Do not let people tell you that it is confusing. In Australia, it's called 'Preferential' voting (you vote for the people you prefer) and everyone understands it. By contrast, no one understand how our Senate votes work.
10
Here's a really good Radiolab episode that takes a deep dive into RCV: https://www.wnycstudios.org/podcasts/radiolab/articles/tweak-vote
It's such a smart alternative to the ineffective and polarizing system that we're currently running into the ground. It isn't simple, though, and a big old chunk of America hates stuff that requires complex thought.
Yet for the sake of our democratic process, we can't leave it at that, can we? So how could this idea be sold to those thought-averse folks who'd embrace anything over a challenge to the status quo--especially a challenge that dampens support for polarizing candidates?
6
@Josh: So why the massive corporate push to institute this? What is in it for them? And please don't tell me that NPR is not corporate-sponsored...
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
1
@Josh
Yes, you are absolutely right. We all - not just a "big old chunk of America" - would prefer to avoid complex thought unless absolutely necessary. But under RCV anyone can continue to mark their ballot as they always have - simply check a preferred candidate and move on. Ranking is not required and should perhaps be left to those who lack better things to do than increase their influence on elections.
1
Ireland has been voting this way for years. It works!
10
Most of Australia has preference voting, which is better than first-past-the-post. The state of NSW (Sydney the capital) has something even better: optional preference voting. You can vote for just one, or you can rank them all, it's up tp you.
5
I heard about this on Radiolab. It sounds very exciting!
3
Professor Kenneth Arrow proved that there is no voting scheme that cannot be distorted. The Ranked-Choice Voting system here is also subject to distortion. BUT MUCH LESS SO THAN ANYTHING WE NOW HAVE. So let's just do it in New York City, and then everywhere else. We will no longer have primaries, so we can shorten the election season from two years to perhaps 12 weeks (even though that is twice as long as needed), and think of the money everybody will save.
7
We call it preferential voting in Australia. It is in place in all state and federal elections. Combined with compulsory voting, it keeps our politics centrist.
3
@Peter Bugden Well, Centre-rightist.
1
After living and voting in Australia, I am a HUGE FAN of rank choice voting. Moving back to the states made me value it so much more.
4
I wish the reporter had highlighted the impact RCV has already had in Maine, where voters worked proactively - and against Republicans suppression - to ensure its passage. House GOP lobbyists flooded our D2 election with funds to support not only Bruce Poliquin, the unpopular GOP incumbent, but also fringe independents who had no chance of winning. Without RCV, Poliquin would have won with a minority share of votes; instead, second-choice votes that leaned overwhelmingly Democratic helped a centrist Democrat, Jared Golden, win the seat.
The system is aptly designed to affirm that every vote is a meaningful statement. People should be able to vote for candidates they *want to win* without being forced to compromise immediately based on crowd pressure and predictions. That power brings out more voters, whose participation grants more legitimacy to the government they choose.
Mainers set this ball rolling, and the Times should not forget it.
27
We have enough trouble getting elections accurate now. This is the last thing we need.
@bored critic I do not know what the struggles of voting are in New York City but, arguably, this would *improve* voting accuracy because finally independent voters and even party-aligned voters can say "This is my favorite candidate, but if he or she loses then I hope this next candidate wins" and et cetera, instead of voting based on compromises we make within ourselves like choosing a candidate based on their likelihood to win instead of how much we actually agree with them.
14
@Franklin
RCV, if approved in NYC, will apply to primary and special elections, not general elections, so those not registered in a party will not be voting.
2
It's called preferential voting, and Australia (and other countries) has been doing it for generations. The tactics are complex, especially when there are several candidates: sometimes you put your favorite second, not first, and the one you like least gets your first choice vote ... But sometimes the tactics backfire and the candidate you didn't want is actually elected ... And counting all those preferences can take days or even weeks, leading to a lot of angst. A lot of Australians would like to adopt the American "first-past-the-post" model: the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence.
Basically, preferential voting ensures that the winner is less disliked, while our system produces a clear(wish) winner immediately.
2
@Tom: The problem with the system used in America is that it guarantees neither that the winning candidate is the most liked nor the least disliked.
