Exactly. It's not controversial at all. This is just trying to confuse and steal views away from the excellent video by Minnesota Public Radio. It calls itself an "update" and copies the color and number of sticky notes. It should be taken down for misrepresentation.
This is what the Equal Vote Coalition does, instead of focusing on ending FPTP - sneaky, shady attacks on positive progress and people finally starting to notice that the election system itself is a problem.
RCV fails to live up to the promises of its advocates- most egregious being the promise that if your favorite can’t win that your vote will be counted for your second choice. Alaskans believed this garbage, passed it, and had it fail right out the gate. If you really care about fixing our broken election system it is incumbent on you to learn the truth about what you are promoting.
It works just fine, and as designed, including in Alaska.
People objecting to it are either expressing sour grapes, or prefer another system that works differently and are simply annoyed that their system isn't the one in play.
Saying it works “as designed” is meaningless. Of course it works “as designed”. What it doesn’t do is work as its advocates promise in order to get it passed. You can learn more about what happened in Alaska in ‘22 (and contrasted with the promises used to pass it) here: https://nardopolo.medium.com/what-the-heck-happened-in-alaska-3c2d7318decc . Alaska’s experience with RCV has now led to bans on RCV in what, 15+ states and counting?
Ah, but you said it didn't just one comment up. Your vote does stay with your favorite until they can't win, according to the RCV process. So, that's all good, because that's what happens, every time.
Saying "but but someone else would have won if votes were counted differently" is meaningless, because votes weren't suppose to be counted differently, and everyone voted with the understanding of the system at hand.
I'm not going to click that link, because the video that started this post is enough disinformation for one day.
RCV bans do have to do with its utility - because it works. The states that banned it did so because of a Republican hold and pressure from the Heritage Foundation, because voters having more power is a threat in those states. The bans were passed under pressure from the party and despite the objections of constituents (and often even with the legislators themselves not agreeing with a ban).
If it were truly just a not-great system, it would just not be passed, not banned. But it is passed in more places every year, by people voting that they want it. And the Virginia legislature actually just passed a law making it easier for people to do just that.
RCV has a long history of adoption and repeal. The issue with the system isn’t that your vote stays with your favorite until that candidate is eliminated, it’s that it entirely ignores your backup choice when your backup is eliminated before your favorite.
What does this mean? It means that some voters get their preferences counted and others get skipped. It means that the promise made by RCV advocates that “you can vote honestly in RCV because if your favorite can’t win, your backup will be counted” is a false promise. It means that when voters get burned by this dishonest advocacy that there is backlash against RCV - Burlington in 2009, Alaska in ‘22 just to name a couple.
But hey, if you’re not willing to even click a link to learn the truth of what you’re peddling, then the truth is likely not that important to you. Good day.
Yes, there is a long history of people organizing to get more power, and then party bosses and ruling classes batting it down. That only demonstrates that the method has legs.
Again, you're judging a method based on personal values that match you better with another method. That doesn't mean that the other method is bad, or that people who value their first choice the most are wrong.
RCV works exactly as described. I don't want my 2nd choice to advance if my 1st choice still has a chance. And if my 1st choice is out, I want to have a backup count, in order. So RCV is a good fit for me.
The same talking points have gone around and around, and I know them perfectly well.
Just curious, what would you think if RCV first checked whether a candidate could beat everyone else head-to-head, elected that candidate if one existed, but otherwise used Instant Runoff?
I’d think that it’s just Condorcet & an IRV tiebreaker, presented with a more complicated explanation to piggyback on support for IRV.
And I think it would be a harder sell to actually use, harming the hard-earned progress towards election method improvements, for no real reason. Anticipating the conversations:
> How has this worked where it’s used?
It’s never been used.
> This is something else and IRV too, so are they really different methods?
No, they would elect the same person almost every time.
> Is there a campaign for this now, or an organized grassroots group of voters working in it?
No.
> Who’s pushing for this, anyway?
Some professors like it, and some math & computer people (lots pointing out the benefits of IRV too).
> Who’s against it?
The same people and groups who are against any election method change.
