The New York Times editorial board strongly recommends that states use ranked choice voting for presidential primaries. See their editorial here. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
Ballot Access News
Edited By Richard Winger
The New York Times editorial board strongly recommends that states use ranked choice voting for presidential primaries. See their editorial here. Thanks to Rob Richie for the link.
Great editorial.
Or better yet just get rid of primaries and let these non-governmental private entity political parties pick their candidates using their own money and not my independent voter tax payer money.
Cool. But, why not for the final election as well?
Brad and Walter are both correct.
NOOO primaries.
ONE election day.
EQUAL nom pets.
Condorcet – RCV done right.
FairVote is responsible for implementing one-party system in SF, Oakland, Maine and many other places so they should go into their work of the past 25 years before they are ever accepted as a legitimate source for election reform.
FairVote must gp back an remove their one-party system in all the places using RCV in single-winner election districts where FairVote help implement that bogus one-party system.
They are doing good work, I hope they keep it up.
Ed Ng is incorrect. FairVote brought the roadblock to democracy because when only the biggest can win under ranked choice voting (RCV) in single-winner election districts that’s a blockade to all others.
At least in plurality voting there are wins by the 2nd biggest faction/party because when too many good candidates from the one biggest faction/party, the 2nd biggest might have random wins.
Not so under FairVotes inferior RCV in single-winner election districts because RCV mitigates the split-vote problem so there are no random wins for the 2nd biggest.
Our team brought this attention to Rob Richie in 1992 but he and FairVote brought the one-party system for more than twenty-four consecutive years.
The Libertarian One 2020
http://www.1ogle.com
With regard to RCV in SF and Oakland, I don’t think that there is any voting system that would not reflect the strong Democratic majority in those places. As for Maine, it’s too soon to tell.
WZ is incorrect. RCV in SF, Oakland, Maine and elsewhere guarateees a one-party system.
When a 2nd biggest runs candidates that will only invigorate the ruling one biggest faction/party.
WZ is a lot like everyone who supported FairVote and Rob Richie for the past 25 years, they “don’t think” a one-party system has been established.
That’s the same problem all supporters of RCV in single-winner districts experienced for more than twenty-four years; they “don’t think” that RCV brings a one-party system.
Like usual, Ogle is wrong. Ogle is also stealing the intellectual property of Sergey Brin.
Sbwhnb, correct on all counts.
The Democratic Party should choose a representative sample of voters, say 100,000 Democrats, who would in 2023 select potential nominees. Each voter could choose 10 potential nominees, and any candidate who received 1000 votes would be selected.
Let any Democrat vote in February 2024 with a signed ballot. Any candidate with less than 1% would be eliminated.
In March, a voter could change their vote, or let it ride. New voters could also participate. Eliminate any candidate with less than 2%.
In April, repeat, but with a threshold of 5%. Candidates designate their running mate at this point.
In May, repeat, but eliminate bottom 1/4 of candidates.
In June, repeat, but reduce the field to no more than three.
In July, repeat, but reduce the field to final two.
In August choose the nominee.
Voters could participate every month, or come and go, with their vote going forward. There is no need to rank candidates.
The editorial does not note that Bernie Sander’s Burlington, Vermont abandoned IRV after its shortcomings became obvious.
See
34-33-32 IRV bad example or even
49-49-1 IRV super-bad worse example.
—-
Condorcet – IRV done right.
I like Jim Riley’s electoral reform proposal! This could be implemented state by state when they have their primaries or caucuses.
For example, there would be 20 candiates.
First round: 20 candidates
Second round: 10 candidates
Third round: 6 candidates
Final round: 2 candidates
I would let voters decide whether to stay with their original choice or go back and forth between candidates. The candidate winning the final round in any state would get a majority. And using the proportional allocation in the Democratic primaries, a candidate can win or lose but they would still get delegates. I also think that if a candidate wins the final round, it should be rewarded with at least one extra delegate over the runner up.
CONDORCET ONE ballot –
ONE election day.
Demo Rep: I like Condorcet voting but imagine a ballot with 20 candidates. Maybe you could have 4 groups of 5 candidates, with each voter ranking their preferences in each group, using Condorcet? And then the group winners qualify for a final round using Condorcet?