Massachustts Question 2 "Ranked Choice Voting" (Cambridge, Burlington: house, school)

[CrowGirl]

Thank you all for your input on Question 1! I thought it would be worth a second thread for Question 2. In this case, however, I should say I am more of an advocate than looking for input. I don't see a downside to Question 2. I think it will help break the stranglehold of the two major parties on our politicial system and be doubly helpful in our primaries.

Please vote YES on Question 2. Or, if you oppoae Question 2, please let us know why - I always like to learmed from my fellow Bay Staters!

[bohemka]

Posting the information about and the language of Question 2 would be helpful.

[CaseyB]

Question 2 :

Do you approve of a law summarized below, on which no vote was taken by the Senate or the House of Representatives on or before May 5, 2020? This proposed law would implement a voting system known as “ranked-choice voting,” in which voters rank one or more candidates by order of preference. Ranked-choice voting would be used in primary and general elections for all Massachusetts statewide offices, state legislative offices, federal congressional offices, and certain other offices beginning in 2022. Ranked-choice voting would not be used in elections for president, county commissioner, or regional district school committee member. Under the proposed law, votes would be counted in a series of rounds. In the first round, if one candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, that candidate would be declared the winner and no other rounds would be necessary. If no candidate received more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, then the candidate or candidates who received the fewest first-place votes would be eliminated and, in the next round, each vote for an eliminated candidate would instead be counted toward the next highest-ranked candidate on that voter’s ballot. Depending on the number of candidates, additional rounds of counting could occur, with the last-place candidate or candidates in each round being eliminated and the votes for an eliminated candidate going to the voter’s next choice out of the remaining candidates. A tie for last place in any round would be broken by comparing the tied candidates’ support in earlier rounds. Ultimately, the candidate who was, out of the remaining candidates, the preference of a majority of voters would be declared the winner. Ranked-choice voting would be used only in races where a single candidate is to be declared the winner and not in races where more than one person is to be elected. Under the proposed law, if no candidate received more than 50 percent of first-place votes in the first round, the rounds of ballot-counting necessary for ranked-choice voting would be conducted at a central tabulation facility. At the facility, voters’ rankings would be entered into a computer, which would then be used to calculate the results of each round of the counting process. The proposed law provides that candidates in a statewide or district election would have at least three days to request a recount. The Secretary of State would be required to issue regulations to implement the proposed law and conduct a voter education campaign about the ranked-choice voting process. The proposed law would take effect on January 1, 2022.

[goyguy]

We already do "ranked voting" in Cambridge local elections - it's known as proportional representation, and works well.

[bostongymjunkie]

It's a complicated process and there are potentially significant issues that may arise, including bottom-ranked candidates winning the election because of the ballot distribution or because of voters who only exercise a limited number of ballots. Even the very progressive Jerry Brown of CA didn't support it. The devil is in the details, as always. Do you research. Anything being promoted as a panacea, usually isn't. It certainly has positives including the fact that it may increase voter participation but it might disenfranchise more voters. If your choices are not included in the two finalists, your ballot gets tossed. There are many other negatives. Do your research. Even Burlington, VT got rid of it. My vote: No.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

It's a complicated process and there are potentially significant issues that may arise, including bottom-ranked candidates winning the election

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.

[Cape Cod Todd]

I don't like it but I'm old fashioned and believe that it should be one vote for one candidate.

Choice is good in many things but why do we need to confuse the issue of voting by introducing something like this. If I like one candidate but despise another then why should I be forced to choose that lousy candidate and give him any nod at all as my second choice?



I received a flyer in the mail the other day that wanted me to vote yes on #2 and it cited that Democrats, Republicans and Libertarians all endorse it. Well the first 2 names on the list were Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey. I did not recognize a single Republican name on the list. I am not a fan of Warren or Markey so right there if they endorse #2 I don't.



I say keep it simple.

[CaseyB]

Originally Posted by bostongymjunkie

It's a complicated process and there are potentially significant issues that may arise, including bottom-ranked candidates winning the election because of the ballot distribution or because of voters who only exercise a limited number of ballots. Even the very progressive Jerry Brown of CA didn't support it. The devil is in the details, as always. Do you research. Anything being promoted as a panacea, usually isn't. It certainly has positives including the fact that it may increase voter participation but it might disenfranchise more voters. If your choices are not included in the two finalists, your ballot gets tossed. There are many other negatives. Do your research. Even Burlington, VT got rid of it. My vote: No.

I went to a presentation about it a couple of years ago and quickly came to the conclusion that it was little better than a scam.

[Boston Shudra]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

Choice is good in many things but why do we need to confuse the issue of voting by introducing something like this. If I like one candidate but despise another then why should I be forced to choose that lousy candidate and give him any nod at all as my second choice?

You...wouldn’t?

See slides 4 and 5 on how Maine currently does this: https://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/u...V.Sept2020.pdf

[cb2008]

Originally Posted by Cape Cod Todd

I don't like it but I'm old fashioned and believe that it should be one vote for one candidate.

Choice is good in many things but why do we need to confuse the issue of voting by introducing something like this. If I like one candidate but despise another then why should I be forced to choose that lousy candidate and give him any nod at all as my second choice?

.

You can still select only one candidate that you prefer and leave it at that. If he wins the majority then he is in. If he doesn't then he gets another chance with the others.

This also saves tax payer money so there needs to be no run off election.