State Preparing to Implement Ranked-choice Voting - Polidicks

[QUOTE][B]Democratic Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap's office will begin preparing to implement the system for the 2018 races[/B]. Dunlap said his office will start drawing up regulations despite lacking funding to implement the new system.[/QUOTE] Yep, It's Official that Maine is first of many states will abandoned FPTP to RCV/IRV (or non-Plurality based voting system). [URL="http://www.wabi.tv/content/news/State-Preparing-to-Implement-Ranked-choice-Voting-431639813.html"]http://www.wabi.tv/content/news/State-Preparing-to-Implement-Ranked-choice-Voting-431639813.html[/URL]

Nice, for however long it lasts. Maybe in 50 or 100 years we'll finally end winner-takes-all, too.

hope everyone who was against this gets voted out

[QUOTE=Luni;52416439]Nice, for however long it lasts. Maybe in 50 or 100 years we'll finally end First Past the Post, too.[/QUOTE] we still haven't ended winner-take-all electoral college voting so that might be a bit brisk of a timeline there. we need to go to proportional allotments for electoral votes THEN ranked choice

[QUOTE=Sableye;52416585]we still haven't ended winner-take-all electoral college voting so that might be a bit brisk of a timeline there. we need to go to proportional allotments for electoral votes THEN ranked choice[/QUOTE] The Fair Representation Act was just introduced earlier this week for exactly that reason. If implemented it would mix ranked choice voting with much larger multi person districts. It's been introduced by a democrat so it is unlikely to get enough support this legislative session, however I remain hopeful now that our voting problems are starting to be discussed on a national level. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-change-how-we-elect-the-house-of-representatives/2017/06/27/92f28570-5ab9-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html[/url]

[QUOTE=Sableye;52416585]we still haven't ended winner-take-all electoral college voting so that might be a bit brisk of a timeline there. we need to go to proportional allotments for electoral votes THEN ranked choice[/QUOTE] ranked choice is more important; it gives you the ability to vote for independent candidates that actually have a stake in changing the system

[QUOTE=bitches;52416778]ranked choice is more important; it gives you the ability to vote for independent candidates that actually have a stake in changing the system[/QUOTE] Except those independents won't be elected, so nothing would change. AV/IRV do not break from the two-party system. STV, which Vitalogy mentioned and links to, does in fact allow for third party representation, but STV also has lots of problems as well. At least with electoral college reform, it would mean that Presidents-elect are actually the candidate with the most votes in their election. Unlike say Trump becoming President despite Clinton getting several million more votes than him.

[QUOTE=BF;52417294]Except those independents won't be elected, so nothing would change. AV/IRV do not break from the two-party system. STV, which Vitalogy mentioned and links to, does in fact allow for third party representation, but STV also has lots of problems as well. At least with electoral college reform, it would mean that Presidents-elect are actually the candidate with the most votes in their election. Unlike say Trump becoming President despite Clinton getting several million more votes than him.[/QUOTE] i'm referring to ranked choice making it safe to vote for independent candidates; a lot of people were wary of Bernie Sanders simply because the idea of a third party presidential candidate would split the Democratic vote in half to ensure a Republican win with a ranked vote that cycles out losing candidates and redistributes each voter's opinions, there is no risk in ranking a third party candidate as #1 on your ballot you will not get electoral reform with candidates that depend against it

[QUOTE=bitches;52417626]i'm referring to ranked choice making it safe to vote for independent candidates; a lot of people were wary of Bernie Sanders simply because the idea of a third party presidential candidate would split the Democratic vote in half to ensure a Republican win with a ranked vote that cycles out losing candidates and redistributes each voter's opinions, there is no risk in ranking a third party candidate as #1 on your ballot you will not get electoral reform with candidates that depend against it[/QUOTE] Yeah I know all of that, we use IRV for our elections here after all. But what's I'm saying is that it's pointless reform, because sure it does let you safely preference those fringe candidates above main candidates, but there's no actual change in electoral outcomes (in terms of uprooting the balance of power of the political parties). That means in America, that Democrats and Republicans would remain king. Just like how Australia has a two-party system, which is stronger than even the Labour/Conservatives system in the UK (considering they have SNP, LD, DUP etc as well). When people hear IRV (or the less-specific 'alternative vote' or 'ranked choice' names) there's somehow this assumption that it means legislatures will suddenly be filled with independent and third party candidates, and the country becomes a democratic utopia. That doesn't happen. Not in theory nor in practice. Eg with the case of Sanders, Sanders was always polling behind Clinton. If Sanders went to the general election as an independent, he would have been eliminated (after the Green and Libertarian candidates) and his votes would have transferred to Clinton or Trump, each who would have had a higher first preference count. Clinton versus Trump... so the last election under FPTP? [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] All I'm saying is that when Maine does actually run elections under their new IRV system and they keep on electing only Democrats and Republicans, just don't complain, because that's the IRV system working perfectly as intended. There are more-effective democratic reforms that can be implemented, but Americans insist on trying this band-aid solution.

[QUOTE=Vitalogy;52416676]The Fair Representation Act was just introduced earlier this week for exactly that reason. If implemented it would mix ranked choice voting with much larger multi person districts. It's been introduced by a democrat so it is unlikely to get enough support this legislative session, however I remain hopeful now that our voting problems are starting to be discussed on a national level. [url]https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-change-how-we-elect-the-house-of-representatives/2017/06/27/92f28570-5ab9-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html[/url][/QUOTE] So here video verison of how act would play out. [video=youtube;Bqc1ekCwmXw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bqc1ekCwmXw[/video]

[QUOTE=BF;52418107]Yeah I know all of that, we use IRV for our elections here after all. But what's I'm saying is that it's pointless reform, because sure it does let you safely preference those fringe candidates above main candidates, but there's no actual change in electoral outcomes (in terms of uprooting the balance of power of the political parties). That means in America, that Democrats and Republicans would remain king. Just like how Australia has a two-party system, which is stronger than even the Labour/Conservatives system in the UK (considering they have SNP, LD, DUP etc as well). When people hear IRV (or the less-specific 'alternative vote' or 'ranked choice' names) there's somehow this assumption that it means legislatures will suddenly be filled with independent and third party candidates, and the country becomes a democratic utopia. That doesn't happen. Not in theory nor in practice. Eg with the case of Sanders, Sanders was always polling behind Clinton. If Sanders went to the general election as an independent, he would have been eliminated (after the Green and Libertarian candidates) and his votes would have transferred to Clinton or Trump, each who would have had a higher first preference count. Clinton versus Trump... so the last election under FPTP? [editline]1st July 2017[/editline] All I'm saying is that when Maine does actually run elections under their new IRV system and they keep on electing only Democrats and Republicans, just don't complain, because that's the IRV system working perfectly as intended. There are more-effective democratic reforms that can be implemented, but Americans insist on trying this band-aid solution.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I see the point of RV for things like presidential elections, but when it comes to legislative elections, it makes more sense to just go straight to proportional representation.