M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 107 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
This rank-choice voting will be a mess for conservatives in the midterms. Something bad is gonna happen - I can feel it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldflyboy

·
Registered
Scout Squad AA9126
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) just makes sense- not really sure why so many conservatives are afraid of it...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
Alaska just produced a Democrat w/ 10% of the vote who won a seat in congress to fill the remainder of the one deceased. Palin and another Republican ran against this single Democrat w/ 10% of the votes and this Democrat won. There should not be any Democrat coming out in a redder state than AK. Please explain rank-choice voting how it is good.

Even Sara Sanders in AR lost the governorship coz of rank-choice voting.
 

·
Registered
Scout Squad AA9126
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
Eggnog
Water
Diet Dr Pepper
Prune Juice
Coffee

Rank them best to worst.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
I just need to know which ones are the Democrats so I know which ones not to vote for. 😁 Your Rank-Choice will force Republicans to vote on Democrats. So if the consistent popular 3rd choice is a Democrat = that prick will rank higher than the 1st/2nd choices..if they do not meet the consistency and get booted. That is how you produce a winner from the least of the pile.

Am I close?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Joeman335

·
Registered
Scout Squad AA9126
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
It's actually kinda ironic that so many people who vociferously rationalize the importance of voting for "lesser-of-evils" somehow just can't grasp ranked-choice voting. If you only want to vote for one candidate that's just fine- RCV doesn't change anything for folks only interested in a one party/one candidate vote.

RCV is for the voters who want to still have a say in who wins if their first choice candidate ends up losing. It allows for the voting equivalent of saying "Well, if it ain't gonna be my guy, between these other bozos I guess I'd rather see this bozo win, or even that bozo win long before I'd want to see that bozo win".

In short, it works like this...

Voters mark their ballots in order of preference – 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, and so on.
For a single candidate, all first choices are tallied. Just like any standard election, if a candidate wins a majority among the first-choice votes the election is over- that candidate is the winner.
If there is not a candidate with a majority in the first round of voting, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and the second choices from those ballots are then added to the remaining candidates.
The process repeats until one candidate receives a majority of the votes and is declared the winner.

It's actually very simple and straightforward.
 

·
Registered
Scout Squad AA9126
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
And another thing...

If your silly neighbor (whose first choice is the "wrong" candidate) happens to pick your candidate as his second choice- that could be the vote that puts your first choice candidate into the majority for the win...
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) just makes sense- not really sure why so many conservatives are afraid of it...
Not afraid.
It is a mechanism to do what was done in Alaska.
Elect candidates who do not get a majority of the vote.
It diluted the Republican vote in Alaska.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
It's actually kinda ironic that so many people who vociferously rationalize the importance of voting for "lesser-of-evils" somehow just can't grasp ranked-choice voting. If you only want to vote for one candidate that's just fine- RCV doesn't change anything for folks only interested in a one party/one candidate vote.
Not at all.
It removes real choice in context of reality.
Like a crap shoot your vote is based upon projection to circumstances of pure speculation.
It turns voting into gambling.
Typical leftist progressive ploy.

Multiple votes per voter in a single election.
The best way to allow for a minority constituent outcome.
Banana Republic Third World Politics.
Multiple Cast Vote Manipulation.
A simple subversion of a two party system which is why Libertarians like it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
For a single candidate, all first choices are tallied. Just like any standard election, if a candidate wins a majority among the first-choice votes the election is over- that candidate is the winner.
Not True.
It must be an outright majority, not a simple majority.
Candidate A did not win. Even though Candidate A clearly received the majority of
votes among the first choice candidates.
It is embraced by the anti electoral college crowd.
Rectangle Font Material property Parallel Screenshot
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
The liberals and leftist love rank-choice vote system coz they know conservatives will not be out to vote every time it cycles - they will be at work. The ones on welfare and govt subsidies who have the time to show up for all the voting cycles that could take days and weeks.

The point is - it will tire out the voters. And once they are tired, they just want it over and whoever comes out does not matter coz they just want to get back w/ their lives. It is a very efficient way to distract the voters. How many times are the voters going to vote in all cycles? They might only have time to vote quarter of the time - so the votes dwindle as it progresses downpath.

This type of voting is a scam. IMO.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,675 Posts
The primaries are plenty - whoever comes out is the candidate. Either you go left or right - this is not that hard.

Rank Choice Voting is a very good way to confuse the hell out of the voters. This is like voting for the smartest guy in the class by popularity. Should be by test-scores, damn it. On the person's own merit.

I look at Rank Choice voting as Affirmative Action for politicians. You will really end up w/ some dumb ones.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
778 Posts
This is one of my biggest sources of anger, and it isn't the Dems or the 'Pubs -- it is both!

Politicians of all stripes like to give lip service to "supporting the troops," but when it comes to funding programs to help them, especially for taking care of the ones who have been hurt while serving, they don't gave a crap.

Jon Stewart may be anti-gun, and on the left, but God bless him for him shaming Congress for not stepping in to help vets transition to civilian life. A good example is medics. He blasted the system for making trained combat medics start training from square one to be an EMT.

Another good thing Steward did was shaming Congress for not reauthorizing more funding the 9/11 program to help those who were hurt and suffered long-term, life-changing illnesses because of exposure to HAZMAT when they worked to clear the pile at the WTC. These folks, including first responders had to deal with really nasty illnesses, including cancers, as a direct result of working at the pile.

On the topic, I cannot ignore -- or forgive -- the EPA saying that working there did not carry health risks! They knew it was BS, but said it anyway.

Congress would rather bring home pork instead of caring for those hurt because of their service. "Thank you for your service. Oh, you got your legs blown off by a roadside IED in Iraq/Afghanistan? We will give you a pat on the back, but you are own your own. The VA sucks? Oh well!"

"So you got lung cancer from working at the WTC pile? How brave of you! Oh, you want funding for the illnesses caused by that work? So sorry... Sucks to be you."

OK... I'm off my soapbox. For now.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
463 Posts
It's been two wings of the same bird for a long time, hence the RINO, the only acceptable Republican to the (Socialist) Democrat and the Socialist media.
Then came Mr. Trump bearing the light of the truth and the Constitution causing something to spin for the Dems ripping out the shorthairs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,149 Posts
I don’t think RCV involves multiple choices over multiple visits.
It actually does the opposite. It combines multiple votes in a single ballot.
If they cannot make an accurate uncontested count for a one person one vote ballot, how will they possibly do it with a multi count, multi tiered conglomeration count among non majority candidates all combined on a single ballot?

Shell game balloting.

You are combining more than one vote per citizen on a single elected office ballot.
Pete likes it because it dilutes the votes for the front runners in the respective two party system allowing those who would normally only garner enough votes to split a ballot to take the election with multiple recounts.

It is and electioneered auto recount system.
 
1 - 20 of 107 Posts
Top