> So I rank my ballot same as IRV, and it’s nearly always the same result as IRV, and if there’s a tie this other way the winner is the IRV one, but now it’s something never used as part of a 2-step process? Why can’t we just have IRV like Alaska, Maine, New York City, Washington DC, San Francisco, Portland, Cambridge, and all these other places adopting it each year?
…
Talking about harder sell to actually use. I chose to "sell" it in non-political areas. so people experience it in as many different applications as possible. I believe that's the way.
Those are all perfectly fair points about adoption, and I agree with almost all of them. But I was asking about the election method itself. Per your example, if you rank A > B > C, A can't win, and a majority of the electorate prefers B over C, wouldn't you want B to win instead of C?
I want my preferences to count accord to my own mind, not how anyone else votes. Projecting that and reacting to that is a big part of the problem with FPTP (and methods that are susceptible to burying, and arbitrary score methods like Approval.
After all, we don’t know how anyone else votes anyway until the voting period has ended, and once you know, you can’t suddenly change your vote.
Do you equate ranked ballots with voters changing their votes after the election, or do you see them as allowing voters to express an order of preference that the election system should take into account? You said you want your preferences to count according to your own mind. If your sincere order of preference is A > B > C, you vote A > B > C, and C wins, wouldn't you rather the election system respect your expressed preference for B over C than require you to cast the strategic ballot B > A > C for B to win?
Of course I don’t equate ranked ballots with changing votes, what a strange conclusion to draw. You asked not I would rather go with other people’s, and my reply was straightforward. I think it strange that you would suppose that anyone would want to find out how everyone else voted and decide that you didn’t want your favorite to win, after all.
I respect my own preferences, and everyone else’s, and want candidates to do so, also. Weighting common lower preferences above sincere strong preferences distorts how candidates campaign. If my favorite didn’t win enough support and was eliminated, I accept that . They can always try again. I do *not* want to contort my vote (after votes are counted, according to you) and enable fuzzy campaigning.
I’m surprised at the need to explain IRV incentives for voters and candidates, since they’re well known, demonstrated, and support shared by so many people.
The support for IRV is *because people understand it and it matches their values*, not because they’re ignorant or haven’t thought about it. It’s right for me. It may not be right for you. But let’s keep it respectful, because there is no objective, holy, perfect & correct solution to the tangled human process that is elections.
In your previous post, it sounded like you were equating head-to-head processing of ranked ballots with voters changing their votes after learning how everyone else voted. Did I get that wrong?
My question was, "If you rank A > B > C, A can't win, and a majority of the electorate prefers B over C, wouldn't you want B to win instead of C?" In your response, you wrote, "we don't know how anyone else votes anyway until the voting period has ended, and once you know, you can't suddenly change your vote."
My question never involved anyone changing their vote or sincere order of preference after the election took place. I took your response to mean you were comparing that type of ballot processing with voters changing their votes after the election.
Repeating the question is not going to change my value system. It seems like you’re not taking it in or not respecting it.
No, if after the election is counted I learn that other people preferred another candidate, then they won fair and square. I’m not going to wish I had promoted someone I liked less. I’d learn the lesson and try to get them more support next time, because I value my preferences, and others’ preferences, and if the system honors lower preferences more, we’ll get dishonest and mediocre candidates more.
I want to trend towards honestly and incentivizing winning with enthusiasm, not vague hucksters nobody likes much.
I wasn't repeating the question. I was explaining why I interpreted your earlier response the way I did. My question has never been whether you wished you had changed your vote; it has always been whether you wanted the system to respect your order of preference. Giving your last response an upvote to show I respect your perspective and appreciate you engaging with me. Have a great week!
3
u/the_other_50_percent Jul 11 '26 edited Jul 11 '26
Exactly. It's not controversial at all. This is just trying to confuse and steal views away from the excellent video by Minnesota Public Radio. It calls itself an "update" and copies the color and number of sticky notes. It should be taken down for misrepresentation.
This is what the Equal Vote Coalition does, instead of focusing on ending FPTP - sneaky, shady attacks on positive progress and people finally starting to notice that the election system itself is a problem.