Can we agree that neither party trusts the voting system(s)?

[TSherbs]

Run-offs as separate, second elections are incredibly onerous and time/energy consuming (the election profit industry must love it tho). They should go to ranked-choice voting. Takes care of it much more simply and efficiently.

Ranked choice voting as a concept appeals to me, but the argument against it does cause some concern.

Perhaps the issue is requiring 50% or more of the votes, which seems to favor the two party system. Wouldn’t a “most votes” system eliminate the need for ranked choice? Example: 3 candidates, with candidate A getting 40%, candidate B getting 35% and candidate C getting 25%; would result in candidate A winning.

That's just why Maine went to ranked choice, via citizen referundum: the spoiler candidates ended up giving plurality victories to the party that the majority of the state actually did not want (again, the result, in part, of the whole thing being dominated by only two major parties). We also decided to split our electoral votes to try to get out of this "winner take all" binary choice conundrum also. It's not perfect, but it has resulted in people at least being able to vote for a first candidate without also handing a victory to their least favorite candidate.

Let me [edit] also to say that not all offices on Maine ballots are decided by ranked choice voting. The Maine Supreme Court advised that changes to RCV for Maine governor and other Maine state offices would be a violation of the Maine State constitution where the word "plurality" is used. So the initiatives and legislative acts focused only on federal offices and their primaries, and this has been held up by the courts and the US SC refused to hear the one case that was appealed to them.

[dneal]

I think splitting electoral votes is a good idea, and Nebraska does it too.

This is my understanding of the main problem with ranked choice. Keeping the same numbers of the example, I’ll add hypothetical 2nd choice numbers.

A 40, 20
B 35, 25
C 25, 55

Most ranked choice systems eliminate the bottom candidate, and reallocate votes. The hypothetical candidate C has a majority in 2nd choice, but is no longer considered.

[TSherbs]

Sort of, in Maine the bottom choice is removed, and only those votes (second choice) are redistributed, so not exactly how you have set it up. In your scenario, we can't tell even who wins. We have to eliminate C and redistribute all the second-place votes on the ballots that had first place for C. Those second place votes (total would be 25) would be distributed to A and B, according to each ballot. In other words, first-place votes still carry the most weight and the whole thing is not looked at as, who-got-the-most-first-and-second-round-votes-at-the-start? Not in Maine.

[dneal]

It seems that each state has slight differences, and thanks for clarification of how Maine works.

The concern still remains though. In the hypothetical, the voters are saying (well, if I had my druthers... it would be candidate A - but otherwise candidate C). That seems to be the point of ranked choice voting, and the problem introduced with the eliminations.

[TSherbs]

Well, a voter can't get everything he or she wants. Every process has its winners and losers. This one assures no minority but plurality winners, but still emphasizes first choices. The process of asking for this legally began in 2001 here and went through many twists and turns over the nearly two decades. This is what we have ended up with.

[dneal]

Well, a voter can't get everything he or she wants. Every process has its winners and losers. This one assures no minority but plurality winners, but still emphasizes first choices. The process of asking for this legally began in 2001 here and went through many twists and turns over the nearly two decades. This is what we have ended up with.

I'm still on the fence with this one. Problem is, like most voting issues, is that each camp has its proponents and opponents. I'm all for State's rights, and if that's how Maine wants to do it... that's fine by me.

I guess I'm internally debating the general issue. NPR has a good piece explaining how it works. Heritage Foundation is pretty hardline conservative, so I read their argument against. I suppose the biggest issue for me is still that a candidate who initially garnered less votes than an opponent could end up with a majority after x-amount of rounds.

One thing that confuses me is that if voters don't rank all the candidates on the ballot, their ballots get tossed in subsequent rounds (I'm not sure if their earlier ranked candidates get to keep the votes from previous rounds). Using NPR's example, say someone ranked Aaron Abbot first, Bella Bryson second, but had no 3rd or 4th choices. In the second round, Bella Bryson gets additional votes but they then get tossed if it goes to a 3rd round? That's what Heritage seems to claim happens, but I'm not so sure.

Anyway, that leads me back to: Seems like that's justification for just electing whoever gets the most votes on the first round, even if there's not a majority.

