Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

GOP Winner in Maine-02 Now Declared Loser Due to 'Rank Voting'

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

pepperonikkid

GOP Winner in Maine-02 Now Declared Loser Due to 'Rank Voting'

 

https://www.breitbart.com

Michael Patrick Leahy

December 5. 2018

 

 

Article:

 

 

On Monday, Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap announced that a recount of the November 6 election in Maine's Second Congressional District will begin on Thursday and will continue for an estimated four weeks.

 

The CD2 recount will begin this Thursday, Dec. 6 at 9 a.m. and is expected to take about 4 weeks. We will not conduct the recount the week of Dec. 24; it will resume Jan. 3, 2019.

 

— MaineSOS (@MESecOfState)

 

 

Secretary of State Dunlap, a Democrat, declared Democrat Jared Golden the winner of the election on November 15, despite the fact that Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME-02) received 2,632 more votes than Golden on election day, a consequence of the state's implementation of a controversial "rank voting" system.

 

Thanks to a 2016 referendum that was placed on the state ballot and was passed due to the financial support of liberal Texas billionaire John Arnold, Maine's 2018 federal election was the first time in American history that candidates were federal offices were selected using a complex "rank voting system."

 

Since a Maine judge had earlier ruled that the "rank voting system" passed by voters in 2016 and affirmed by voters in June 2018 violated the Maine Constitution, state offices were selected by the traditional voting system used in the rest of the country–winners were determined by who received the most votes.

 

Federal offices–in this case the Senate race that incumbent Sen. Angus King (I-ME) easily won, and the state's two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives–were decided by the complex "rank voting" system, as implemented by the Democrat Secretary of State, using a proprietary computer algorithm provided to the state by an outside vendor.

 

When Maine voters stepped into the voting booth on November they cast traditional ballots for state offices, but voted for their first, second, and third choices in the one federal race for the U.S. Senate the two federal races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

 

In order to be declared the winner, a candidate for federal office had to receive 50 percent plus one of the first place votes cast for the office. If no candidate received more than 50 percent plus one of the vote, then the second choice votes and third choice votes cast by voters whose first choice votes were cast for the third place and fourth place finishers were then allocated to the top two candidates based on the proprietary computer algorithm of the outside vendor selected by the Democrat Secretary of State.

 

In the November 6 election, Republican Poliquin finished in first place, receiving 131,631 votes, or 46.41 percent of the 283,643 votes cast that day, according to election results provided by the office of Secretary of State Dunlap.

 

Democrat Jared Golden finished in second place, receiving 128,999 votes, or 45.48 percent of the 2 votes cast that day, 2,632 fewer than Polquin.

 

Independent candidate Tiffany Bonds received 16,260 votes, or 5.73 percent of the 283,643 votes cast that day and finished in third place. Another independent candidate, William Hoar, received 6,753 votes, or 2.38 percent of the 283,643 votes cast that day and finished in fourth place. Bonds and Hoard received a combined 23,013 votes.

 

Since no candidate in the race received the 50 percent plus one votes required to be declared the winner under the new "ranked voting" law, Secretary of State Dunlap then used the outside vendor which deployed its proprietary algorithm to allocate the combined 23,013 votes cast for third place finisher Bonds and fourth place finisher Hoard.

 

In what Secretary of State Dunlap described as Round 2, all 16,260 votes were removed from Tiffany Bonds' total, giving her a new total of zero votes. In addition, all 6,753 votes were removed from Hoar's total, giving him a new total of zero votes.

 

Golden received 10,232 votes from voters who had declared in the November 6 election either Bonds or Hoar as their first choice, presumably declaring him on their ballots to be either their second or third choices. These additional votes gave Golden a new total of 139,231 votes, or 50.53 percent of the 275,557 votes counted in Round 2.

 

Poliquin received 4,695 votes from voters who had declared in the November 6 election either Bonds or Hoar as their first choice, presumably declaring him on their ballots to be either their second or third choices. These additional votes gave Hoar a new total of 136,326 votes, or 49.47 percent of the 275,557 votes counted in Round 2.

 

Only 14,927 of the 23,013 votes cast in support of either Bonds, the third place finisher, or Hoar, the fourth place finisher, were reallocated to Poliquin, the election day first place finisher and Golden, the election day second place finisher, in Round 2.

 

A total of 8,086 votes cast by supporters of Hoar or Bonds on election day were thrown away and not counted in Round 2 voting–"spoiled" is the legal term used–because, according to the Secretary of State, did not include choice rankings beyond the first choice.

