why are there 6 options voting for mayor? (St. Paul, Roseville: how much, house)

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by FloatOn

I didn't know much of the history, but on that same website from my previous post, there is a brief American history of this system A Brief History of Ranked Choice Voting - FairVote

I believe there are other countries which use this system as well, though I'm not sure if it originated here or in another country.
It seems that most of the political motivation with this system is just when one of the two major parties get mad that this system will make it harder for them to win positions in the given election. But that's part of the whole point, to reflect what the population actually wants instead of being stuck voting for one candidate between the two parties and falling into the "lesser of two evils" situation.

We may be the only country that needs to use ranked choice voting since it's not so necessary in parliamentary democracies where small parties have representation.

[Kavalier]

Originally Posted by FloatOn

I didn't know much of the history, but on that same website from my previous post, there is a brief American history of this system A Brief History of Ranked Choice Voting - FairVote

I believe there are other countries which use this system as well, though I'm not sure if it originated here or in another country.
It seems that most of the political motivation with this system is just when one of the two major parties get mad that this system will make it harder for them to win positions in the given election. But that's part of the whole point, to reflect what the population actually wants instead of being stuck voting for one candidate between the two parties and falling into the "lesser of two evils" situation.

In St. Paul's case, it basically makes it harder than a snowballs chance in Hell of a republican ever winning here, from the sounds of how it's structured.

I mean, I don't think this city will ever have another republican candidate with or without this system, but If I am understanding it right the system works against them even more.

[FloatOn]

[quote=Kool Keeth;50059264]And perhaps not ironically those two places are the most liberal in the entire state.[/QUOTE/]

Although the system would be beneficial in a more politically split population, it is also beneficial in a majority left wing (or right wing) city. Since many of the candidates have some similar views in MPLS or St. Paul, instead of Democrats trying to throw the others under the bus to become the only DFL choice, voters are more likely to research each candidate more and rank each DFL choice based on who is more aligned with their views and not be afraid to vote for someone who isn't the big name Democrat.

It does appear that very liberal places are most likely to use this voting system. I am curious why majority Red cities/states aren't willing to try this system...

I don't know if it makes it harder for Republicans in St. Paul or not, but I agree, a Republican wouldn't win in either case there. But the system isn't set up to make one party win or fail, it's just to make the election more fair and representative of the population's desires. And since probably less than 10% of Minneapolis or St. Paul votes Republican, then this system's outcomes will reflect that.

[Kavalier]

Originally Posted by FloatOn

And perhaps not ironically those two places are the most liberal in the entire state.[/QUOTE/]

Although the system would be beneficial in a more politically split population, it is also beneficial in a majority left wing (or right wing) city. Since many of the candidates have some similar views in MPLS or St. Paul, instead of Democrats trying to throw the others under the bus to become the only DFL choice, voters are more likely to research each candidate more and rank each DFL choice based on who is more aligned with their views and not be afraid to vote for someone who isn't the big name Democrat.

It does appear that very liberal places are most likely to use this voting system. I am curious why majority Red cities/states aren't willing to try this system...

I guess so. So after all, there were dubious motives, as I suspected.

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by Kool Keeth

In St. Paul's case, it basically makes it harder than a snowballs chance in Hell of a republican ever winning here, from the sounds of how it's structured.

I mean, I don't think this city will ever have another republican candidate with or without this system, but If I am understanding it right the system works against them even more.

Republicans (just like any non-DFL party) have a greater chance of winning ranked choice voting than in the pluralistic vote system. In plurality voting (the standard system), if you want to vote Republican in a resolutely non-Republican town but want your vote to count, you have to make the decision on whether to be an aspirational or strategic voter. Put in other words: "the guy I like has no chance...should I 'throw my vote away' and vote for him anyway; or should I vote for a different candidate who I don't like as much but who has a chance to win?". In Ranked Choice Voting you can do both: "The Republican guy is my top pick. He probably won't win but at least my 2nd, 3rd, etc choices might be helped by my ranked-choice vote."

Short version: if your candidate has little chance of winning, their chances are better in a ranked-choice system.

