour of that thing

of course it goes both ways. if you tell liberals that conservatives love ranked ballots they`ll say they hate them, but you`d have to go elsewhere to test that

>>508700521
Bug report: The system crashed under load.

>>508681059
This. Australia has this almighty voting system, youre even forced to vote. Yet all that gets elected is incompetent pondslime or clearcut traitors.
The only solution to democracy is weighting a citizens vote to their value. You cant expect a handyman to do heart surgery, so why let them vote on strongly impactful things? Not to mention the time people spend considering who to vote for is the 20 seconds reading the list of names on the ballot.

>>508700521
Tell me then, how it's any different than your screenshot? Everyone who voted in the previous round is allowed to vote again, so you don't even understand the shit you are preaching for.
It's literally the same system, but implemented differently (one has a second round, while the other takes the votes from a preference list).
Kill yourself, leftard.

>>508691799
Most people don’t spend that much time considering their choice. The majoirity are (logically) disinterested in voting so know nothing about A or B. Look at australia to see the problem.

>>508680810 (OP)
why bother with all this crap? i fucking hate it when we do this in europe, it's complete and total fucking bullshit. just fucking accept life, dude. vote for some cunt and then accept whoever ends up winning, jesus fucking christ......... fuckers out there eternally trying to reinvent the wheel, man, just frigging leave it alone and accept it for what it is, dude...

>>508700972
I didn't say it was different and I didn't say it was the same. You're the one who brought it up. But ranked choice happens instantly and doesnt necessarily come down to 2 candidates

>>508687591
Because people dont spend the time to find how much they like every party in the race.
They check “party i want” first, “party i hate” last, and every other party in random order.

Democracy doesn’t work. Everyone can vote, but their votes must not be equal.

>>508688121
Bang on.

>>508680810 (OP)
Why do liberals insist on a group of people not having the representation they want or need, and instead having a cockgobbling troon there blocking everything for the sake of representation of a fag, a chimo and a troon that live in that community? Coalition governments only exist so 0.001% of the population can overrule 99.999% of the population by over-representing them by orders of magnatude.

This is why even though the vast majority of Europeans want and end to immigration, they can't get it because the shitskin minority are vastly over-represented. Jews prefer this system because it will allow them to lock us into a cycle of decay that can't be stopped or even paused for a term or two.

>>508680810 (OP)
Seems needlessly complicated. Why not ditch this NFL inspired wild-card bs and just select the person with the most votes instead?

>Ranked choice
Controlled opposition meant to keep DNC shills in power and money flowing to voting system companies.

Approval Voting is the right system. No runoffs, already used across the US, dead simple.

>>508701173
Maybe because second round is the way it's implemented everywhere that implements such a system.
Yeah, mutts only consider blue kike and red kike, they are really going to consider a second independent option when staying in line to vote, kek. At least second round gives it enough attention and time for people to pick the ones that are available.
Either way, you are a kike or a shabbo's goy. Anyone with two functioning brain cells know "democracy" doesn't exist (or work). Your "right to vote" is also fake and gay, just like this thread. Name me one fucking leader elected through this system that is popular and loved.

>>508680810 (OP)
Ranked choice is really easy to co-opt and is worse than our current system. The correct voting system is 2 round plurality, but literally nobody pushes for it here.

>>508691799
Not true. A vote for A can fuck over B, or a vote for B can fuck over A, contrary to your ranking, because the runoff system is retarded. Approval Voting is the solution.

>>508701400
>tf
>tp
Why does anyone even listen to Brits at this point?

>>508680810 (OP)
One man
One vote

Ranked choice is anti democratic.

>>508702111
You wont be soon cuz ofcoms gonna shut us down

>>508681333
>going from 2% of the vote to 2.1% of the vote
Yeah they're gonna knock it out of the park any day now

>>508701723
How about you try engaging your brain for a second?
1. What problem do you think we're trying to solve right now?
2. Why is RCV the favored solution here?

>>508680810 (OP)
>why don't you want us degenerate reactionary beasts to be able to cheat more?
I will shit in the mouth of your corpse before dismembering it and feeding it to swine.