Preferential voting can produce a winner immediately, if one candidate is preferred by a majority of the voters. And if no candidate is preferred by a majority of the voters then it's not clear that the leading candidate truly deserves to be declared the winner.
I favor a system in which the preferences of the voters are more accurately captured than what we are used to here. For that we can figure out how to count the votes efficiently.
8
@Tom I've lived in Australia for 30 years now and I've never heard anyone say they want to adopt the American system. We're quite happy with RCV, thank you. Yes it does sometimes get gamed in weird ways, and sometimes it results in candidates winning who were the first choice of only a tiny minority. But overall the plusses outweigh the minuses.
I think the big delays are caused by things like absentee votes in a close elections, just like in the US. We have these wonderful machines called computers that can redistribute the preference votes in the blink of an eye.
6
@A. Nonymous Of course, for that candidate who was the first choice of a tiny minority to win, there had to be at least one person who was the first choice of even fewer people. And the winner must have been the second choice of an awful lot of people.
I live in a place that is dominated by a single political party and uses ranked-choice voting. Under these conditions, ranked-choice, in practice, stifles voter choice and massively strengthens the party in power.
Why? Because all the dominant party has to do to ensure victory is flood the ballot with its candidates. When three of four or five of six of the choices in a race are people chosen by the party, it is very, very difficult for a non-party person to win, especially in low turnout elections.
5
New York City has a history with preferential voting, going back to the City Council and more recently in community school district elections, voting systems now ended. The math works, but from voter perspectives, the reviews were a mixed bag. I'm not voting for it.
2
This type of Ranked choice is still broken. Suppose most voters decide not to rank the other choices? Then the "win" still goes to a vociferous minority. There needs to be an incentive to rank. In the automatic runoff ranked choice ballot the voter's ranks translate into a larger number of votes for their favorite choices. For example, if 3 candidates are running, and you only rank candidate A, then A only gets one vote from you. But if you rank candidate A 1st, and B 2nd, then A gets 2 votes from you and B gets 1. And if you rank all three, A 1st, B 2nd, and C 3rd, then A gets 3 votes from you, B gets 2 and C gets 1. So the incentive to rank is that your favorite choice gets a maximum number of votes from you! Then, you don't need to eliminate any candidates at the end of voting, you just add-em-up, and the candidate with the most votes wins. However, ties are still possible, and some tie-breaker system will still be needed in the unlikely event of a tie.
1
@Dylan Hunt That isn't how it works.
2
Now imagine this on a national scale, throw in an end to gerrymandering plus constitutional-level alterations to the Money is Speech folly, and we'd have a foundation for the common good. As long as I'm dreaming -- and dreams are important, right? -- we would then be equipped to work with the rest of the world in meaningful actions to save this planet from species extinction.
9
Ranked choice voting is very attractive, but is subject to Arrow's paradox, which seems to imply the potential for serious problems. I have not heard any of its defenders deal with this issue, which is complex and nearly unintelligible to the non-mathematician --but seems important to understand before such a major change is made.
3
@also anon
I'm not sure Arrow's paradox implies the potential for serious problems with ranked-choice voting (RCV). Although a bit complex, Arrow's paradox in effect says no voting system is without potential problems.
The question is not whether RCV might have "problems"; the question is will RCV be an improvement over our current system. Unless one is skeptical of giving those pesky voters broader influence than they already have, the choice for RCV should be clear.
Alas, there are folks out there who are skeptical of those pesky voters. I sometimes suspect one of our major political parties leans in this direction. Fear of voters - rather Arrow's paradox or potential voter confusion - is often the foundation of opposition to RCV.
3
@John Whitmer Thanks. I don't disagree at all, just want to be sure that due consideration is given, so that a choice to move to RCV is not subject to attack. I truly don't understand Arrow's paradox, so don't know what the possibilities of problems are; but if those are not de minimis, then don't we need to prepare at least for the attacks (from the right), if not for the occurrence of the problems themselves?
