Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you support ranked-choice voting in Colorado?
I’d sign the petition 10 33.33%
I’d vote for it if it appeared on the ballot 7 23.33%
No 13 43.33%
Voters: 30. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2018, 10:28 PM
 
Location: Denver
4,716 posts, read 8,540,615 times
Reputation: 5957

Advertisements

It’s been in use in Australia for decades, and it was just tried out in Maine last month. It’s currently gaining traction in Pueblo.

For those not familiar, ranked-choice voting is a simple system where, in an election with more than two candidates, the candidate with the least amount of first-choice votes is dropped, and those votes are then distributed to the second-choice listed on the ballot. This process is repeated until there is a majority winner. “Instant-runoff” is a more specific name for this process.

In our current first-past-the-post system, third parties and independents have no chance because most people vote strategically. Two parties is basically an inevitability. Ranked-choice voting allows you to vote for someone more in line with your views without “throwing your vote away”. Manipulation through gerrymandering is much harder if not impossible. It makes toxic mud-slinging bad campaign strategy.

Obviously, I’m completely on board, but I’m curious what y’all think. It’s hard to find downsides IMHO. With Colorado’s voter ballot initiatives, I think it’s another great chance for this state to lead the way for positive change.

 
Old 12-20-2018, 09:17 AM
 
26,143 posts, read 48,800,534 times
Reputation: 31592
I didn't vote, at least not yet, as I need to figure out what this really means and all the nuances it presents.

For sure, every party will try to game any election system to their advantage, i.e., gerrymandering, voter suppression, etc.

I'm all for an end to gerrymandering and voter suppression, but we can do that without going to this scheme of voting. Or are the two main parties so determined to game the system that we can't get there from here. We had a voting rights act on the books until the SCOTUS banished it a few years ago and no sooner did that happen then NC started setting up all sorts of gimmicks to disenfranchise minority voters. This worries me a LOT.

I'm against what's known as "the tyranny of the majority," i.e., if all white people vote for the same two white candidates then all we get is two white senators from every state and a senate that's 75% fat old white guys like me. That being said, I'm not sure how a bunch of fat old white guys can run a government in a nation as diverse as this one is and do it in a way that respects everyone's diversity, not just the beliefs and issues of us fat old white guys. I don't want a government that acts like Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell that shoves blacks to the back of the bus again, keeps barefoot pregnant women in the kitchen, and banishes GLBT folks to their graves.

Ranked-choice voting is a bigger issue than just in Colorado so I may move this to the Elections forum after we wring it out here....
__________________
- Please follow our TOS.
- Any Questions about City-Data? See the FAQ list.
- Want some detailed instructions on using the site? See The Guide for plain english explanation.
- Realtors are welcome here but do see our Realtor Advice to avoid infractions.
- Thank you and enjoy City-Data.
 
Old 12-20-2018, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Arizona
1,013 posts, read 969,465 times
Reputation: 1173
Are we talking state elections or all elections held in Colorado?
 
Old 12-20-2018, 10:58 PM
 
Location: Colorado
4,006 posts, read 2,681,437 times
Reputation: 7456
I'm torn, to be honest.

On one hand, it does sound like a good way to break the two-party system.

On the other hand, if I'm correctly understanding how it would work (and I'm going to use a mock-up of the last gubernatorial election)....

Polis (D), Stapleton (R), Smith (Independent), and Jones (AncientAliensAreReal Party) are all running (and we'll say only 100 people will need to vote.

Polis gets 49 votes

Stapleton gets 20 votes

Smith gets 15 votes

Jones gets 16 votes



So Smith gets dropped, and we'll just say that everybody who voted for Smith had Jones as their second choice. So Jones gets all of Smith's votes. So now it's:

Polis--49

Stapleton--20

Jones--31



So now Stapleton is dropped. But what if all the people who voted for Stapleton had Smith as *their* second choice? Smith's already been eliminated, so presumably, we go to the third choice these voters had on their ballot. And let's say it's Jones. So Jones gets Stapleton's votes, and it's:


Polis--49

Jones --51



So Jones wins, since he got more votes than Polis, correct?

Like I said, part of me thinks it could be a great way to break the two-party system, and likely the scenario I outlined above wouldn't happen quite that way (it might be more likely that at least two Smith voters would have had Polis as their second choice, thereby ending the entire thing right then and there), but it does make me consider that a candidate who wasn't really that highly thought of (having initially gotten only 16% of the vote on his own merits) suddenly leapfrogs over a candidate that got nearly half the vote right off the bat on his own merits, if that makes sense.

I do see the pros--for example, to run that scenario again, but with only three candidates (Polis, Stapleton, and Smith), and say that Polis took 40 votes, Smith got 31, and Stapleton 29. And Smith was the second choice for Stapleton voters, so Stapleton is dropped, and Smith gets his votes, giving him a 60 votes count to Polis' 40 votes. Now in this instance, I wouldn't have as many qualms, since the race was a lot closer between the candidates, and Smith doesn't come up so 'completely from behind', the way Jones did in the first scenario. Does that make sense?
 
