Massachustts Question 2 "Ranked Choice Voting" (Boston, Cambridge: buying, lawsuit)

[BosYuppie]

If you have HBO, Jon Oliver did a very informative episode about Ranked Choice that's worth a watch. He talks specifically about how Maine did it, basically in response to that terrible old racist coot governor they used to have, who won without the plurality of the vote.

Howie Carr used to always complain about how a mysterious third candidate would jump into an MA election to split the opposition vote in collusion with an established incumbant. Ranked choice would prevent that.

Consider the upcoming Boston mayoral election. Without ranked choice, hypothetically (I have no idea the current polling), a majority of voters could be unhappy with walsh and vote for a different candidate, but Walsh would retain the mayorship. With ranked choice, if a majority of the electorate prefers either Wu or Campbell but does not want Walsh back, they could get the more popular of the non-incumbants. Of course, if the people do support marty enough to rank him highly, they will get him back.

I think this is a good way to make sure the people get candidates who actually care about the issues they want to address, and not just the "least terrible" candidate. It's not the parliamentary/first past the post system but it's an improvement over our polarized system.

My understanding is that this is kind of how the state primaries work for picking the presidential candidate nominees already anyway - the delegates are pledged and then consolidated until there is a consensus pick.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by BosYuppie

If you have HBO, Jon Oliver did a very informative episode about Ranked Choice that's worth a watch. He talks specifically about how Maine did it, basically in response to that terrible old racist coot governor they used to have, who won without the plurality of the vote.

I still like to revisit the following quote and chuckle at the sheer absurdity of that man ever being elected governor of anything:

"these are guys by the name D-Money, Smoothie, Shifty. These type of guys that come from Connecticut, New York. They come up here, they sell their heroin, then they go back home. Incidentally, half the time they impregnate a young, white girl before they leave, which is the real sad thing" -Paul LePage

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

How? If there isn’t a clear winner, bottom-ranked candidates are eliminated from the running, and their votes are redistributed based on the second choice of their supporters.

Ballot exhaustion.


https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_exhaustion

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

Ballot exhaustion.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_exhaustion

That doesn’t explain how a bottom-ranked candidate could win.

It relates back to Cape Cod Todd’s point where if you only want to vote for one candidate and if they are in last place after the first round, then your ballot is finished.

If you choose not to rank all the candidates, then you’re saying you have no opinion on the election if your favorite candidate isn’t going to win.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

That doesn’t explain how a bottom-ranked candidate could win.

It relates back to Cape Cod Todd’s point where if you only want to vote for one candidate and if they are in last place after the first round, then your ballot is finished.

If you choose not to rank all the candidates, then you’re saying you have no opinion on the election if your favorite candidate isn’t going to win.

The other way of looking at it is that is forces you to align with candidates you may not choose to, thus cancelling your vote. Opponents claim this is a violation of due process and free speech. I believe it to be a valid concern to be considered within the bigger picture.

If the voter only chooses one or two candidates then that voter's choices will not be considered in the following rounds. If this happens enough, you could end up with a winner who does not represent a majority of the voters. It is one factor to consider among many, and hopefully most voters will do that analysis before voting--although that's doubtful.

I might also add that this system does not make things any easier for those who are already challenged when they go to the polls.

Here is an article regarding a suit filed in Maine and this is one of their complaints:

https://www.themainewire.com/2020/07...ting-in-maine/

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

The other way of looking at it is that is forces you to align with candidates you may not choose to, thus cancelling your vote. If the voter only chooses one or two candidates then that voter's choices will not be considered in the following rounds. If this happens enough, you could end up with a winner who does not represent a majority of the voters.

Here is an article regarding a suit filed in Maine and this is one of their complaints:

https://www.themainewire.com/2020/07...ting-in-maine/

They clearly have no weight behind their argument.

If you rank one or two candidates and your ballot gets exhausted, it means that not enough other people in the state marked those candidates as their 1st and 2nd choices. They were never going to win.

I’ll admit: one complication is that if you particularly dislike a certain candidate, you would have to rank all the candidates with your least favorite in last place to ensure that whoever runs against them will have your vote.

But if you rank only one or two candidates, you’re saying “if it’s not going to be one of these two, then I don’t care”.

[bostongymjunkie]

Originally Posted by Boston Shudra

But if you rank only one or two candidates, you’re saying “if it’s not going to be one of these two, then I don’t care”.

You seem to be basing your own assessment on what you think the rationale person should/would do inside the voting booth. That's not necessarily what will occur and there may be a variety of different interpretations of what is rational. If the purpose of the change is to help ensure that the candidate with the majority of support wins the election, moving forth using your assumptions could defeat the overall purpose of the move, and that doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



You also might change your mind about this depending on who ends up on the ballot. How would you feel if the remaining candidate(s) were so utterly objectionable that you couldn't in good conscience vote for them? Under the current system if you decide that one candidate is not viable, you don't throw away your vote.



Also, I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the merits of the argument without looking at whatever constitutional arguments are put forth, as they do matter.


I found one scholarly reference to the issue. I haven't read it in detail but it looks like their conclusion is not positive. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu....es-2fupfhd.pdf

[jayrandom]

Ranked choice makes even more sense for the general election if you eliminate primaries.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

You seem to be basing your own assessment on what you think the rationale person should/would do inside the voting booth.

Yes. This is how all laws work.

You also might change your mind about this depending on who ends up on the ballot. How would you feel if the remaining candidate(s) were so utterly objectionable that you couldn't in good conscience vote for them? Under the current system if you decide that one candidate is not viable, you don't throw away your vote.

If my least favorite choices are equally bad, then I can choose to not rank them. My vote will go to anyone except them until one of the candidates gets a majority of votes. If it comes down to only those two candidates, then I won't be one of the votes that decide between them.

Under the current system, this is no worse than not voting or voting for a candidate that isn't 1st or 2nd in the polls.

Also, I wouldnt be so quick to dismiss the merits of the argument without looking at whatever constitutional arguments are put forth, as they do matter.

I found one scholarly reference to the issue. I haven't read it in detail but it looks like their conclusion is not positive. https://cpb-us-w2.wpmucdn.com/u.osu....es-2fupfhd.pdf

Constitutional? Nothing and I repeat nothing in the US Constitution regulates how states conduct local elections. That's not even what that article talks about. It bring attention to "ballot exhaustion", but the phenomenon is a feature rather than a bug of RCV. It's not the state's responsibility to force voters to rank all of the candidates.

[justyouraveragetenant]

I am against it. you might go into the voting booth and not know all the candidates and what if one of the candidates you don't even know?

it makes it more complicated. Even if you had 5 candidates it is sometimes hard to put all of them in order you might find 2 of the candidates as equal. Some might only know about the person they are voting for . it makes an assumption that everyone that votes know about all the candidates. what if 8 people are on a ballot that makes it super complicated and requires the voter to have a ton of knowledge about all the candidates. some may find this a good requirement but I Bet in most cases people will know about 3 candidates at the most.

The less popular candidates might not even have a commercial or even be known to most.