We should be pushing for legislation for Ranked Choice Voting
We should be pushing for legislation for Ranked Choice Voting
Ranked choice voting (RCV) — also known as instant runoff voting (IRV) — makes our elections better by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference.
RCV is straightforward: Voters have the option to rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third and so forth. If your first choice doesn’t have a chance to win, your ballot counts for your next choice.
RCV works in all types of elections and supports more representative outcomes. RCV means better choices, better campaigns, and better representation.
Originally Posted By u/Albany50501 At 2025-04-22 02:51:32 PM | Source
Yes.
The biggest problem in American politics is we only have two parties who can win that don’t represent the true majority but the most vocal minorities, the rich and the bean counters.
After this last election I’m starting to hate the Dems as much as reps. Yes they’re better on a mathematical level but most of them don’t listen when the people don’t want what the party wants and are too weak and unlikable to stand up for democracy when faced with a charismatic tyrant.
What you really need to end is the winner takes all thing. That's the full bs that keeps it locked to 2 parties.
It's called Plurality voting or First Past The Post. And yes, it's garbage. Any other system is better. Ranked Choice/Instant Runoff, Approval voting. There are others too I'm sure
For single seat elections: Ranked Choice is good, Approval Voting is better, but anything is better than First Past The Post. So I'll happily accept RCV, especially as it opens up the door inches our way inti to better voting systems.
For multi-seat elections, proportional voting should be used.
Approval voting might be easier to implement since we wouldn't have to change our ballots
I mean, we would a little bit. We'd have have to allow for the cast and counted to include multiple people per seat. It's easier to explain and understand for the layman than instant runoff, though, which is a big benefit too
They'll never change to a system that makes it harder to cheat
RCV is the way, or some derivative of that. It also encourages bipartisan cooperation rather than the endless gridlocks and stalemates we see commonly with party politics. I appreciate that more people are bringing this topic into the mainstream discussion.
The single transferable vote is way better:
The single transferable vote (STV) or proportional-ranked choice voting (P-RCV) is a multi-winner electoral system in which each voter casts a single vote in the form of a ranked ballot. Voters have the option to rank candidates, and their vote may be transferred according to alternative preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes, so that their vote is used to elect someone they prefer over others in the running. STV aims to approach proportional representation based on votes cast in the district where it is used, so that each vote is worth about the same as another.
Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is the single-winner analogue of STV. It is also called single-winner ranked-choice voting and preferential voting
Seems like STV is an extension of ranked choice voting for the special case of multiple-winner elections.
And slightly fancier than approval voting for multiple winner elections.
I like that. I'm still going to support any improvement to the system, though, even if it's not my preferred solution. Even, if we just got ranked-choice voting, we'd still have more influence on further improvements to the system, like moving to STV.
We gotta figure out how to get out of the nasty self-reinforcing cycle we're in. Yeah, we absolutely need ranked choice or some other fair voting system, but is that likely with the amount of money that goes into elections these days? But can we get money out with the politicians we have right now?
The usual avenues seem useless - we need to find another way to enforce change.
That was exactly my thought when OP said to "push for" legislation. How exactly? If "representatives" only listen to money and votes, and the people have no money, then the only way to push is to vote differently.
The problem is not the voting mechanics. The problem is that there are a lot of idiots voting. Were you around for the 2024 election?
More Americans didn't vote in the 2024 election than voted for Trump. Plenty of Trump voters acknowledged that they didn't like him. If people had more than two choices, they're less likely to not vote or to vote for the fascist.
A huge part of the problem is the voting mechanics. People are forced to back candidates they don't support because of a moronic two-party system that only makes sense as a historical relic, and barely even then.
I imagine this would be hard to count and validate
STV began permanent and wider adoption throughout Australia beginning in 1907 and the 1910s. The single transferable vote system, using contingent ranked votes, has been adopted in Ireland, South Africa, Malta, and approximately 40 cities in the United States and Canada. The single transferable vote system has also been used to elect legislators in Canada, South Africa and India.
If the Aussies could figure it out a hundred years ago, one would think America could also be up for the task. Then again, America.
Alaska already does it