Here's Heritage Org's argument against. They cite an issue in Maine in 2018. Could you elaborate? Otherwise I'm just getting their characterization.

[TSherbs]

Same way Warnock won last time in GA: second place in first round, but then he won the runoff (if I remember right). If you want only first votes to count, then you are against all these alternatives. Pretty straightforward choice.

Part of the deal, too, is that third party challengers more often have come from the liberal side, so the GOP is almost always against this. In Maine, the GOP has sued more than once over it. If they were repeatedly facing significant 3rd party challengers, I am sure that they would feel different. It's not really on "principle" that we get these divides.

[TSherbs]

I don't know anything off hand about 2018 of concern. I like the process. It's not perfect, but it addressed my first concern: that the candidate who finally wins is preferred by at least 50% of the voters (over the candidates still in the running).

[TSherbs]

On the "exhausted" ballots, if a voter does not rank all the candidates, then, at a certain point, they no longer contribute their votes to any candidate, in effect not voting at all (because their candidate of choice is no longer in the race). Their votes count in every round that they actually cast one. If a later round vote is for a person already dropped, this also is the equivalent of a no-vote.

[TSherbs]

Georgia Supreme Court permits Saturday voting:

CNN: Georgia Supreme Court allows early voting on post-holiday Saturday.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/23/polit...ing/index.html

[Chip]

The New Zealand parliamentary setup is interesting. They have the usual district races, and also a party list. The party nominates at-large candidates to be elected based on the percentage of the total vote for the party. So, out of a group of ten, say, there might be 3 or 4 electees from the list. That favors a degree of continuity in government, for good or ill.

[Chuck Naill]

I am reading about the low turnout for the mid terms. For all of the talk, 70 plus don't participate.

[TSherbs]

Looks like another good election:

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midt...59a1646b8aa871

[TSherbs]

Voter fraud continues to be rare:

Election Law Blog: "New state voter fraud units finding few cases from midterms" #ELB.


https://electionlawblog.org/?p=133339

[dneal]

Voter fraud continues to be rare:

Election Law Blog: "New state voter fraud units finding few cases from midterms" #ELB.


https://electionlawblog.org/?p=133339

Perhaps, but that doesn't seem to be the public's perception - which is the thread topic.

[TSherbs]

Your op states that you don't think that we can figure out a "system" that works. I am saying that we already have one that works, and this latest article seems to corroborate that.

Do you still feel that the "system" needs to be "fixed"?

[dneal]

My OP

The last two Presidential elections had the losing candidate accuse the other of cheating to win. Russians got Trump elected, Democrats cheated through mail-in fraud or electronic conspiracies... whatever.

Election Day is just ramping up, and the claims of shenanigans are as well.

Yesterday the DOJ sent notices to 24 States that they were going to observe polling places. Missouri and Florida (so far) told them no.

This morning already, Maricopa county has tabulating machines not working

Politico is warning of Russian hackers again, which Fox is relishing reporting on

I don't know how we (the country) fix this. We're the richest, most powerful country in the history of the world; and we can't figure out a friggin' system. Maybe neither party wants to.

/rant

[Chuck Naill]

What we have works.

[TSherbs]

What we have works.

Agreed, backed by 50 state AG's whose job it is (in part) to certify the winners. Which they do, time and time again. The hundreds of county/districts and their professionals and volunteers from both parties (and persons of no affiliation) all combine to produce a secure and valid election cycle every time. Those very rare cases of confirmed fraud are prosecuted (we can look them up).

The actual voting, counting, and tabulating "system" is not broken.

American political character has broken in this regard: prominent losers have blamed fraud for their losses instead of accepting defeat and conceding.

[Chuck Naill]

What we have works.

Agreed, backed by 50 state AG's whose job it is (in part) to certify the winners. Which they do, time and time again. The hundreds of county/districts and their professionals and volunteers from both parties (and persons of no affiliation) all combine to produce a secure and valid election cycle every time. Those very rare cases of confirmed fraud are prosecuted (we can look them up).

The actual voting, counting, and tabulating "system" is not broken.

American political character has broken in this regard: prominent losers have blamed fraud for their losses instead of accepting defeat and conceding.

I am weary of the suggestion the system does not work and especially from those that do not participate.