The problem with ranked choice voting, and even approval voting:

[SaveTheMackerel]

First, I'm a fan of voters having more choices. But I distrust computerized counters.

The appeal of ranked choice voting is that people can rank the candidates, and that if their 1st choice does not win, maybe their 2nd choice will, so that they can express their true preference instead of trust the media about who is viable.


All ranked choice voting takes much longer to count. If we have as much vote counting fraud as we do no with just single vote, how much more fraud would be possible with IRV?

With Condorcet, a 5 person race has 5+4+3+2+1 = 15 head to head runoffs. It is susceptible to burying, which could lead to an A beats B beats C beats A cycle.

With Instant Runoff, if your 1st choice does is eliminated your vote does not necessarily go to your 2nd choice, since your 2nd choice may have been eliminated first.

Approval voting seems simpler, but even it has strategic voting that can anger all sides except the lucky winners. 5 candidates also means 5x as many votes to count. I think it is better than single vote, for a 1 round race, but not by a lot, and maybe not enough to justify the extra counting. Most proponents of Approval voting want a box next to each name, which you can check or leave blank. What if the counter then checks extra boxes? The ballot would not look spoiled.

[SaveTheMackerel]

1. I have another solution:

4 candidates go on the general ballot.
Every voter can vote 1 vote for any of them.
The top 2 go to the second round of the general ballot.
Minimal or no vote splitting.

How do we get 4?
One way is the 4 that get the most signatures, or the 4 that pay the highest fees. I prefer the 4 who get the most people to donate $5 each.
This way, anyone can run, unless the race is already very competitive. There should be no minimum number.

Since there are 2 general races, we drop the public primaries to save time and money. Instead, we let parties and independent voters hold their own private convention.
Then, we don't let parties just put someone on the ballot. All candidates must compete to be in the 4 that get the most signatures or most $5 donors, whatever the standard is.
If someone can't get into the top 4 on their own, they drop out and team up with a similar candidate.

I have other simple fraud prevention if you are worried about that. How do you like the basic idea?

[eniwetok]

2. how do we get the Democratic Party to agree...

As I wrote elsewhere in the current, rather antiquated electoral and political systems, as a progressive I can vote forever and never get full representation for my beliefs... and I'm rather lucky to live in MA with Liz Warren and Ed Markey as my senators.

But any citizen has more than one or two realms of interest. For instance both of my Senators pretty much mirror my social interests in extending civil rights. Both are economic liberals who oppose free trade and want regulation on corporations. But neither really supports my political interests... that is for finally making our state and federal systems truly democratic.

Liberal Dems need a 50 year plan to finally bring proportional representation to the US. But the dynamics of our dysfunctional single member district, first past the post electoral and political systems keep dragging everyone back into a two party system where the parties steal issues and dance around each other. Example... once the GOP was the party of fiscal "responsibility" until Reagan bought into Starve The beast. Clinton broke out of the debt trap and got us to a surplus only to have the GOP try and sabotage it at every turn. During the 2000 election Dems were for preserving that surplus. Come 2013 Obama decides to keep most of those irresponsible Bush tax cuts... and Dems cheer because he restores the top rate.

Perhaps in a true multiparty system parties could hold on to principles more than in our system.

[LiberalFighter]

3. I don't support ranked choice.

You vote for the person you support and let it go at that.

[clarkkentvotes]

4. approval voting . . .

seems the most efficient so far and most able to be transitioned to - CA and WA already have the top 2, with as many in the primary -

It think people should need equal amount of signatures to be on the ballot - and if they get on then they get in public debates - we need a public election channel who moderates debates and does it equally and fairly and also has a None of the above option -

maybe more initiative referendums for issues too -