>>508680810 (OP)
>Deploy ranked choice voting
>Vast majoriy of Americans choose no contest for second & third choice
There is no way in hell I'm choosing a democrat as a second or third choice, if I can't choose "no contest" or write myself in, then it's time to start to leave voting behind en masse and ready for civil war.

>>508702508
The only solution rc solves is destroying single party control.
That is why no Democrat trifecta State allows it in the general.

>>508680810 (OP)
They don't though. Most of the support for this system I see comes from "the right". Lib/left/etc usually favor proportional representation combined with progressive-stack based biases as the solution to the two party system.

>>508681387
That's the point. Under the American system a vote for C is a wasted vote, so everyone is forced to vote for A or B, whichever is the lesser evil. Under ranked choice you can always pick C without needing to worry about what happens if C loses, since if C loses you still a say in which of the other parties is the lesser evil.
>>508683294
That's the point though. Under the current system you can't vote for a libertarian or nationalist or whatever party because it just hands victory to democrats. With ranked choice you can say
>give me libertarian
>but if they lose and it comes down to republican vs democrat, then give me republican
>give me nationalism
>but if they lose and it comes down to republican vs democrat, then give me republican
etc so you can now safely vote for these 3rd parties without giving democrats a free win. Ranked choice benefits the side with the greater range of beliefs/positions/etc.

>>508702183
>the tard slogan
lol

>>508689186
If a poo shits in the woods and a cow isn’t around eat it. Did the poo really shit?

>>508681143
>NYC supports a poo
LMAO

>>508701051
You sound retarded

>>508701400
You don't have to

>>508701723
>just select the person with the most votes instead?
Because an individual PERSON doesn't matter, the will of the people does, elections shouldn't be determined by the whims of politicians

>>508701551
Jews prefer FPTP, ranked choice just nominated Mamdani in NYC who hates Israel

>>508701851
Approval voting would definitely be better than FPTP but I don't understand how RC is "controlled opposition"

>>508702087
>Ranked choice is really easy to co-opt
How?

>>508702026
It seems like you're just a retard who wants to be ruled by a dictator

>>508702183
Everyone has an equal vote in ranked choice

In your system, people who don't support the 2 main ZOG parties essentially have zero votes

>>508702366
Huh? What are you referring to? Mamdani wouldn't have been nominated without it

>>508702707
If we used ranked choice for all elections you'd see new parties arise, some of which would represent your beliefs

>>508700012
Why should the minority get to steal my vote? One man, one vote, or we kill you and restore one man, one vote.

>>508702183
>One vote
Come on. Use your brain. You can do this.

>>508702707
Yes, we get it, you're loyal to the party of Israel and le based tranny pedos. Quit trying to act tough, you whiny little faggot.

>>508702753
Simple ideas work better than your Wikipedia entries.

Don't forget " If you are explaining you are losing"

So take your antidemocratic bullshit and shove it up your commie ass.

>>508703017
No one's stealing your vote, retard. Why do you love the 2 main Zogged parties so much, kike?

>>508703026
What could be simpler than ranking things from best to worst? Are you literally fucking retarded?

>Don't forget " If you are explaining you are losing"
No one has ever said that lol

>>508702914
> Every vote is equal.
Not true. If my candidate did not get past the first round I get a new vote.
If my candidate does make it past the first round I do not get a new vote.
For rc to be fair the candidates that moves on their voters should be able to vote against another candidate to keep the voting fair.

No one would accept that so it is best if this u democratic system is shitcanned.

>>508703023
Your scenario has you voting for everyone. That isn't one vote.

It is anti democratic nonsense.

>>508700348
What if the vast majority of Americans don't have or want a plan B? We don't choose a plan B, it's all or nothing. I'm saying that I'm refusing to choose evil, no matter what you do to disqualify a candidate and disperse their votes.

>>508703026
lol, just lol.

>>508703414
No one gets a new vote. Everyone ranks the candidates before the votes are counted and they're all treated equally. If you candidate makes it past the first round, why would you want to switch your vote? What are you talking about?