2
@also anon
I hear you, and one should always be skeptical of something unfamiliar. And understanding Nobel Prize winning economists is not my forte either. But RCV is not new and is not untested - it has worked in any places for years both here and elsewhere in the world. True, a few places have tried it and later changed their minds - places differ and nothing's cast in stone. But far more places have tried it and liked it.
2
Dear DNC, You should try this ranked voting thing. It doesn't even have tobe five choices. Three would be fine, and two might even work. But then you would need to get behind the candidate that ends up in the lead, even if it's not the candidate you want to anoint.
7
This is great. It means that you can vote for whoever you think is best without throwing the election to some one you disfavor. Voting for a particular person never helps some one else win. The person who eventually wins has support of over 50% of the voters from the remaining candidates.
11
Hi,
I know a lot of good government groups support this. Tell me what I'm missing.
If a candidate fails to win a majority, a narrow group of voters, only those supporting the least popular choice get to put someone over the needed threshold -- but disempowering the 2nd choice of all of the rest of us.
Why wouldn't it be more fair to look at the 2nd preference for everyone?
Bob
7
@Bob Dunn why would you want to have your vote counted for the second favorite candidate if your first favorite is still in the running? Everyone gets one vote in each "round" of voting, and only those whose candidates are eliminated because their candidate is no longer in the running have their second one count in place of their first.
8
In Maine we worked VERY hard to collect signatures to get this ballot initiative passed - after years of having a governor that won with little more than a 1/3 of the vote ( That is how we ended up with the moron Paul LePage). Our state has a very large group of Independents and we almost always had 3 candidates running. In the end, the winner - usually only represented a 1/3 of the State. Our Republican controlled State legislature kept trying to shut it down, but the People prevailed and we used in 2016. With much success!!!! Most people did NOT find it confusing and and most all of them loved using it. If you are not well informed about all the candidates, you can still only vote for 1. Ranked Choice voting is the Fairest way to vote. New York and Massachusetts -vote for RCV!
38
Replace Electoral College with this nonsense? This is when the Republic crumbs.
2
The Republic crumbles when people claim ideas are "nonsense" without providing reasons to support that claim.
16
@Gary Adams --
Ranked-choice voting need not replace the Electoral College -- it can be used in conjunction with the Electoral College!
It’s already crumbling—open your eyes.
2
This makes sense to me, but I have one concern. I fear that dirty politics will find even more creative ways to game the system.
8
Institute this scheme and - if I vote at all - I will write the name of my choice over and over on the ballot.
Ranked-Choice Voting is yet another manipulation attempt by those disgruntled people who dislike the outcome of recent elections.
All this does is sanction Lesser Evilism.
I know, I know... other places use it and like it. Telling us that is known in the world of advertising as The Bandwagon Sales Pitch, and it makes no difference to me. The need for this Madison Avenue approach to sell this farce indicates the shallowness of the system getting sold to us.
I don't compromise when it comes to ethics. Period.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
Ranked-choice voting does not compromise anyone's ethics.
Period.
24
@Dan Styer
Thanks for the Jehovah-like pronouncement totally devoid of explanation.
Think of this: Compelling people to vote for candidates other than those they approve of is NOT an ethical compromise? How, exactly, is that? Back up your assertion, and you may be able to educate me and thus change my mind.
Are you willing to try? I am willing to listen.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
RCV is a great idea and should include general elections.
24
Could you clarify the description, please? The way it reads now it says that votes ranking the eliminated candidate as second choice will be distributed among the remaining candidates. I don't think that's correct, or that it makes sense. "[R]edistributed among the remaining candidates..." How? pro rata? alphabetically?
Are you trying to say that votes that ranked the eliminated candidate first will be recounted and the votes for second choice candidates will be ADDED to those candidates' first round votes and the total votes then used to deternine whether a majority attained and a candidate elected, on down the line until someone attains a majority of the votes?
4
@Hope Greenhill
The candidate with the fewest votes will be eliminated. But voters who ranked that eliminated candidate as #1 will still influence the outcome because their votes for their second-choice candidate will be given to that candidate and counted toward the total.
2
@Hope Greenhill Yes, that's right.
1
New Yorker's should take this opportunity to vote for ranked choice.
