• Ranked-Choice Voting Amendment Fails In House
    24 replies, posted
[QUOTE]A proposed constitutional amendment to correct concerns with ranked-choice voting has fallen well short of the two-thirds vote needed in the House to send it to the voters. Supporters fear that may mean repeal of the original voter-approved initiative passed last fall.[/QUOTE] [URL="http://mainepublic.org/post/ranked-choice-voting-amendment-fails-house#stream/0"]http://mainepublic.org/post/ranked-choice-voting-amendment-fails-house#stream/0[/URL]
Massive shame though that we go on about how great democracy is whilst intentionally supporting a system that suppresses million's of people's voices and taking down alternatives because our leaders are afraid they are not liked enough to survive the shift in power it will bring. This battle is lost, but the war isn't over.
Article title is misleading. They didn't vote on a ranked choice voting amendment, they voted on amending their constitution, so that the ranked choice voting bill could then be presented to the voters without risking it being unconstitutional. If I remember correctly, I believe that the constitutionality issue regards a line that states that the plurality winner is the person who wins an election, and it makes sense to amend that, because the initial plurality winner isn't necessarily the final majority winner in that voting system. And for people who won't read the article, keep in mind that 78 of the legislators voted for it while 68 voted against it, so it would have easily passed if Maine constitutional amendments could be passed by a simple majority. So if anything, blame Maine's founding fathers.
I don't really know why people push for ranked choice, it leaves the worst problems of our system unresolved. Sounds like a waste to release the tension on nothing.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52394490]I don't really know why people push for ranked choice, it leaves the worst problems of our system unresolved. Sounds like a waste to release the tension on nothing.[/QUOTE] What are those worst problems then? FPTP is a pretty shitty, undemocratic system. Even if that's not the [I]worst[/I] problem it still is one that's worth tackling.
[QUOTE=_Axel;52394494]What are those worst problems then? FPTP is a pretty shitty, undemocratic system. Even if that's not the [I]worst[/I] problem it still is one that's worth tackling.[/QUOTE] The lack of third parties, unproportional representation, and susceptability to gerrymandering. This ranked choice thing in Maine only slightly ameliorates the second and also makes the two parties more comfy (see how australia wound up with this.)
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52394490]I don't really know why people push for ranked choice, it leaves the worst problems of our system unresolved. Sounds like a waste to release the tension on nothing.[/QUOTE] It's a feel-good measure, mostly. But that's not necessarily a bad thing; if it brings more voters to the ballot box, then why not. I imagine as many people advocate for it as they do, because there's some widespread misconceptions surrounding it. For example, there's the belief that it helps to get independents and third parties elected, but that is certainly not true, in theory and practice.
[QUOTE=BF;52394507]It's a feel-good measure, mostly. But that's not necessarily a bad thing; if it brings more voters to the ballot box, then why not. I imagine as many people advocate for it as they do, because there's some widespread misconceptions surrounding it. For example, there's the belief that it helps to get independents and third parties elected, but that is certainly not true, in theory and practice.[/QUOTE] But that greater satisfaction weakens the potential energy that can be utilized to push for a real overhaul of the system. Just for a far-reaching comparison, you can look at how Bismarck in Germany managed to take the steam out of the Socialist movement by allowing light labor reforms to take place.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52394490]I don't really know why people push for ranked choice, it leaves the worst problems of our system unresolved. Sounds like a waste to release the tension on nothing.[/QUOTE] we wouldn't have had the orange monster and GW if we had ranked choice
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52394503]The lack of third parties, unproportional representation, and susceptability to gerrymandering. This ranked choice thing in Maine only slightly ameliorates the second and also makes the two parties more comfy (see how australia wound up with this.)[/QUOTE] The lack of third parties and proportional representation are in part due to winner-takes-all. When you can only vote for one candidate, it means the entire political spectrum will end up boiled down to just two parties: one liberal and one conservative. There's no room for any others because if there are, the vote is split and the minority party may win instead. Ranked choice allows you to have fallback choices, and with that you can choose candidates you like, which means more varied candidates and better representation.