>>508703236
What is simpler than ranking every jackals that got on the ballot?
Just picking the candidate you want to win leaps to mind.

Keep trying to convince people your retarded idea makes sense commie.

>>508703580
>Your scenario has you voting for everyone. That isn't one vote.
Like I said, you can do this. Figure it out.

>>508703781
So ranking things is too complicated for you? How are you able to use a computer if you're this retarded? Or do you have a handler typing these posts for you?

>>508680810 (OP)
Because the GOP only survives because people hate the Democrats more. Give them a third option and the GOP leaders will get kicked out overnight.

Pretty sure this is also true for the Dems but maybe not to the same degree.

>>508703236
> what could be simpler
Approval Voting: give each candidate thumbs up or thumbs down. Fuck ranking, it's bullshit and just used to bury moderate candidates like what happened in Alaska.

>>508681333
>Ranked choice eliminates a two-party stranglehold
No it doesn’t.

The two party system is a result of first past the post, single winner elections. This is called Duverger’s Law l, if you want to look it up.

If we want to eliminate the two party system, you need to have multiple winner elections. The US isn’t setup for that, as each voting district has a single congressman, each state elects one senator at a time (generally), there’s one mayor, one governor, and so on.

Ideally the size of congress would be increased four times its current size. Right now we have the least representative parliamentary system on the planet, with our population having grown 4x’s its size since the number of congressman was locked in 1917. The Senate should grow to 8 per state.

During elections, each district would have four winners rather than one. The same goes for the Senate. It’s a simll ppl I died system that doesn’t rely on party politics (like the trash European systems) and breaks from the two party system (like the trash American system).

It’s still trash, but a vast improvement over what we’ve got.

>>508703780
If your candidate didn't make it past the first round do you get to make a second choice?
Does the person who did get the first round get a second choice or are they only allowed one choice to the other voters two?
That does not seem fair. Almost anti democratic. Why should losing give you more say?

>>508697556
I will sober up when people stop dying in the middle east so is the cost of peace

>>508703960
>it's bullshit and just used to bury moderate candidates like what happened in Alaska
Not what happened. It actually has the opposite effect, where it's much harder for nutjobs and kooks to get in office.

>>508704060
Ranked choice gets rid of first past the post

>>508704068
Everyone is given an equal choice. Your choice would remain the same if your candidate survives the previous round.

>>508703860
One is an actual word with an actual definition.
I suggest you look it up before you keep using it.

>>508704166
No it doesn’t.

>>508680810 (OP)
How about if nobody hits 51% of the vote the office simply sits vacant. And when I say 51%, I mean 51% of the eligible vote... not registered... eligible. That makes every non-vote a vote and keeps these 25% of the popular vote fucktards out of office.

... and saves money.

>>508704234
Yes it does, that's the point of the system.

>>508703874
Your poor understanding of the arguments I made is not my problem.
You sound like a victim of the public education system.
Good luck with that.

>>508704234
Lol. How do you know phrases like Duverger's law but you don't understand what FPTP and RC are?

>>508703717
You don't vote? Crazy idea huh, burger.
My shitty country makes it illegal not to vote but I haven't voted my whole life. Fuck this clown show.
The point proposed by this nigger thread is basically second round voting, which has been implemented in other countries and those countries still (S)elect kike candidates.

>>508704261
t. 13 year old

>>508680810 (OP)
>REEE abolish electoral college & voter ID laws and anything else that doesn't help my side win!
Please understand your urgent need to kys.
Enjoy 3.5 more years of the greatest presidency that mogs your senile puppet, cultist faggot!

>>508680810 (OP)
it would allow the creation of more parties in the US, and the jews would never allow that.

>>508704297
Mother fucker, you hadn’t heard of Duverger’s Law until I posted. Get the fuck out.

This meme bullshit you posted doesn’t break from the single winner system. It won’t solve anything.

>>508704176
My single choice to others multiple choices.
Why does losing give you more say?
You haven't explained that yet. It is antidemocratic at its core.