Old 12-21-2018, 08:38 AM
 
6,806 posts, read 10,449,896 times
Reputation: 8309
Yes, that is the way it would work, although of course the numbers in your example are highly fabricated. However, the idea is that it is a better way of voting in terms of truly representing the will of the people. In your example, a majority of people in the state would get their first or second choice which is better as representing the will of the people of Colorado than a majority getting their absolutely last choice.
 
Old 12-21-2018, 09:26 PM
 
Location: Denver
4,716 posts, read 8,540,615 times
Reputation: 5957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Indigo Cardinal View Post
I'm torn, to be honest.

On one hand, it does sound like a good way to break the two-party system.

On the other hand, if I'm correctly understanding how it would work (and I'm going to use a mock-up of the last gubernatorial election)....

Polis (D), Stapleton (R), Smith (Independent), and Jones (AncientAliensAreReal Party) are all running (and we'll say only 100 people will need to vote.

Polis gets 49 votes

Stapleton gets 20 votes

Smith gets 15 votes

Jones gets 16 votes



So Smith gets dropped, and we'll just say that everybody who voted for Smith had Jones as their second choice. So Jones gets all of Smith's votes. So now it's:

Polis--49

Stapleton--20

Jones--31



So now Stapleton is dropped. But what if all the people who voted for Stapleton had Smith as *their* second choice? Smith's already been eliminated, so presumably, we go to the third choice these voters had on their ballot. And let's say it's Jones. So Jones gets Stapleton's votes, and it's:


Polis--49

Jones --51



So Jones wins, since he got more votes than Polis, correct?

Like I said, part of me thinks it could be a great way to break the two-party system, and likely the scenario I outlined above wouldn't happen quite that way (it might be more likely that at least two Smith voters would have had Polis as their second choice, thereby ending the entire thing right then and there), but it does make me consider that a candidate who wasn't really that highly thought of (having initially gotten only 16% of the vote on his own merits) suddenly leapfrogs over a candidate that got nearly half the vote right off the bat on his own merits, if that makes sense.

I do see the pros--for example, to run that scenario again, but with only three candidates (Polis, Stapleton, and Smith), and say that Polis took 40 votes, Smith got 31, and Stapleton 29. And Smith was the second choice for Stapleton voters, so Stapleton is dropped, and Smith gets his votes, giving him a 60 votes count to Polis' 40 votes. Now in this instance, I wouldn't have as many qualms, since the race was a lot closer between the candidates, and Smith doesn't come up so 'completely from behind', the way Jones did in the first scenario. Does that make sense?
You definitely get the concept, but in practice it very rarely plays out like this example, and such an election would be studied for decades. People’s rankings rarely line up so cleanly, though if they did, it suggests Stapleton, Jones, and Smith were very similar candidates who collectively have support of the majority of voters.

In Australia, 90% of instant runoff elections end with the candidate who had the most first-choice votes winning. The other 10% is usually a case of a moderate candidate having less first-round votes than one of the more polarizing candidates, but once one or two of the more polarizing candidates is eliminated in the second or third rounds respectively, the moderate emerges victorious.

Because there’s so much uncertainty around second- and third-round votes, the system is a lot harder to game than our current one. Scorched earth, zero sum brawls are bad strategy. And allowing for more nuance to be expressed by constituents makes block-by-block carving of districts much harder as well.

Another aspect of it that I like is that in areas that consistently lean toward one side of the spectrum, it allows for real contests beyond primaries, which typically produce candidates who can rile up an ideological base rather than build consensus.
 
Old 12-21-2018, 09:36 PM
 
Location: 0.83 Atmospheres
11,477 posts, read 11,475,022 times
Reputation: 11976
https://coloradosun.com/2018/12/19/r...ting-colorado/

The Sun just did an article on the topic. Good read....
 
Old 12-23-2018, 09:04 PM
 
7,827 posts, read 3,353,475 times
Reputation: 5141
I don't think it really matters going forward! We've had enough Californians come into our state who will vote to affirm more taxes and regulations that we will be a Democrat state going forward! We had a good run economically which made our people wealthier, but now that the Democrat Californians are here, it doesn't matter if the state is prosperous. What will matter going forward is if the incoming Democrats think we are living up to their Democrat standards.
 
Old 12-23-2018, 09:11 PM
 
Location: 0.83 Atmospheres
11,477 posts, read 11,475,022 times
Reputation: 11976
Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound View Post
I don't think it really matters going forward! We've had enough Californians come into our state who will vote to affirm more taxes and regulations that we will be a Democrat state going forward! We had a good run economically which made our people wealthier, but now that the Democrat Californians are here, it doesn't matter if the state is prosperous. What will matter going forward is if the incoming Democrats think we are living up to their Democrat standards.
Liberal voter here. My family has been in Colorado since before it was a state. The last president my grandmother voted for before she passed was Obama. It’s not California. It’s a rejection of right wing lunacy.
 
Old 12-23-2018, 11:07 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,316 posts, read 120,334,823 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by otowi View Post
Yes, that is the way it would work, although of course the numbers in your example are highly fabricated. However, the idea is that it is a better way of voting in terms of truly representing the will of the people. In your example, a majority of people in the state would get their first or second choice which is better as representing the will of the people of Colorado than a majority getting their absolutely last choice.
How could that be an outcome? I don't get how this fits into "1 person, 1 vote".
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
View detailed profiles of:

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top