[QUOTE=BF;52394474]Article title is misleading. They didn't vote on a ranked choice voting amendment, they voted on amending their constitution, so that the ranked choice voting bill could then be presented to the voters without risking it being unconstitutional.[/QUOTE] They voted on [url=http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=SP0577&item=1&snum=128]this[/url], which is an amendment to the Maine Constitution which would replace the word 'plurality' with the word 'majority'
[QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52394911]They voted on [url=http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=SP0577&item=1&snum=128]this[/url], which is an amendment to the Maine Constitution which would replace the word [B]'plurality' with the word 'majority'[/B][/QUOTE] I was thinking about that too for what they supposed to do for replacing plurality.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52394587]The lack of third parties and proportional representation are in part due to winner-takes-all. When you can only vote for one candidate, it means the entire political spectrum will end up boiled down to just two parties: one liberal and one conservative. There's no room for any others because if there are, the vote is split and the minority party may win instead. Ranked choice allows you to have fallback choices, and with that you can choose candidates you like, which means more varied candidates and better representation.[/QUOTE] The lack of proportional representation has entirely to do with winner-takes-all, keeping in mind that AV/IRV are winner-takes-all systems, just like FPTP. AV/IRV do not intentionally facilitate third party representation, either. Consider this: third parties are considered third parties because they are smaller in size and support compared to the major parties. When any candidate doesn't receive a majority of the votes on the first count of an AV/IRV election, which candidates are eliminated and the votes for them transferred? That's right, the smaller party candidates. Or if the theory doesn't sit right with you, here are some practical examples of IRV in action in Australia right now: Queensland Legislative Assembly seats [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e9/Queensland_Legislative_Assembly_2015.svg/1024px-Queensland_Legislative_Assembly_2015.svg.png[/T] New South Wales Legislative Assembly seats [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/NSW_Legislative_Assembly_2015.svg/1024px-NSW_Legislative_Assembly_2015.svg.png[/t] *The Liberals (blue) and Nationals (dark green) are in a coalition, but they do not contest each other's seats. Liberals contest urban seats, and the Nationals contest regional/rural seats. They are almost effectively a single party. Western Australian Legislative Assembly [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/WA_Legislative_Assembly.svg/1024px-WA_Legislative_Assembly.svg.png[/t] *Once again, dark green are the Nationals. Australian House of Representatives [t]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Australian_House_of_Representatives%2C_45th_Parliament.svg/1024px-Australian_House_of_Representatives%2C_45th_Parliament.svg.png[/t] *Dark blue are the Liberals. Dark green are the Nationals. Light blue are the Liberal Nationals, which exists solely in Queensland as a result of the Liberal and National party merger there. Those three parties are almost effectively the same party. [editline]24th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sableye;52394549]we wouldn't have had the orange monster and GW if we had ranked choice[/QUOTE] You wouldn't have had the 'orange monster' if the US had a direct election for the Presidency, rather than the electoral college system. And that's even with FPTP. [editline]24th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Bob The Knob;52394911]They voted on [url=http://www.mainelegislature.org/legis/bills/getPDF.asp?paper=SP0577&item=1&snum=128]this[/url], which is an amendment to the Maine Constitution which would replace the word 'plurality' with the word 'majority'[/QUOTE] Which is exactly what I was saying.
The primary issue isn't with FPtP; it's with the garbage electoral system, and how it disproportionately only favors Republicans. In the last 16 years, Democrats have won the popular vote iirc. Once the electoral college is gone, then we can push for a new alternative for voting.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52394490]I don't really know why people push for ranked choice, it leaves the worst problems of our system unresolved. Sounds like a waste to release the tension on nothing.[/QUOTE] But it does solve the main problems of the voting system? What are you talking about, specifically?