I am hopeful that it will come to my city soon. I see it as a great way to reduce much of today's polarization.
22
We've had ranked voting in Cambridge MA for decades and it works very well!
When it's applied to a panel of offices (like city council) it's called proportional representation. E.g., if there are 5 seats and 21% of the voters vote for one candidate that candidate will get a seat.
It's also the best way for third party candidates to get elected. Example: My first choice candidate is Green Party; my second is Democrat. Your first choice candidate is also Green; your second is Republican. In the current system, we'd both vote for the major parties for fear of electing the other major party. But with ranked voting, we'd both vote for Green and if there were enough of us, Green would win.
GO RANKED VOTING!
19
How does this affect recounts?
As the initial election results will produce a winner regardless, the recount concept might only be applied to that result. But in fact a recount could lead to a different rank-order and a different outcome. You would need to preserve the mechanism of the recount potentially resetting the entire ranked-choice.
5
@Jpriestly
The cool thing about computers is that they can crank through an alleged "complicated" algorithm in a trivial amount of time.
A recount could be requested if ballots are thought to be missing or otherwise not counted. A recount is really a validation of ballots. Each ballot normally has a unique number identifying it. As ballots are added or invalidated by a recount process, their information can be added to or removed from the valid ballots list and the "recount" re-run in a few seconds.
3
A pointless exercise in my opinion. Why not have a choice for "none" to indicate an active rejection of all the candidates rather than the ambiguity of abstention? Or perhaps the parties would not be willing to risk a frank assessment of the candidates by the voting public?
5
@SR
A NO vote is effectively a vote for the party farthest away from your closest choice. While it makes you feel good it penalizes you and those that would think more like you.
9
@stonezen
I see nothing wrong with making honest appraisals. Perhaps more making a "none" choice will lead to some better quality of candidates but probably not.
1
We had ranked choice voting for mayor in Burlington for two election cycles but the voters ultimately decided to drop it. Why? The problem arises when the leading first round candidate receives less than 50% of the vote and has a substantial lead on the second place candidate, but loses after second and third round votes are tallied. We have such an ingrained institutional memory that the first place candidate "must" win. The voters ultimately decided to go back to the traditional method.
5
@Mike: Ken Arrow's theorem on social choice:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem
proves that no voting scheme is perfect. But ranked-choice voting is less imperfect than traditional.
5
The more innovative move would be to choose a Condorcet method. With such methods, if there is a candidate who beats all other candidates in pairwise comparisons, that candidate will win. It is telling that cities innovating in election voting choose ranked choice voting. It does not do much to help moderate third-party candidates. Once three candidates remain, votes of the third-party candidate will be reassigned to those voters' second choices. A third-party candidate can thus win only by being more popular than one of the major party candidates, not by being a consensus second pick to both major party candidates.
2
@Michael I disagree with your last point: Ranked voting may be the best way to elect moderate candidates.
I remember standing in line to vote for President in 1980. A person in front of me said "If Jimmy Carter didn't scare me so much, I'd vote for John Anderson."
At the same time, I was thinking, "If Ronald Reagan didn't scare me so much, I'd vote for John Anderson."
It might have changed US history.
16
@Bostontrim
I actually DID vote for Anderson in 1980. As a Californian living in the Bay Area, I was in one of the few counties that favored Carter. This was before California turned reliably Democratic. Hard to imagine now, that Carter took only THREE out of ... 58 counties.
1
@Michael I voted for Jon Anderson too, and have regretted it ever since. Now I will always vote Democrat no matter what I think of the candidate, because I think Republicans are all looneys. With RCV I could have listed Carter as my 2nd choice.
It would be wise to test this method of voting on several smaller sample sizes first, ie sheriff, school boards, etc. Also, I believe several countries including UK have a voting system very similar. Perhaps their experience, pros and cons, should be analyzed and communicated before full implementation in NY. Also, if people need to rank candidates, then the voting time for each person will take considerably longer. So extended voting station hours will be required along with more advanced voting days available. My understanding ranking is a viable alternative. But before implementation make sure the 'people' understand and accept this new method.
