‘It makes elections fair’:
New York to vote on system
that may curb polarized politics
The Guardian [UK],
by
Lauren Aritani
Original Article
Posted By: M2,
10/26/2019 7:18:58 AM
When most Americans cast their ballots, their vote counts for one candidate a race. The person who gets more votes than any other competitor wins, even if they do not get a majority of votes. But New York City could become the biggest city in the country to change this age-old system altogether. Starting 26 October, voters have the option of switching to ranked-choice voting (RCV). In this scenario, even if someone’s top-choice candidate fails to get enough votes, their vote can still count. Advocates of RCV see it as an effective way to ensure a winning candidate has received a true majority of the electorate’s support. Source location must be indicated.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
philsner 10/26/2019 7:25:06 AM (No. 217902)
First step toward eliminating elections altogether. Elections are the only thing stopping the left from gaining full control.
"But that's not how this works. That's not how any of this works."
11 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
udanja99 10/26/2019 7:34:01 AM (No. 217909)
This is another attempt at slow walking the destruction of the electoral college.
21 people like this.
LMAO....gee will we still get fined $250k fir using the wrong words...BS
6 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
bamboozle 10/26/2019 8:22:05 AM (No. 217948)
The Left's idea of polarized politics is having a competing party in the election. Their cure? A single left wing party totalitarian state. Their way or the highway.
11 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
tootall 10/26/2019 8:22:41 AM (No. 217949)
This will solve nothing. Candidates will water down their positions to appeal to the most people possible, but not govern that way. It gives candidates endless attempts at an election. I'm against it. But then again, as someone born and raised in NY, I don't ever want to go back there again! I find it torturous to even visit for short periods of time.
8 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Socio 10/26/2019 8:26:44 AM (No. 217957)
Sounds more like legalized election cheating, you have two Left leaning politicians running on two different platforms and one right leaning politician it will ensue which ever Left leaning politicians gets the most votes will get all the Left leaning votes. Now all they have to do it make sure that have multiple Left leaning politicians running on different platforms to bring out the most voters for any election to guarantee one of them wins every time.
This will likely mean any third part candidates running against Trump would have their votes given to the Democrat nominee as well.
11 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
John Gee 10/26/2019 8:44:13 AM (No. 217986)
Re #6: "This will likely mean any third part candidates running against Trump would have their votes given to the Democrat nominee as well."
That's not technically true. There have been Rightwing spoilers too, like Ross Perot. What this law will do is stop spoilers of either party from harming the frontrunner of that party. It's sort of like the unionization of politics, where outsiders need not apply. I suspect the Dems are doing this because the left has so many factions.
5 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 10/26/2019 8:50:56 AM (No. 218001)
This stinks. It allows someone in second or third place to win because they were everybody's second or third choice.
6 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
MDConservative 10/26/2019 8:58:26 AM (No. 218009)
Whatever happened to "one man, one vote"? It would seem to me that each "ranked choice" voter gets more than one vote in the actual choice.
5 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
seamusm 10/26/2019 9:00:23 AM (No. 218013)
It is not obviously a stupid idea. I would like to think that the votes for Ross Perot would have listed Bush second not Clinton but this idea seems superior to the electoral scheme now being proposed to use the national vote total over the voters in their own particular state.
1 person likes this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 10/26/2019 9:04:24 AM (No. 218017)
New Yorkers, steer clear of this. Another attempt toward eliminating open elections and the electoral college. Don't fall for it. Anytime the lefties at the Guardian thinks something is a good idea, this means it is a very bad idea.
8 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
Laotzu 10/26/2019 9:12:17 AM (No. 218030)
Anytime a Democrat wants to change the rules for "fairness" you know that's the last thing that's going to happen.
10 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
TexasRose 10/26/2019 9:12:56 AM (No. 218032)
#6 and #9, that's EXACTLY what happened in Maine!!
5 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Rama41 10/26/2019 9:25:38 AM (No. 218042)
This echoes California's horse race primaries, where the top two go the run-offs. Works well for Democrats, since 80% of us live in cities.
4 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
Rama41 10/26/2019 9:31:21 AM (No. 218045)
Re: #15. Me again. Should have said "our population" rather than "us". (No Democrat here.)
1 person likes this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
clayusmcret 10/26/2019 9:43:28 AM (No. 218058)
Isn't this the same system California put into place to overturn republican victories and, by stacking the deck with democrat candidates, have attained a unbeatable democrat super majority in their state congress?
5 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
LC Chihuahua 10/26/2019 9:52:49 AM (No. 218073)
Pardon second post...
This needs to be thrown out ASAP. Take it to the Supreme Court if necessary.
This is designed to elect more fringe left candidates. Think about it. A Conservative Republican is highly unlikely to vote for a leftist candidate, and will vote only once. You cannot force a voter to vote more than once. The lefty voter will vote more than once because they will likely see more than one candidate to their liking.
This is legalized voter fraud.
4 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
BarryNo 10/26/2019 12:03:16 PM (No. 218186)
So... six people run. 10 000 voters vote. No one gets over 50%. You have a run off of the top two contenders. Of the 6,000 voters who vote because those were their candidates, 3500 vote for one, who gains 58% of the voting populace.
But that represents only 35% of the total voters in the election. How does this fix anything?
3 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
doctorfixit 10/26/2019 1:47:28 PM (No. 218279)
Any system that Democrats come up with is by definition corrupt and fraudulent.
3 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
kono 10/26/2019 1:54:02 PM (No. 218287)
The system MIGHT have been proposed with good intentions; but politicians have a knack for twisting systems and rules to their advantage in ways that were never intended. For example, Oakland got a historically-bad mayor a few years ago who ran on a "vote me #2" campaign.
1 person likes this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
lakerman1 10/26/2019 2:56:55 PM (No. 218338)
Dollar Bill Clinton attermpted to appoint a halfrican woman who was a law professor at Penn, (and I forget her name) but withdrew her nomination because she had a sort of screwball idea like this in the election of House members, so that black voters would be strengthened.
NYS is beyo09nd hope, but this could be a bad idea in states where races are close.
0 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Trigger2 10/27/2019 3:05:45 AM (No. 218714)
This is CA's method to ensure only demonrats get elected. If NYC under that communist de Blasio is doing this, it won't take long before Cuomo's 100% run demonrat legislature follows suit so they can stay in power.
0 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
DVC 10/27/2019 5:38:24 PM (No. 219335)
A very bad idea. All sorts of distortions in the system this way. Stick with the normal way of doing voting.
0 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "M2"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
What could go wrong?