[QUOTE=Omilinon;52395076]The primary issue isn't with FPtP; it's with the garbage electoral system, and how it disproportionately only favors Republicans. In the last 16 years, Democrats have won the popular vote iirc. Once the electoral college is gone, then we can push for a new alternative for voting.[/QUOTE] Reform to the electoral college, or outright replacing it, is a good step that I think everyone would acknowledge. But that only deals with the Presidency. And reform to things like the US House require 'outside of the box' thinking. It's not enough to replace FPTP with IRV, and call it a day. It's not even enough to implement a proportional system like STV or list proportional methods. One of the biggest problems with the US House is that it isn't large enough. A single congressperson represents over 710,000 people. In comparison, an Australian MP represents around 95,000 people, and a British MP represents around 75,000 people. To be able to make it on to the ballot in an American congressional election and win the election, you're going to need a hell of a lot of money, which not many people have. Even if money wasn't an issue, you're still going to need to have a hell of a lot of influence, to make it onto that ballot. It's no surprise that American politicians might seem a bit 'out of touch' with the general public, because there's only an elite few who can reasonably contest Congressional elections, and they certainly aren't the average joe. I know this isn't exactly realistic, but if the US House was seven times larger, so that each congressperson represented around 100,000 voters, that would make a hell of a difference in reconnecting Congress with the public.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;52394503]The lack of third parties, unproportional representation, and susceptability to gerrymandering. This ranked choice thing in Maine only slightly ameliorates the second and also makes the two parties more comfy (see how australia wound up with this.)[/QUOTE] Third parties can't ever really exist in any system though unless they're hamfisted in, for the most part at least. No matter what, when one party gets large enough the diffusion of it's influence by it's audience spreads exponentially as well. Eventually you're just going to end up with two big parties again unless you put strict regulations in place. This can't be solved in voting reforms. Ranked choice voting systems make the system more democratic and that's what they're intended to do - not literally fix everything. We should take one step at a time and ranked choice voting is one big step forward.
That's still more choice than we have in the United States, where we pick between Blue or Red, any anything else is effectively a non-vote. Our current system is actually better for choosing who we [I]don't[/I] want rather than who we [I]do[/I] want. We don't vote for Candidate A because we want them, we vote for Candidate A because too many votes for Candidate C will split the vote and Candidate B will win. The goal is often to defeat Candidate B, and electing Candidate A is just the only viable method of doing this. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/United_States_House_of_Representatives_2017.svg/360px-United_States_House_of_Representatives_2017.svg.png[/img] This is the US House of Representatives, it has 435 members. The current make-up is 239 Republicans, 193 Democrats, and 4 Vacant seats. These are elected by state legislators, and their party affiliation usually represents that. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/115th_United_States_Senate.svg/360px-115th_United_States_Senate.svg.png[/img] This is the US Senate, it has 100 members. The current make-up is 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and 2 Independents; Bernie Sanders and Angus King. Out of 535 Representatives, only 2 are not from one of the two main parties, and zero are third party members.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52395128]But it does solve the main problems of the voting system? What are you talking about, specifically?[/QUOTE] AV/IRV solves: - spoiler effect - wasted votes for minor candidates (but not wasted votes for the 'first loser' candidate) AV/IRV does not solve: - safe seats (they do exist even without gerrymandering) - proportional representation (inherent in all election systems for single-member districts) - third party representation (it's a majoritarian, winner-takes-all system, as opposed to proportional) - gerrymandering (anything less than an at-large district is susceptible if the electoral office is not nonpartisan) [editline]24th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52395148]That's still more choice than we have in the United States, where we pick between Blue or Red, any anything else is effectively a non-vote. Our current system is actually better for choosing who we [I]don't[/I] want rather than who we [I]do[/I] want. We don't vote for Candidate A because we want them, we vote for Candidate A because too many votes for Candidate C will split the vote and Candidate B will win. The goal is often to defeat Candidate B, and electing Candidate A is just the only viable method of doing this. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4e/United_States_House_of_Representatives_2017.svg/360px-United_States_House_of_Representatives_2017.svg.png[/img] This is the US House of Representatives, it has 435 members. The current make-up is 239 Republicans, 193 Democrats, and 4 Vacant seats. These are elected by state legislators, and their party affiliation usually represents that. [img]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/115th_United_States_Senate.svg/360px-115th_United_States_Senate.svg.png[/img] This is the US Senate, it has 100 members. The current make-up is 52 Republicans, 46 Democrats, and 2 Independents; Bernie Sanders and Angus King. Out of 535 Representatives, only 2 are not from one of the two main parties, and zero are third party members.[/QUOTE] There's no point in having voter choice if those choices cannot realistically become outcomes. Eg on average eight candidates contest each House election here, but as seen, it's pretty much only a competition between Labor and the Liberals/Nationals coalition in all but a few seats, after preferences have been accounted for. Third parties instead see the best outcomes in the upper houses here where elections are conducted under STV instead, and so third parties generally hold the balance of power in those upper houses.