>>508704378
I'm not left-wing you retard, I mostly support Trump but I hate ZOG. But every person I see who opposes any alternative to FPTP is a basic bitch conservative

>>508704139
What happened is a candidate that was overwhelmingly favored by both parties got pushed out because political extremes had to rank "their guy" #1 to avoid losing to "the other guy". A third candidate who would have, as the votes were cast, beaten the dem and rep candidates in 1 vs 1 elections, was kicked out in round 1 because ranked choice is controlled opposition.

>>508704261
Why not just say whoever got the most votes is the winner?
Why is 50% a consideration?

>>508704468
>Mother fucker, you hadn’t heard of Duverger’s Law until I posted. Get the fuck out.
Yes I fucking have, but you don't understand that FPTP and RC are mutually exclusive

>>508704523
>I'm not left-wing you retard
>I mostly support Trump
Pick one, you retarded faggot.

>>508704593
Nah, you really haven’t. If you had, you’d understand that getting rid of single winner elections is at the core of the problem. How we elect officials is a minor part of it. RC doesn’t solve the fact that there’s a single Rep for your district, therefore it doesn’t effect the two party system.

>>508704589
Plurality is important if you want to claim democratic values. You can't claim to be supported by the majority, when you're not.
>>508704355
t. government welfare whore.
go ahead, post the W2

Everyone seething about FPTP fails to realize that their issue isn’t actually with the voting system, ranked choice will still give them sub optimal compromise candidates that they don’t fully agree with. The issue is with the allocation of power, specifically with the federal government holding too much power over intrastate policy. The country is too big has too many competing interests to elect someone who feels satisfactory on the federal level. You’re always going to feel cheated. The federal government needs to be reigned in and allow states to work as autonomous units as initially designed. The 17th amendment needs to be repealed while we’re at it.

>>508704740
>How we elect officials is a minor part of it.
Kys and stop posting retarded dogshit in my thread

>>508704740
You got proven wrong on that point already. 2 party system arises because you need to be strategic with your votes, you can't vote who you want to win because when you do that with first past the post you get what you hate the most. When you don't use first past the post this problem goes away.

>>508704758
>Everyone seething about FPTP fails to realize that their issue isn’t actually with the voting system
The issue is with the number of parties and the diversity of their offerings. That was a blatant sidetracking attempt.

>>508680810 (OP)
Representative democracy is just dictatorship. The average Western Democracy is as "democratic" as North Korea. The only difference you get more fake choices.
The only form of form of acceptable democracy is direct local democracy with an open ballot.

>>508681791
They get pluralities and have to form coalitions. Honestly might be better if we can avoid banning parties like Europe’s does

I propose approval system with grades 1 to 10.

>>508680810 (OP)
it allows urban populations (browns and jews) to control states voting. white people would be foolish to not take issue with it.

>>508705086
There's no reason to give any candidate a rating that's not either the highest or the lowest

>>508705161
Our voting is already controlled by jews, ending FPTP would break their stranglehold

>>508701003
man this is the laziest rebuttal I've ever seen. kys

>>508705236
california has the system you claim will save everyone. it is a shithole

>>508705236
I really like A but B is the same, so I give A a check or a 10 (functionally the same) and give B a 9. C gets no vote counts from me or evaluation.
If I give 1 to the ones I hate that's a vote.

I have to think more about the evaluation scale if it's truly that useful.

>>508704918
The perceived lack of diversity is just a natural regression to the mean. RC and FPTP will both choose maximally popular candidate which will be maximally average. The greater the diversity, the more that candidate feels like a sellout because they don’t directly map to an i individuals’ desired policies but rather they map to the aggregate desired policy.

>>508705327
California does not use ranked choice voting.

>>508704742
> In order to be democratic you have to be antidemocratic.

Were your parents related by blood?
Did you eat paint chips as a child?
I am just trying to figure out how someone could post something that retarded.

>>508704569
>a candidate that was overwhelmingly favored by both parties
wrong.

Republicans being knuckle-dragging retards is not an indication that the system is, in any way, bad. Clearly Peltola was more preferred than the dogshit the republicans were trying to run.

>>508705426
No democratic trifecta State allows rc in the general. They don't want to lose control of the State.