 

Notably, though Democrat Golden received more than 50 percent plus one (50.57 percent) of the votes counted in Round 2 using this "ranked voting" system, he still received less than 50 percent plus one of the votes cast and counted on election day, November 6, Round 1. (The 139,231 votes counted for Golden in Round 2 divided by the 283,643 votes cast and counted on election day, November 6, Round 1 equals 49.1 percent.)

 

Poliquin's general campaign consultant Brent Littlefield issued a statement earlier this week noting that "his win was clipped by a new 'Rank Voting' system employed for the first time in a U.S. Federal election giving losing candidate voters (in this case two liberal independents who finished 3rd and 4th on Election Day) a second or third choice and those additional votes allowed challenger Jared Golden (D) to go ahead. In any other state in America Bruce Poliquin would have been declared the winner of the election."

 

My link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AnnieGotHerGun

I thought the good people of Maine had more sense than to vote something like this in.

Wonder why a TX billionaire supported so heavily such a measure?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

"Rank voting" is unConstitutional. Maine set the precedent that it disenfranchises voters. Vacate the results. Maine should lose representation because of this fraud.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

They're rank alright.

 

They stink on ice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wag-a-Muffin (D)

And this is why Trump will lose in 2020. (Say hello to President Biden and Secretary of State Ocasio-Cortez.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bubbajoebob

I'm trying to see what problem people have with this beyond the person we don't like being declared the winner of the election. If the state had a law that many others have that if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote they have a runoff election between the two candidates who got the most votes would you have a problem with it? How is this ranked or "instant-runoff" voting different? Is it because they don't have to go back to the polls a second time instead of basically saying on the first ballot "if the candidate I'm voting for as the top candidate isn't one of the top two candidates, I'll vote for candidate X in the runoff."?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

I'm trying to see what problem people have with this beyond the person we don't like being declared the winner of the election. If the state had a law that many others have that if no candidate gets more than 50% of the vote they have a runoff election between the two candidates who got the most votes would you have a problem with it? How is this ranked or "instant-runoff" voting different? Is it because they don't have to go back to the polls a second time instead of basically saying on the first ballot "if the candidate I'm voting for as the top candidate isn't one of the top two candidates, I'll vote for candidate X in the runoff."?

 

It negates votes for other parties and individual candidates. It takes protest votes and pools them into a bloc to elect an establishment candidate. You lose your voice by collectively stealing your choice. As it did in Maine, Bubba Hotep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bubbajoebob

It negates votes for other parties and individual candidates. It takes protest votes and pools them into a bloc to elect an establishment candidate. You lose your voice by collectively stealing your choice. As it did in Maine, Bubba Hotep.

 

And how is that different than a runoff? The 3rd and 4th place candidates were both leftists -- had there been a runoff election as happens in at least 10 other states when no candidate gets more than 50, then the people who voted for the first to candidates would have still voted the same and those who voted for the 3rd and 4th place candidates would have voted for the democrat, giving the same result we just saw, unless we're counting on lower turnout or different turnout for the runoff. Would those people who voted for the 3rd and 4th place have had their vote stolen if they had just the top two candidates on the ballot in a runoff election?

 

Ranked voting might give a different result from a runoff if the alternative is a "plurality of votes" system before going to ranked voting, where if the candidate with the most votes wins even with less than 50% of the vote, e.g. the 3 candidates get 48%, 45%, and 7% so the one who got 48% wins. But it most likely won't give a different result if the alternative is a "majority of votes" (i.e. more than 50%) system, e.g. the 3 candidates get 48%, 45%, and 7% so there's a runoff. Are the people who voted for the 7% candidate better served if there's a runoff (or ranked voting) so they can chose which of the top 2 candidates they prefer, or if their vote doesn't get to directly help decide which wins?

 

I prefer the libertarian candidates and would always prefer the republican candidate over the democrat. I'd like a ranked voting "instant runoff" system. I'd like to be able to vote for the libertarian, knowing that if the republican doesn't get 50%, my marking the republican as my second choice can help him/her win. Ranked voting wouldn't steal my vote -- it'd be giving me a voice, letting me vote for my preferred candidate, as opposed to forcing me to choose between voting for my preferred candidate or voting defensively by marking the republican I don't especially like in order to try to keep the democrat who's much, much worse from winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
donsaliman

Rank voting rules:

 

Rule #1: A Republican candidate will receive one point for each vote and the Democratic candidate will receive 5 points for each vote

 

Rule #2: If the Republican candidate still is the winner in points, there will be a recount until the Democratic candidate wins

Edited by donsaliman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USNJIMRET

"Rank voting" is unConstitutional. Maine set the precedent that it disenfranchises voters. Vacate the results. Maine should lose representation because of this fraud.