[QUOTE=BF;52395153]AV/IRV solves: - spoiler effect - wasted votes for minor candidates (but not wasted votes for the 'first loser' candidate) AV/IRV does not solve: - safe seats (they do exist even without gerrymandering) - proportional representation (inherent in all election systems for single-member districts) - third party representation (it's a majoritarian, winner-takes-all system, as opposed to proportional) - gerrymandering (anything less than an at-large district is susceptible if the electoral office is not nonpartisan) [editline]24th June 2017[/editline] There's no point in having voter choice if those choices cannot realistically become outcomes. Eg on average eight candidates contest each House election here, but as seen, it's pretty much only a competition between Labor and the Liberals/Nationals coalition in all but a few seats, after preferences have been accounted for. Third parties instead see the best outcomes in the upper houses here where elections are conducted under STV instead, and so third parties generally hold the balance of power in those upper houses.[/QUOTE] There are a number of problems with the way voting is done in America and RCV certainly doesn't fix them all but it makes a sizable impact in addressing them while being a solution that isn't too foreign an idea to alienate people. Because it's fairly easy to explain and doesn't necessarily cause a massive shakeup in the actual manner people vote it can garner public support. I would hope that if it were to be implemented in any U.S. state more would follow and a wider discussion on the rest of our voting problems could then actually start to take place. Even though it's not perfect (no voting system is) it's a helluva good starting point. Edit: If anyone is from Indiana and is interested in working to get RCV implemented, send me a PM. I've been working on starting a grassroots campaign for it in the state.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;52394390] This battle is lost, but the war isn't over.[/QUOTE] The battle is lost. May the force save the Republic. A total loss of faith in American Democracy is inevitable without election reform.
[QUOTE=Mr. Sarcastic;52397878]The battle is lost. May the force save the Republic. A total loss of faith in American Democracy is inevitable without election reform.[/QUOTE] Yea, May going save already broken Unrepresentative Republic like the United States until it's collapsed in future.
I don't know if Ranked-Choice would give 3rd party candidates a better chance. It would probably just remove the spoiler effect: When the third party candidate loses, it will give the main parties the leftover votes from the few green and libertarian voters in the country
[QUOTE=proboardslol;52398036]I don't know if Ranked-Choice would give 3rd party candidates a better chance. It would probably just remove the spoiler effect: When the third party candidate loses, it will give the main parties the leftover votes from the few green and libertarian voters in the country[/QUOTE] That's pretty much exactly how it works. [editline]25th June 2017[/editline] Shameless copy and paste from Wikipedia, if people were not persuaded by my earlier posts in this thread: [quote=Instant-runoff voting][b]IRV is not a proportional voting method. Like all winner-take-all voting methods, IRV tends to exaggerate the number of seats won by the largest parties; small parties without majority support in any given constituency are unlikely to earn seats in a legislature, although their supporters will be more likely to be part of the final choice between the two strongest candidates[/b].[54] A simulation of IRV in the 2010 UK general election by the Electoral Reform Society concluded that the election would have altered the balance of seats among the three main parties, but the number of seats won by minor parties would have remained unchanged.[55] Australia, a nation with a long record of using IRV for the election of legislative bodies, has had representation in its parliament broadly similar to that expected by plurality methods. Medium-sized parties, such as the National Party of Australia, can co-exist with coalition partners such as the Liberal Party of Australia, and can compete against it without fear of losing seats to other parties due to vote splitting.[56] IRV is more likely to result in legislatures where no single party has an absolute majority of seats (a hung parliament),[citation needed] but does not generally produce as fragmented a legislature as a fully proportional method, such as is used for the House of Representatives of the Netherlands or the New Zealand House of Representatives, where coalitions of numerous small parties are needed for a majority.[/quote]
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52395137]Third parties can't ever really exist in any system though unless they're hamfisted in, for the most part at least. No matter what, when one party gets large enough the diffusion of it's influence by it's audience spreads exponentially as well. Eventually you're just going to end up with two big parties again unless you put strict regulations in place. This can't be solved in voting reforms. Ranked choice voting systems make the system more democratic and that's what they're intended to do - not literally fix everything. We should take one step at a time and ranked choice voting is one big step forward.[/QUOTE] But what I'm saying is that there's a danger wasting people's energy on half solutions. Because they'll go home, we'll keep the 2 party system just without the spoiler effect, until another catastrophe happens and people get pissed. Why one step at a time when there's a plethora of great templates we can copy-paste? If there's one thing that can actually kill this country it'd be the disproportional representation and gerrymandering.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.