>>508705407
>The perceived lack of diversity is just a natural regression to the mean
This isn't natural at all. 2 party system is a distinct feature of first past the post and doesn't exists in systems that don't use that. This doesn't really hold up under even basic scrutiny, why do you think it's "natural" that the same 2 parties would best represent the "average voter" in a coastal urban state and central rural state for instance. It's highly unnatural that farmers and urbanites magically regress to the same mean and that doesn't actually happen anywhere with more than 2 parties.

>>508705426
my mistake then, i was told otherwise. who does use it then?

>>508705559
Why did she only get 15% in the first round?

>>508704472
Dude, are you retarded? Just look up a video on how this actually works since you have the reading comprehension of a gerbil.

>>508705749
So you're admitting FPTP keeps the Democrats in power. So why do you support it?

>>508704523
>Please believe I'm on your side while arguing for the other side's policies
kys larper

>>508705783
Alaska because Murkowski needed it to win so her family pushed it through.
They are currently taking the steps to repeal that law.

>>508705766
You’re just playing a shell game with individual candidates belonging to two parties and many parties belonging to a majority and minority coalition. It’s the same result at the end of the day.

>>508705922
If I was trying to trick people like that, I wouldn't have blamed it on "conservatives" in the OP

>>508705893
I know exactly how it works. That is why I am so opposed to it.
It is anti democratic to its core.

>>508706016
But that's just not true.

>>508704913
>proven wrong
Just saying “you’re wrong” isn’t proving anything.

Ffs just google “Duverger’s Law.” God damn.

>>508705901
It gives the people the power to choose who they want to represent them.
Not make a bunch of choices and we will tell you who won someday.

>>508680810 (OP)
Ranked-choice voting is not Condorcet perfect.
Consider the current meta of spite voting, and you end up with people lying about their voter preferences in ranked-choice.

>>508706024
You blamed it on conservatives because you are a leftist. It's pretty painfully obvious.

>>508706234
Alright so you're just literally retarded lol

>>508705407
>RC and FPTP will both choose maximally popular candidate which will be maximally average.
Our recent general election with partied primaries has absolutely not done that.
Overly simplistic worldview and I'm not even sure if you believe your bullshit.

>>508706224
Duverger's law doesn't apply when you stop using first past the post system

>>508680810 (OP)
Cause I didn't vote for a or b faggot.

>>508705835
Doesn't matter. Clearly most people wanted *anything* but that retarded cunt palin--and they got what they wanted. Your question should be, "why didn't all these voters rank palin as their second choice?" It's almost like she's not actually popular or wanted, huh?

>>508706327
I accept your surrender.
Rc is an antidemocratic scheme meant to break single party control of a State.
Once CA, IL, and every North East State imements I will consider it for actual American States.
Until then keep your commie bullshit to yourself.

>>508706331
This is a perceptual issue on your end. You’re not the aggregate. You’re quite literally always going to feel cheated because compromise (i.e. what you perceive as lack of diversity) is always necessary. Ironically, you’re the simple minded one that thinks there’s a silver bullet solution to an intractable problem.

>>508706452
Your argument seems to be the person with the most votes shouldn't win.
That is un-American.

>>508706737
They did get the most votes though, and people got what they wanted. :)

>>508706737
Your argument seems to be that the number of candidates should determine which ideology is represented in the government which is fucking retarded

If there are 2 rightwing candidates each with 30% support and 1 leftwing person with 40% the majority will lose under your system

>>508706909
Palin got the most votes in the first vote.
> That is why we need more rounds of voting.
You are retarded.

>>508704060
>The Senate should grow to 8 per state.
NO. We should go back to the original system instead of this corpro-government we have now. The Senate represents the States and their interests, the Representative represent the people.
Anyway, any election system will be incumbent heavy without term limits. Also ranked choice is stupid, proper elections would be run-off.
>The two party system is a result of first past the post, single winner elections.
no, there are plenty of parties in europe but it is just human nature to devolve to coalitions of Us vs Them

Republicans and Democrats would never support this. It would erode both their power bases and make the US a better place.

>>508706722
I don't perceive "others disagreeing" as the issue here. God, are you ever honest?