 

 

No, it is not.

At least not the U S Constitution.

That document provides that the States will determine for themselves how to conduct their elections.

Some may not like the system, and I surely cringe at the "using a proprietary computer algorithm provided to the state by an outside vendor." line.

But unless I'm mistaken, it does seem to represent the voted on will of the people of Maine. (However much that will might have been influenced by outside interests.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Time to start watering that tree, people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

Yankees and northeasterner states suck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

Yankees and northeasterner states suck.

 

Yes, they do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

...I prefer the libertarian candidates and would always prefer the republican candidate over the democrat. I'd like a ranked voting "instant runoff" system. I'd like to be able to vote for the libertarian, knowing that if the republican doesn't get 50%, my marking the republican as my second choice can help him/her win. Ranked voting wouldn't steal my vote -- it'd be giving me a voice, letting me vote for my preferred candidate, as opposed to forcing me to choose between voting for my preferred candidate or voting defensively by marking the republican I don't especially like in order to try to keep the democrat who's much, much worse from winning.

 

Here's the problem: Yes, it works in the scenario you describe. Suppose your top three choices are-

 

1 - Libertarian

2 - Constitution Party

3 - Republican

 

The first round comes in with the top two of Democrat (49%), Republican (49%), with the other 2% going to everybody else.

 

Instant runoff: Neither of your top two choices made it, your vote now goes to the Republican. Okay, that works.

 

BUT - and here's the problem - suppose your three choices are -

 

1 - Libertarian

2 - Constitution Party

3 - Reform Party

 

The first round comes in with the top two of Democrat (49%), Republican (49%), with the other 2% going to everybody else.

 

Instant runoff: Neither of your top three choices made it, your vote now goes to whomever the computer algorithm decides that you would have vote for given only those two choices. . Maybe the computer algorithm decides to give your 'Libertarian' vote to the Democrat.

 

Would that be your will? Would that be, as a whole, the "will of the people" or just a computer-generated mirage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
E Van der Vliet

No, it is not.

At least not the U S Constitution.

That document provides that the States will determine for themselves how to conduct their elections.

Some may not like the system, and I surely cringe at the "using a proprietary computer algorithm provided to the state by an outside vendor." line.

But unless I'm mistaken, it does seem to represent the voted on will of the people of Maine. (However much that will might have been influenced by outside interests.)

That about sums it up. Maine voted for this, so they get what they asked for.

 

A lot of people do not realize that voting is not a constitutional right. States can set it up however they like, for the most part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Censport

They're rank alright.

 

They stink on ice.

Pull!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corporal_little

And how is that different than a runoff? The 3rd and 4th place candidates were both leftists -- had there been a runoff election as happens in at least 10 other states when no candidate gets more than 50, then the people who voted for the first to candidates would have still voted the same and those who voted for the 3rd and 4th place candidates would have voted for the democrat, giving the same result we just saw, unless we're counting on lower turnout or different turnout for the runoff. Would those people who voted for the 3rd and 4th place have had their vote stolen if they had just the top two candidates on the ballot in a runoff election?

 

Ranked voting might give a different result from a runoff if the alternative is a "plurality of votes" system before going to ranked voting, where if the candidate with the most votes wins even with less than 50% of the vote, e.g. the 3 candidates get 48%, 45%, and 7% so the one who got 48% wins. But it most likely won't give a different result if the alternative is a "majority of votes" (i.e. more than 50%) system, e.g. the 3 candidates get 48%, 45%, and 7% so there's a runoff. Are the people who voted for the 7% candidate better served if there's a runoff (or ranked voting) so they can chose which of the top 2 candidates they prefer, or if their vote doesn't get to directly help decide which wins?

 

I prefer the libertarian candidates and would always prefer the republican candidate over the democrat. I'd like a ranked voting "instant runoff" system. I'd like to be able to vote for the libertarian, knowing that if the republican doesn't get 50%, my marking the republican as my second choice can help him/her win. Ranked voting wouldn't steal my vote -- it'd be giving me a voice, letting me vote for my preferred candidate, as opposed to forcing me to choose between voting for my preferred candidate or voting defensively by marking the republican I don't especially like in order to try to keep the democrat who's much, much worse from winning.

