The Wall Street Journal Editorial Board never misses an opportunity to disparage Ranked Choice Voting and did so again on Wed, June 26 in an editorial applauding the Arlington County, VA Board of Supervisors decision last week to use Plurality Voting instead of RCV is the November 2023 General Election.
I posted the following commentary on the WSJ website in response:
Here is an analysis of the June Ranked Choice Voting election in Arlington County, Virginia. Voters ranked their candidates in order of preference, which is very simple. Scroll down to where you see Round 1 through Round 7 in a horizontal box. Then click through the seven rounds of vote counting to see the vote transfer process. This is hard for the public to understand? If so, we have far deeper problems than RCV vs. Plurality Voting. Is the Editorial Board of the WSJ really too dumb to understand this process? No, the WSJ is–again–writing disingenuously about RCV, because they know many of the Republican candidates they support are too unpopular with the electorate to win RCV elections.
Bill, I think you’re right on this.
Stop pushing this RCV shit. It’s a terrible system that elects commies like in Alaska.
P-A-T
—
PENDING CONDORCET = RCV DONE RIGHT – WITH APPV TIEBREAKER
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ranked-choice-was-a-bad-choice-arlington-virginia-county-board-99264639
WSJ ED BD EDIT
FOR NEWBEES AND NON TROLL MORONS
—
RCV/IRV FATAL Defects Apr 2018
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is divided – as usual.
34 A-M-Z
33 Z-M-A
16 M-A-Z
16 M-Z-A
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 34 – 16 – 49 – 99
Z 33 – 16 – 50 – 99
M 32 – 67 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 65-34.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 65-34
M beats Z 66-33
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along.
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be the winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting
—
Note – see “mathematics of voting and elections” in aN INET search regarding 3 or more choices math.
It’s interesting to note that several Southern states have had run-off elections for quite a while. Ranked Choice Voting is simply a run-off that avoids the need for a second physical balloting.
However, if people are too bewildered by this, perhaps its better to get them just to accept run-off elections in places that seem confused by RCV.
Probably the best example of a run-off election that produces the closest result to ranked choice voting is the procedure used at Libertarian Party national conventions to pick their Presidential nominee. On each subsequent ballot after the first, the candidate with the least number of delegate votes gets dropped, and the voting proceeds with the remaining candidates, until a candidate receives a majority vote.
ranked choice voting is just as simple as that, but it isn’t as intuitively obvious to a lot of folks.
Yes, accessing a government-run website and clicking through seven rounds of vote transfer is hard for the public to understand.
Are you even reading what you’re writing?
@BR,
There were 28,000 or so votes in the first round. After the 7th round they were down to under 19,000. Where did the 9,000 votes disappear to?
RCV is great if you love communism.
I’m for first past the post. Anything else is retarded and unAmerican.
@Bill Redpath
That analysis is not the official results page. You could have linked to Virginia’s website. However, Fairvote’s animated graphics are cooler.
@Jim Riley
Your 1st choice vote gets transferred to your 2nd choice when your 1st choice gets eliminated.
If you don’t vote for a 2nd choice, your vote is set aside.
If your 2nd choice is already eliminated, your vote is set aside, too.
Virginia didn’t report those votes that were set aside! They should have.
@Andy
The official results were not that hard to find (for a government website). They are on the same page as the results for other races. The winners are shown on the left with trophy icons. You only have to click once through the rounds, if you even bother to. Newspapers might also publish an article about who won.
Of course the winners would be on the left. Gross.
FOR NEWBEES AND NON-TROLL MORONS —
—-
RCV/IRV FATAL Defects Apr 2018
RCV/IRV ignores most of the data in a Place Votes Table.
The *Middle* is divided – as usual.
34 A-M-Z
33 Z-M-A
16 M-A-Z
16 M-Z-A
99
With RCV/IRV, M loses. A beats Z 50-49.
A = Stalin, M = Washington, Z = Hitler
—————
Place Votes Table
— 1 — 2 — 3 — T
A 34 – 16 – 49 – 99
Z 33 – 16 – 50 – 99
M 32 – 67 – 0 – 99
T 99 – 99 – 99
i.e. RCV/IRV will cause even more extremist winners due to rigged majority *mandate* stuff.
M has a mere 99 of 99 votes in 1st and 2nd place.