>>508707045
Oops meant for>>508706909

>>508706452
More people (+5%) wanted Begich than Peltola. More people (+25%) wanted Begich than Palin. Why didn't Begich win? Why was Begich elliminated, leading to a runoff that was identical to FPTP, when Begich was more popular than both other candidates?

Ranked Choice is controlled opposition, giving people a complicated mind game messy system that CHANGES NOTHING. It is the most Jewish of all voting systems.

>>508707045
If Pelota had 40% she would have won the first round.
Palin got the most votes in the first round.

Ranked choice voting has led to a coalition in Ireland between centre right and right that has lasted decades.

Open door immigration. Rising asset prices. Inflation, Growing GDP.

Some would call it a success. Maybe it is.

>>508707338
Your post isn't relevant to what I said.

>>508707052
This would be ideal but it would mean a permanent near veto proof Republican Senate. You need to amend the Constitution so the democrats will be able to stop it. For now anyway.

>>508681059
>Math is hard, so it's wrong!
I love murica

>>508707051
>Palin got the most votes in the first vote.
>~26% is bigger than ~49%
Wow, tell me more! :^)

>>508707721
What did Pelota get?
Do you begin to see the flaw of rc. A person nobody wanted who ends up winning is a sign of failure not success.

>>508681791
>"Oh, I'd like if my third party candidate wins but i guess my next choice is this big party person"
>Third party candidate eliminated
>You just voted for the big party person
The only way a third party person wins is if a multitude of people front load their choices with the third party candidates so that the last one standing gets the snowball of second choices (assuming it goes that many rounds without a major party candidate already taking the majority), which is unrealistic since the platform for the libertarians is drastically different from greens. There probably aren't that many outright contrarians and too many people look at politics as sports entertainment and want "their team" to win for them to consider other candidates

>>508705245
nice projection

>>508707967
The point is that these wouldn't be third parties, retard. People would just vote for whoever they support. What the fuck do you not understand

>>508680810 (OP)
Ranked choice voting is
>30% liberal tranny
And
>29% liberal gay
Facing
>41% normal people
Want to win yet refuse to cope by just voting 30% liberal tranny because i am 18 and my ideology is matter, so we add another step and vote two more but the point is we will ended up with 59% anyway and i got to lecture 41% normal people how it is better than just voting for 30% tranny in the first place

>>508707967
Having more than 2 parties is the normal across the world, do you honestly believe americans are so uniquely stupid that they only want 2 parties? If you vote for a memer and then your memer looses and then your 2nd choice big party person wins then that's the system working correctly. And if it so happens that enough memers vote for a memer then the memer is no longer a memer and he wins and that's also the system working correctly.
With first past the post you voting a memer is a direct vote for the other big team because that's -1 vote from your teams big party.

>>508708179
Oh, sorry, "alternative candidates"
That's significantly different than random parties without any kind of existing coalition in government positions. My apologies
In that case, it definitely still wouldn't come down to whomever can get the most media attention and name recognition winning

>>508707912
Pelota got 48.77% in the first round, then 54.96% after the second. Palin got a measly 25.74% in the first round.

>A person nobody wanted who ends up winning is a sign of failure not success
>noooooo!!! the dumb cunt that people definitely didn't want should have won!!!! T_T

>>508708384
I have no fucking idea what you're talking about lol

>>508708483
>In that case, it definitely still wouldn't come down to whomever can get the most media attention and name recognition winning
Does FPTP have that problem?

>>508680810 (OP)
Because our system works fine. We have Trump afterall TWO TIMES because conservatives unified under one banner. The left needs tiers because they have a lot of extremist who plague the votes. 99% of the right just love America, which is an easy win when you're against people who are literally against the very founding principles isn't it? Having an actual primary helps too when picking the most favored candidate instead of having the former president shoe in his VP pick. People like choice and the democrats didn't give anyone that freedom, so they lost. Get over it.

>>508702914
>Literally avoid the point where 0.03% gets representation like they are 20%
Nice try, kike. One man, one vote.

>>508680810 (OP)
They can’t properly count the votes now. How the fuck is this going to help?

