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

zurg

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

No it couldn’t. The whole point about the rank voting algorithm is the rules of rank voting. The whole point will be about how the second and third votes are allocated. It’s not whether you use Python or C++, and it’s not about whether you use if-else statements or while loops.

 

Once again, your side wins, and your conclusion is, people don’t need to know how it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

No it couldn’t. The whole point about the rank voting algorithm is the rules of rank voting. The whole point will be about how the second and third votes are allocated. It’s not whether you use Python or C++, and it’s not about whether you use if-else statements or while loops.

 

Once again, your side wins, and your conclusion is, people don’t need to know how it happened.

 

That, and, as the libertarian Cato Institute puts it, "...It’s no accident that IRV [instant Run-off Voting aka Rank Voting] is almost universally a project of the ideological left here in the United States."

 

Cato Unbound (2016): The False Promise of Instant Runoff Voting (And, yes, they were specifically talking about the then-newly-adopted Maine system)

 

 

Do we really need any further reasons to be skeptical of this???

Edited by Dean Adam Smithee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dean Adam Smithee

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.

 

I think it various. An article I read about Minnesota specifically said you get (3) votes, regardless of how many candidates are on the ballot (assuming at least three). That's how a proposed system in my locale in Florida would have worked too. It seems to vary elsewhere.

 

Maine apparently lets you rank them all but doesn't require you to. "Continue until you have ranked as many or as few candidates as you like":

 

nwj0g9.jpg

 

A different article analyzed a number of such elections across the country and found that ~25% selected no more than two candidates.

 

And maybe I misread it, but another article I was reading yesterday stated that, once your (two or three) choices were exhausted then the computer algorithm predicted what your next choice would be. That made sense to me because, why else have a proprietary 'algorithm' rather than a mere 'tabulation'?

 

HOWEVER, I can't find that same article again so I will retract that portion of my original comment. For now.

 

BTW: You've stated that you prefer the Libertarian. Are you aware that the libertarian CATO Institute opposes this? Their argument is that while this gives you the chance to "feel good" about putting the Libertarian first, the net result is that is it marginalizes such 3rd-party candidates even further.

 

The link I posted in my reply to Zurg is well worth reading.

 

 

And, for the record, for the sake of "full disclosure", As a SoCon I'm not a Libertarian myself with either a big-L OR small-l. However, as Ronald Reagan once put it in an interview with Reason magazine: "We [sometimes] travel the same road". My dog in the fight is that I'd really really like to like the Constitution Party... IF they could ever get their act together. But under this system they'd be marginalized even further, too, for all the reasons that the CATO article stated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

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

I generally agree that things should be open and transparent. But when it comes to programming, it can be more complicated than that. We don't want it to be easily hacked either.

 

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.

Almost the exact same thing could happen without ranked choice voting. The issue in your example is some people voting earlier than others, not that it's ranked choice or not.

 

No it couldn’t. The whole point about the rank voting algorithm is the rules of rank voting. The whole point will be about how the second and third votes are allocated. It’s not whether you use Python or C++, and it’s not about whether you use if-else statements or while loops.

 

Once again, your side wins, and your conclusion is, people don’t need to know how it happened.

The article is vague and doesn't specify, it could be either. It would not surprise me at all if they were deliberately trying to conflate the two. Breitbart frequently does that kind of thing and is not a trustworthy source, I take anything they say with about a pound of salt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gravelrash

This topic goes far outside my general rule of keeping my comments at three paragraphs or less. Seriously, I try to avoid writing dissertations on internet forums.

 

 

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.

 

 

I prefer the runoff. The government has no right to reallocate my vote based on "ranking". If I vote for the candidate with an "I" instead of a "D" or an "R", that is my right. "Ranking" is no different than divining "hanging chads" or (worse) "voter intent". Because that's where "ranking" leads. Yes, the two other candidates in Maine were loony toons. However, voters chose them. The state took their protest and silenced it.

 

Why not decide elections based on voter registration rather than the ballot box? If registered Democrats make up 50.01% of eligible voters, their candidate wins automatically because they are in the majority. That's where this is headed.

 

Sure that works for individual candidates but what about issues such as bonds and referendums? The process would be the same. Since 50.01% of the 50.01% registered Democrats voted for a ban on "far-right" speakers on college campuses, the issue passes. That is "voter intent" taken to its desired conclusion.

 

There will be no need for elections. Democracy by assuming blind allegiance to the party line. Just slap on an algorithm to make the results appear legit. The hockey stick would replace the Nike swoosh as the most recognized logo on the planet.

 

 

 

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.)

 

 

We all know that if Maine's ranking law finds itself before the SCOTUS, the ruling will be 6-3 against. Take a guess as to the dissenters. As for how states conduct their elections? Amendment XIX sets a solid precedent that the U.S. Congress can intervene.

 

"Ranking" and "cumulative voting" are happy-faced feel-good versions of the Three-Fifths Compromise. All three corrupt the election process. They devalue not just our votes but our very citizenship.

 

Yes, the voters of Maine did this to themselves. With little doubt some jackass telling them "If you like your candidate, you can vote for your candidate". I'm more taken aback that some on RN support this chicanery.

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...