Also — symmetry — Z has 50 in last place — should lose. M then beats A 65-34.
————
Head to Head (Condorcet) Math – from 1780s — repeat 1780s.
M beats A 65-34
M beats Z 66-33
Condorcet is obviously correct by the math of having a 3rd choice beat each of 2 existing choices head to head.
A > B
C comes along.
IF C > A and C > B, THEN C should be the winner.
*******
Condorcet math — ALL elections —
legislative, executive, judicial.
ALL combinations of —
Test Winner(s) vs Test Loser — Test Other Losers
Number ranked votes go from TOL to TW or TL.
Would need computer voting to do all the combinations in any *larger* election.
Also– vote YES or NO (default) on each choice for a tie breaker when a TW/TL does not win/lose in all combinations.
For 2 or more exec/judic offices (e.g. 2 judges), the 2 or more top ranked number votes are used in the TW/TL/TOL math.
Legislative body elections — the final Winners would have a Voting Power equal to their final votes (direct from voters plus indirect from Losers).
—-
Thus — Proportional Representation — legis and nonpartisan Approval Voting (YES/NO) exec-judic — pending Condorcet head to head math.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
OTHER WIKI FOR APPV
—
Note – see “mathematics of voting and elections” in aN INET search regarding 3 or more choices math.
You linked from Wikipeida, which anyone can edit. You have no credibility when you do that.
NOW STANDARD TERMINOLOGY CONFUSION FOR ***NEW*** STUFF.
A.C – VOTES SET ASIDE / ELIMINATED / EXHAUSTED SHOULD BE REPORTED AS ***UNDERVOTES*** — AKA NON-VOTES IN THE ROUND AND LATER ROUNDS, IF ANY.
WZ –
PRE-1964 OLDE SOUTH DONKEY REGIMES HAD TOP 2 RUNOFF PRIMARIES —-
WHICH EXTREMIST FACTION HAD LOCAL MAJORITY SUPPORT —
ESP AFTER SCOTUS OLDE TX WHITE PRIMARY CASES IN 1928-1932
START OF *MODERN* SCOTUS ELECTION LAW CASES.
LATER —
1964 GERRYMANDER CASES
1968 BALLOT ACCESS CASE
BOTH SCREWED UP AND ENDLESS CASES SINCE.
WHAT 1 OR MORE TROLL MORONS WILL HAVE A WEBSITE ABOUT THEIR STUFF THAT IS 100 PCT SECURE FOR POSTS ???
INFORM DOD, NSA, CIA, FBI, MI5. ETC HOW TO DO IT
AZ LOST LAST FEW MARBLES??? BELONGS IN LOONEY BIN???
PR– PRE-ELECTION CANDIDATE RANK ORDER LISTS OF A-L-L OTHER CANDIDATES IN ALL DISTRICTS
ALL LISTS MADE PUBLIC ABOUT 2 MONTHS BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
VOTER VOTES FOR ONE CANDIDATE FOR EACH LEGIS BODY.
>>> NOOOO VOTES SET ASIDE / ELIMINATED / EXHAUSTED / ETC = A-L-L VOTES COUNT.
I DO NOT KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT MOST OF THE TIME!
ONE OR MORE TROLL MORON FAKE AZ IMPERSONATORS. ???
BAN NEEDS UPDATED ANTI- NAME FRAUD SOFTWARE.
AZ IS YOUR LEGAL NAME? LET’S SEE PROOF!
THERE ARE LEGAL NAMES AND THERE ARE INET NAMES —
SO THAT TROLL MORONS AND GOVT TYRANTS CAN NOT COMMIT CRIMES /TORTS AGAINST THE LEGAL NAME PERSON.
BAN NEEDS UPDATED ANTI- NAME FRAUD SOFTWARE.
IS THE TOP TROLL MORON ON BAN AN AGENT / STOOGE OF BIDEN / TRUMP / PUTIN / XI / ETC. OR WHAT ???
You would know the answer to that better than anyone.
I used to favor RCV when it was called IRV. But I think I like a basic system where the most votes wins better. It’s better for the constituents. It gives a clearer picture of what people support in practice. I’d rather win elected office outright as the most preferred candidate than benefit from transferred votes.
1st past post for me. Keep electoral college.
I’m with Trump 2024!