What it will do is better hide over-votes so that democrats can just print ore-marked ballots and drop them in. Like they do now but with better ability to hide it.

>>508703025
>le tranny pedos
I'm not a democrat. Bot's broken.

>>508708440
>Having more than 2 parties is the normal across the world, do you honestly believe americans are so uniquely stupid that they only want 2 parties?
Yes. That and the structure is so firmly entrenched after over a century of tradition compounded by media reinforcement that to weed it out would be a multi-generational effort.
Not to mention the attitude of Americans desperately wanting to be right to knock their opponents over the head with it.
>>508708570
Media focuses on perceived frontrunners. Our campaign finance system is also broken to all hell crowding out smaller candidates.
Electoral reform here needs to be broadly systemically addressed. A single change won't significantly change the system but would be leveraged in messaging to say "we fixed it, yay" to drown out dissent

>>508703167
If I didn't vote for your kike pokitician, my vote going to said kike politician in the runoff is theft. There is no reason to vote in a system that will hand your vote to an AIDS infected tranny chimo if your choice loses. If this is the best democracy can do, then I want a balls out dictator that kills his enemies.

>>508680810 (OP)
Show tits woman. You know the rules girl

>>508707630
Midwit take. See >>508700787
The problem isn't that you're not voting hard enough, it's that your vote doesn't count at all and your leaders would be fool to let it.

>>508708502
Pelota got 40%.
The Republicans got 60%
Are you beginning to see the flaw?
The vast majority of the State wanted a Republican.

Murkowski knew she couldn't win if it was a straight up fight. The Murkowski's are a political dynasty in AK so they forced through 2 things to insure they could cook the books.
A Jungle election with no primaries and ranked choice.

That whole debacle shows it is an unreliable and undemocratic system.

>>508706369
>didn’t even look it up
Ok then

>>508709155
You don't HAVE to vote for anyone else except for the one party of your choice. Ranked voting gives the option of not wasting your vote for libertarians.

>>508703023
>The guy you cast your vote for lost, so we're giving it to the guy you hate
Most mafioso system I've ever seen. How about no, my vote gets thrown away on a losing proposition... but no I have to vote again because some whiny shitskins want to appropriate the first losers votes. Kill you, theif.

>>508709622
If you don't fill out the ballot entirely they throw it out.
If you put the person you are voting for in all slots they throw it out.
If you leave off the name of people from the party you don't want they throw it out.

The best part is you vote and a month or so later they tell you who won.

>>508709468
The fuck elections are you talking about?

>The vast majority of the State wanted a Republican.
Plainly and evidently not, otherwise they'd have won. Buuuuuuut she didn't and over 25% of the people who voted for begich either had their 2nd choice as Peltola or no 2nd choice. It's almost like being a republican doesn't mean candidates are perfectly interchangeable and the dumb cunt got btfo by the electorate :^)

>>508704523
How about you propose a system that doesn't steal votes from people who voted for the loser in the first round, or make people choose a plan b/c. Election day is gay anyway, wtf do I want a second one?

>>508681791
It's not a vote for the best candidate, its a race to the bottom for the least objectionable candidate. People should be forced to support a political candidate they stand behind or nobody at all. Let's say I'm doing a ranked choice vote in a republican primary and I think that abortion is murder. There might be one candidate that agrees with that stance and in this hypothetical situation I'd vote for them. My opinion might also be that I'd give my support to that candidate and nobody else, because I cannot support a political candidate who believes in abortion (this could be for a person's religious reasons). Now, in order to even cast a ballot you have to give your tacit approval for candidates with whom you don't agree in the slightest bit. It's not just a moral quandary for people, if you truly hate the candidates and think that none of them represent you, it's less likely that you will stand up and do something about it in a system where you have to give approval to other candidates. It's just a way to give a greater appearance of legitimacy to someone who is an unpopular candidate.

>>508709940
>If you don't fill out the ballot entirely they throw it out.
Wrong.

>If you put the person you are voting for in all slots they throw it out.
Like, inappropriately? Yeah, if you can't figure out how to fill out a ballot, it should be thrown in the garbage and you should be banned from voting due to cognitive incompetence.