1
Santa Fe city elections used RCV for the first time in 2018. It is only meaningful when there are more than two candidates for an office. We had five mayoral candidates. The winner led from the beginning (39%) but it took all four rounds for him to get a (substantial 66%) majority.
You vote for your favorite candidate in first place, another in second place, etc. If the initial totals do not give a candidate a majority, then the trailing candidate is eliminated and his votes are distributed to the other candidates. Rounds continue until one candidate has a majority. With N candidates one can have up to N-1 rounds.
Gaming the system doesn't work. If you vote only for your favorite candidate, and that person is eliminated during the process, your influence on who wins ends. If you leave a rank position unvoted, the candidates below move up.
This was approved some years ago, but the city council delayed its implementation with a series of excuses (software is still not ready, a massive education campaign is required, etc.) until they were threatened with a lawsuit. At my polling place, they had plenty of check-in stations, portable voting booths, three scanning machines, and other help. I saw one guy whose ballot was rejected by the scanner as invalid because he had two #1 choices—he got an explanation and another ballot. But overall things went smoothly and I think this is a good way to proceed with multi-candidate elections.
16
This sounds great. I've never agreed with the winner-take-all approach or a candidate winning with less than a majority. And I've always said I'd gladly vote every week, on numerous issues, for a greater voice. The only problem is you can't get people to vote even once. How will they get them to the polls repeatedly until someone wins? The people who are the most committed, have the most time or the most at stake will be the repeat voters. And when I say the most committed, I also mean that some of them should be committed.
2
@Perfect Gentleman
"How will they get them to the polls repeatedly until someone wins? "
Gentleman: I'm pretty sure that's not how it works.
13
@Mary Ann
It looks to me, at first reading, that more than one vote is required, and the idea of runoffs is mentioned. Looking more closely at it, it sounds somewhat complicated, as other commenters have pointed out. I'm not really sure how it's supposed to work.
@Perfect Gentleman There is no repeated voting. You vote once. At that time, the ballot says "First Choice:", then "Second Choice:", then "Third Choice:" etc.
10
They should go further and bring back the old proportional representation system that LaGuardia introduced.
While I appreciate the advantages of RCV, I still have a problem with it. And my main complaint is that it gives some people more than one vote. Because if their first choice is ruled out, their second vote now counts. And maybe even their third (limit of three in Minneapolis). It encourages voting for fringe candidates, since the voter will figure that their first vote will get thrown out. If this happens too much, it really confuses the whole election situation.
1
@BigFootMN Au contraire, RCV minimizes the impact of splinter candidates. If it had been in place in FL in 2000, Nader voters would have chosen Gore as their second choice, Nader would have been eliminated in the first round, and the FL (and hence federal) election outcome would have been different. And the entire debacle during 2001-2008 would not have happened.
There is no confusion. Given an initial choice among vanilla, chocolate, and strawberry ice cream, even a child understands "Sorry, we're out of chocolate, what is your second choice?".
46
@BigFootMN
Not multiple votes - it's all still the same vote if someone prefers neither of the major players; this just makes sure that vote actually has influence and isn't "wasted". Many don't vote because they feel their first choice has no chance and they refuse the implied affirmation of selecting between the two other "evils". This will boost election participation, and also make sure that the winner is actually someone that most of the voters prefer.
19
@Leading Edge Boomer Like it or not, we don't always get what we want. I don't like the outcome in FL in 2000. But (at least according to the SCOTUS) more people preferred Bush over Gore. I don't like the Court ruling, but I also don't like to let people have a "do over" on their vote. They should think about the impact of their vote, much as it may well come to in 2020. We have a binary system, like it or not. Otherwise, we could go to the parliamentary system and have the fun and games they are having in Britain now.
Massachusetts also has a ballot iniative in the works, with volunteers currenting collecting signatures on a petition. A bill has also been filed in the legislature and already has over 80 sponsors.
So Massachusetts voters should also have a chance to vote on Ranked Choice Voting statewide assuming enough signatures.
Apparently a few cities and towns in Massachusetts already use RCV.
8
I really hope that this comes to fruition , it is an an example of Democracy at its most perfect.
23