Though I'm unaware of any movement in that direction here, voters in Maine will decide this November whether to adopt something called ranked-choice voting. Under our current system, the person with the most votes wins, even if it is only a plurality. Under ranked choice, if no one with gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated and the second choice votes are tabulated in what is sometimes called an instant runoff.
This system would be helpful in primaries with numerous candidates. It would also work well in races with strong independents. This system is in place in a few cities, but no state has adopted it.
10 comments:
Why not?
We already have rank choices.
It's difficult enough to get people to vote in non-presidential elections.
First thing pennsylvania needs to do is downsize the state legislature.... No reason to have the second biggest pet capita on the nation
First thing pennsylvania needs to do is downsize the state legislature.... No reason to have the second biggest per capita in the nation .... Too many career politicians
IF we truly want to get rid of the 2-party system, this is what we must do.
The question is do we REALLY want to get away from the 2-party system?
If you want a three, or four or five or six party system, move to Europe. They have parliamentary governments there. What happens is there are still basically two major parties, and they cut deals with the little parties to get majorities in their parliaments. Then whomever is the party leader becomes the president or prime minister if there is a titular monarch.
So basically, they still have a two-party system, it's just a whole lot messier than it is here.
We absolutely should! Rank voting would be more representative of the will of the people because a lot of people won't vote for 3rd party candidates for fear of taking votes away from their 2nd choice, splitting the votes and handing the election to their least favorite candidate. The current presidential race illustrates why we should get rid of the 2-party system. While we're talking about it, bring on proportional representation as well!
Absolutely!
The burden of added complexity is easily outweighed by the benefit of breaking the two party system.
The primaries wouldn't be the only time you could vote for the candidate you actually want. No more holding your nose and picking the shinier of two turds.
Hokie Joe says:
I am a little confused in what you are proposing.Correct me if I'm wrong (PLEASE). You register as an independent but you don't want to vote for your candidate because he is a real loser. You want to vote in my Republican Primary or my Democratic Primary because we have the better candidate. If you want to vote for my candidate it becomes quite simple.....register accordingly. You do get to vote for your candidate, the Republican Candidate, or the Democratic Candidate in the General Election. It isn't our fault the Independents can't find good candidates. On the other hand, Some Independents are elected in the General Elections so it proves the best man can win. Keep the system the way it is now. Except for the "Electoral College" which I feel is wrong because the candidate with the most votes sometimes loses, I feel the candidate with the most votes should always be the winner. Like I said in my opening comments, I am a little confused at what you are proposing.
Yes. Definitely.
Post a Comment