[Kavalier]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

Republicans (just like any non-DFL party) have a greater chance of winning ranked choice voting than in the pluralistic vote system. In plurality voting (the standard system), if you want to vote Republican in a resolutely non-Republican town but want your vote to count, you have to make the decision on whether to be an aspirational or strategic voter. Put in other words: "the guy I like has no chance...should I 'throw my vote away' and vote for him anyway; or should I vote for a different candidate who I don't like as much but who has a chance to win?". In Ranked Choice Voting you can do both: "The Republican guy is my top pick. He probably won't win but at least my 2nd, 3rd, etc choices might be helped by my ranked-choice vote."

Short version: if your candidate has little chance of winning, their chances are better in a ranked-choice system.

Considering of the options, I think there is one republican, it doesn't work in the republican favor. At least how I am seeing it.

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by Kool Keeth

Considering of the options, I think there is one republican, it doesn't work in the republican favor. At least how I am seeing it.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Here is a list of jurisdictions using Ranked Choice Voting. For whatever strange reasoning there may be, you'll notice that solidly red areas (Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.) use ranked-choice voting for overseas runoffs.

Ranked Choice Voting in US Elections - FairVote

[FloatOn]

Originally Posted by Kool Keeth

I guess so. So after all, there were dubious motives, as I suspected.

I wouldn't say that the structure has dubious motives, it's just that the vast majority of St. Paul is left leaning, so in any voting system the elected will almost certainly not be a conservative. I agree with Thedosius's reply though, that with this system, someone in the minority can vote for their first choice knowing that they probably won't win, but they are also able to vote for someone more moderate for their second or third choice who might win, and this actually probably increases the likelihood that someone you at least somewhat agree with will win.

[Kavalier]

Originally Posted by Thedosius

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Here is a list of jurisdictions using Ranked Choice Voting. For whatever strange reasoning there may be, you'll notice that solidly red areas (Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, etc.) use ranked-choice voting for overseas runoffs.

Ranked Choice Voting in US Elections - FairVote

For example. Let's assume 40 percent of St. Paul is democrat, 40 percent is republican, and 20 percent is moderate.


I know that's not accurate but let's assume it is for a second.


There is only one candidate that I am aware of that is republican.


If the 40 percent of the democrats go in and fill out the 6 spots, they most likely will just list all the democrats in order; if the republicans go in and filled in their ballots, they HAVE to follow up with basically all democrats.


It basically means a republican can never win.


I mean I know there is more to it than that - I suspect there's more than just Sharon Anderson on the ballot that leans republican(??), and all that, but the way I am seeing it means the person who is an 'R' will never win ever again.


I could be way off on that but just the way the "ranked voting" appears to me it just looks...weird.


It's all kind of a moot argument/point, though, as FloatOn pointed out (and I KNOW very well having been a SP resident my whole life) it is simply put a liberal city, so no matter what system is in place there is likely never going to be a conservative running the show ever again. It just appears to me this system basically, totally just puts the nail all the way in that coffin, though.

[Thedosius]

Originally Posted by Kool Keeth

If the 40 percent of the democrats go in and fill out the 6 spots, they most likely will just list all the democrats in order; if the republicans go in and filled in their ballots, they HAVE to follow up with basically all democrats.

No, you CAN vote for your top 6, you don't have to. If you want to JUST vote for the Republican and leave all your other choices blank, you may.

I could be way off on that but just the way the "ranked voting" appears to me it just looks...weird.

It is different and it's hard to explain simply but it's not terribly complex. I'm not 100% sold on it (we'll need the system 'put through the ringer' several more times before I think it's been tried out enough).

It's all kind of a moot argument/point, though, as FloatOn pointed out (and I KNOW very well having been a SP resident my whole life) it is simply put a liberal city, so no matter what system is in place there is likely never going to be a conservative running the show ever again. It just appears to me this system basically, totally just puts the nail all the way in that coffin, though.

I agree with you that at this point in time with geographic sorting having really ramped up over the past 10 years that a Republican will not win the mayor's office in either Twin City in the short- to medium- term. However, ranked choice voting actually aids any 'unlikely' candidate (in this context, a Republican) particularly in a one-party town.