>If you leave off the name of people from the party you don't want they throw it out.
What the fuck are you talking about? It's a pre-populated ballot. Unless you're doing a write-in, you don't 'fill in' anyone's name.

>a month or so later they tell you who won.
This is a choice, pushed for and supported by retards and luddites. See: Alabama--you can only vote there on election day which creates a massive arbitrary bottleneck of multi-hour lines. This is a choice, not a requirement.

>>508680810 (OP)
You do not fucking want this

>>508711574
>in order to even cast a ballot you have to give your tacit approval for candidates
Nope.

Your whole point just collapses in on itself after that.

>>508680810 (OP)
>be me
>be a supporter of a guy from a party that won't win
>normally I don't bother voting or vote for my guy knowing he has no chance
>now when my guy doesn't make it my vote goes to the guy I didn't want
This is just more manipulation that benefits the left

>>508712116
Sounds like you should have just not voted voted for a second round pick, huh? :^)

>>508687192
>FPFP for all its evils, protects us from some deeply undemocratic backroom dealings
It increases them you stupid retard
>be me
>politician in state x
>show I am neck and neck with another candidate
>ask a 3rd candidate whose values are similiar to mine but has a niche supporter base to run
>those people who would never have voted vote for their guy that will never win and put you next since you are similiar to him
>you now won something you could have easily lost

>>508681143
i don't care what foreigners and transplants who showed up 5 minutes ago want, you're going to find that out very soon.

>>508680810 (OP)
too many options

literally just too retarded to understand 1 extra step to the process

>>508712296
Many won't but many will. It's all potential gain and 0 loss or risk. It's a numbers game If 100 extra people vote and 50 of their second choice is you, you just earned 50 votes you never should have gotten. How are some of you this retarded not to understand this? This will create more corruption and manipulation.

>>508680810 (OP)
This is uneccessary complication of voting procedures in order to turn libertarian votes into democratic ones. Its' clear the intentions for this are fraud

>>508702914
>>In your system, people who don't support the 2 main ZOG parties essentially have zero votes
Which would be exacerbated under this system because people voting for a 3rd candidate literally give their votes away to the democrats, whereas now they only symbolically do it

>>508709555
It's in the first line of it's wikipedia article bucko

>>508705236
Getting rid of fptp will only intensify the jewish hold on America, as your proposed system is deployed in Europe and Europe is dying of terminal kike infection.

>>508713204
>Getting rid of fptp will only intensify the jewish hold on America
>Jews can now manipulate elections even harder by propping up candidates that can never win to get their votes to the guy they want to win
Some of you are ridiculously retarded on this site it's depressing

>>508712775
>implying candidates aren't currently getting votes they never should be getting because most people vote strategically--I.e., not for their ideal candidate, but for the candidate they think has a shot at winning

>This will create more corruption and manipulation.
The opposite. It accounts not only for what people definitely do want, but also what people definitely don't want.

>>508713572
You need to be 18 to post here child.

>>508713726
Everything he said was right.

>>508713572
>>implying candidates aren't currently getting votes they never should be getting because most people vote strategically--I.e., not for their ideal candidate, but for the candidate they think has a shot at winning
This will continue to happen + what I said you stupid low IQ retard. Bernie is a good example of this. He has a large supporter base that would never vote another Democrat but if given the choice of a second option many would put another candidate especially if the DNC takes the guy they want and makes him adopt a lot of Bernie's views. This was always Bernie's objective, to take far left voters and funnel them into a Democrat candidate and now it's that much easier to do it. Jesus Christ you are dumb

>>508713572
>>508713797
Samefag. Show tits woman. You know the rules girl

>>508713929
Is there a point you're trying to make, simian? Each party handles their own primary process, which has nothing to do with RCV in the general election.

>>508713038
>>508713038
You’re unable to make inference. You literally need the article to state something that you should be able to figure out.

RC still has a single winner. The second paragraph of the article you’re too dumb to understand states that proportional representation is the answer, ergo single winner elections are the problem.

It doesn’t matter how the voting system works if there’s only winner.