 

My issue with it is that it violates the concept of one person, one vote. Other than that, it’s up to the people of Maine how they want to elect their representatives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Yankees and northeasterner states suck.

Yes, they do.

 

This proud Yankee disagrees.

 

<_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bubbajoebob
<snip>

BUT - and here's the problem - suppose your three choices are -

 

1 - Libertarian

2 - Constitution Party

3 - Reform Party

 

The first round comes in with the top two of Democrat (49%), Republican (49%), with the other 2% going to everybody else.

 

Instant runoff: Neither of your top three choices made it, your vote now goes to whomever the computer algorithm decides that you would have vote for given only those two choices. . Maybe the computer algorithm decides to give your 'Libertarian' vote to the Democrat.

 

Would that be your will? Would that be, as a whole, the "will of the people" or just a computer-generated mirage?

 

I've never heard of ranked voting using a computer algorithm to assign votes people didn't make. In all the systems I've seen proposed voters rank all the candidates, which means with enough candidates you might need to decide how to rank the democrat, Green party, and socialist workers party candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

I've never heard of ranked voting using a computer algorithm to assign votes people didn't make. In all the systems I've seen proposed voters rank all the candidates, which means with enough candidates you might need to decide how to rank the democrat, Green party, and socialist workers party candidates.

 

The algorithm used here is proprietary right? That would mean it is a corporate secret, covered under trade secret and copyright laws. There's no way to know how it is tabulating results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg

The algorithm used here is proprietary right? That would mean it is a corporate secret, covered under trade secret and copyright laws. There's no way to know how it is tabulating results.

Why would voters approve of an algorithm they aren’t allowed to see?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython

Why would voters approve of an algorithm they aren’t allowed to see?

 

Because they're idiots (i.e. Democrats)?

 

Just a wild guess.

 

:shrug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

Here's the problem: Yes, it works in the scenario you describe. Suppose your top three choices are-

 

1 - Libertarian

2 - Constitution Party

3 - Republican

 

The first round comes in with the top two of Democrat (49%), Republican (49%), with the other 2% going to everybody else.

 

Instant runoff: Neither of your top two choices made it, your vote now goes to the Republican. Okay, that works.

 

BUT - and here's the problem - suppose your three choices are -

 

1 - Libertarian

2 - Constitution Party

3 - Reform Party

 

The first round comes in with the top two of Democrat (49%), Republican (49%), with the other 2% going to everybody else.

 

Instant runoff: Neither of your top three choices made it, your vote now goes to whomever the computer algorithm decides that you would have vote for given only those two choices. . Maybe the computer algorithm decides to give your 'Libertarian' vote to the Democrat.

Huh? Where are you getting this? What reason do you have to believe that once all the choices you have put in are eliminated, your vote doesn't fall off entirely?

 

Also, the part about the algorithm being 'proprietary' could easily just be describing the computer code, not the general methodology of rank voting.

 

My issue with it is that it violates the concept of one person, one vote. Other than that, it’s up to the people of Maine how they want to elect their representatives.

How so? You still only get one vote at any time, that vote is just transferred once your first choice is eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T

Huh? Where are you getting this? What reason do you have to believe that once all the choices you have put in are eliminated, your vote doesn't fall off entirely?

 

Also, the part about the algorithm being 'proprietary' could easily just be describing the computer code, not the general methodology of rank voting.

 

 

Because there's no way to know thanks to the super secret algorithm. These things shouldn't be secret.

 

Beyond my problem with it being secret, I don't like that the magic instant runoff prohibits changing your mind. What happens when you vote for someone second or third by absentee ballot, then it comes out that they have a problem diddling little kids, and this news leads to someone not getting 50%+1? Under this system iF I had voted the diddler second or third, I'm then forced to vote for him and he stands a good chance of getting elected because the runoff was decided already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
corporal_little

Because there's no way to know thanks to the super secret algorithm. These things shouldn't be secret.

 

Beyond my problem with it being secret, I don't like that the magic instant runoff prohibits changing your mind. What happens when you vote for someone second or third by absentee ballot, then it comes out that they have a problem diddling little kids, and this news leads to someone not getting 50%+1? Under this system iF I had voted the diddler second or third, I'm then forced to vote for him and he stands a good chance of getting elected because the runoff was decided already.

Exactly. Our tradition here in the US has always been, one person, one vote per election for this very reason. I would be uncomfortable with this if it had handed the Republican the win too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...