• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

2020 Democratic Presidential Primary

RJKarl said:
What if 25% of supporters of one candidate got together and refuse to put their top opponent on any of their ballots?
Click to expand...

isn't that, like, exactly what people accuse Bernie Bros of doing in our current system?
 
Also, if 25% of people refuse to vote for a candidate at all, that actually is pretty indicative of what the electorate thinks
 
I'm sure there are some cons to it, but from what I've read i think the rank system would be an improvement over what we have now.
 
RJKarl said:
What if 25% of supporters of one candidate got together and refuse to put their top opponent on any of their ballots? That would make the vote ranking not reflective of how people really think.
Click to expand...

What if 25% of supporters of one candidate got together and refused to vote? Does that mean maybe we should consider forms of voting that might be more reflective of the electorate's desires?

RJKarl said:
You'll never convince me that a person who didn't get the most votes should win.
Click to expand...

If you're going to be deliberately and openly closed-minded, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade you - Random-Guy-On-The-Internet - any more.
 
TownieDeac said:
One final thought.

Hillary was at 36% strong enthusiasm at this time in 2016. Joe Biden is at 24%.

I fully recognize for many here Sanders is the problem. But why does the party keep tapping the default candidate nobody really likes?
Click to expand...

Because Democrats like Bernie in theory, but want an actual adult to be their president.

Bernie is cool when he is a senator from a state with 13 constituents, and he refusing to form any coalitions or accomplish anything.
 
So long as catamount is a target voter for the Dems, I'm probably not a target voter for the Dems. I don't know if there really should be a party that targets both of us. But libertarian left and socialist left aren't ever going to meet in a corporate Dem center and both love it.
 
Robert M. Pirsig said:
What if 25% of supporters of one candidate got together and refused to vote? Does that mean maybe we should consider forms of voting that might be more reflective of the electorate's desires?

In your eyes, if a guy wins twice and comes in fifth one, a guy who came in second all three times should be the winner without ever having won.

If you're going to be deliberately and openly closed-minded, then I'm not going to waste my time trying to persuade you - Random-Guy-On-The-Internet - any more.
Click to expand...

How is it "more effective" if you haven't won?

No matter how many times you come in second, you haven't won.
 
idk trump managed finishing second in the popular vote
 
what is the philosophical or mathematical or ethical or whatever justification for valuing a plurality over a majority?
 
RJKarl said:
If you can't get the most votes, you shouldn't win.
Click to expand...

OK, no more complaining about third party voters then. Otherwise you'd be saying they should vote for someone who is not their first choice. (Which, by your argument, would be a participation trophy.)
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
ranked-choice voting is just an instantaneous runoff
Click to expand...

I don't think that's always true. Maine's ranked choice system (for example) values a majority until it cannot be reached (a runoff process begins only if no candidate can earn 50% of the vote), then it determines the victor using people's second and third choices.

I think it's certainly possible for a candidate to win outright by crossing this threshold - happens all the time.
 
Robert M. Pirsig said:
I don't think that's always true. Maine's ranked choice system (for example) values a majority until it cannot be reached (a runoff process begins only if no candidate can earn 50% of the vote), then it determines the victor using people's second and third choices.

I think it's certainly possible for a candidate to win outright by crossing this threshold - happens all the time.
Click to expand...

yeah, we don't disagree

if you get a majority out of top-choice votes then no runoff is needed

if you don't, you have your "instantaneous runoff" with second-choice votes

and so on til a majority is reached


this, versus a system like in Chicago municipal elections where you have a first round (no party affiliation) with unlimited candidates, and then have a runoff with the top two only, if needed

often, the people in the runoff only scored 20ish percent of the round one vote -- in 2019, eventual mayor Lori Lightfoot only got 17.5% of the first round vote
 
Last edited:
avalon said:
OK, no more complaining about third party voters then. Otherwise you'd be saying they should vote for someone who is not their first choice. (Which, by your argument, would be a participation trophy.)
Click to expand...

Third party votes take away from the other candidates. Voting is about trying to get the person elected who most supports your issues. If your candidate can't win, then you should look for the closest to your ideals or vote against a person you know will harm your future.
 
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
what is the philosophical or mathematical or ethical or whatever justification for valuing a plurality over a majority?
Click to expand...

In ranked voting, it isn't even a plurality over a majority. Neither could have a majority and you could give the win to someone without the plurality.
 
RJKarl said:
Third party votes take away from the other candidates. Voting is about trying to get the person elected who most supports your issues. If your candidate can't win, then you should look for the closest to your ideals or vote against a person you know will harm your future.
Click to expand...

So a race to the bottom?

This ideal right here is why our two political parties suck so much now. Just keep voting for the slightly less terrible candidate. That's how you end up with the "more liberal" party becoming aligned with Big Labor and worker/civil rights being trampled on. Not to even mention the growing massive inequality gap.

All a direct result of what you posted above.
 
Last edited:
JuiceCrewAllStar said:
multiple untrue things here simply by definition
Click to expand...

What's "untrue"?

Neither could have a majority is true.

As shown by Pirsig, you could get more first place votes (a plurality) but still lose because you didn't do as well for second and third place. So, that's also true.

Just because I post something, you don't need to have a Pavlovian response that I am wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top