She lost me on "it's the smart choice" which leaves the implication that perhaps I am less so for not liking RCV. Of course the other 2 pretty words were slso used to sell it "inclusive" and "fair", they really have the hard sell on. Perhaps we should do an independent study the process from different directions before implementing it instead of trusting their desire that it is all these great things.
I suspect RCV is being used in a way they did not perceive, a tool to replace more popular candidates with mediocre ones. There is nothing wrong in having to make decisions that test our values, it's part of being an adult. Spoilers do happen but we should not have to settle for less to avoid an unknown surprise.
No. It seems likely that Nader voters heavily preferred Gore over Bush. With RCV, Nader would’ve been eliminated in the first round. His votes would’ve gone to Gore in the second.
That is the danger of presumptions, it's like the Monday morning quarterback thing. Chances are if RCV was in place we would have seen very different campaigns run which would have changed things up. We most certainly would have seen something like what we currently have with RCV with candidates banding together with a rank us together and not the most popular giving rise to someone else completely in the primaries.
You’re right, the 2000 contest probably would’ve shaped up differently, although I still think Gore would’ve won with RCV. RCV doesn’t guarantee the candidate with the plurality of votes in the first round wins. What RCV does do is reduce the likelihood of a polarizing/extremist candidate from winning. People on the right won’t rank an extremist lefty, and people on the left won’t rank an extremist righty. RCV favors centrist candidates.
I think occasionally there are candidates that have forced people to vote against a particular candidate but it is more common in a primary. I don't see how a voting style can prevent extremist candidates from winning especially since they seem to be winning locally with relatively few votes. Even NY city has an extremist as a mayoral candidate, granted the incumbent was not included but they are running with it as a huge win.
Extremists may appear to be winning to you and me, but are they actually extremists for the wards they represent? I have a feeling Robin Wonsley, e.g., might be mainstream for her ward. At least for the few people who cared to vote.
She lost me on "it's the smart choice" which leaves the implication that perhaps I am less so for not liking RCV. Of course the other 2 pretty words were slso used to sell it "inclusive" and "fair", they really have the hard sell on. Perhaps we should do an independent study the process from different directions before implementing it instead of trusting their desire that it is all these great things.
I suspect RCV is being used in a way they did not perceive, a tool to replace more popular candidates with mediocre ones. There is nothing wrong in having to make decisions that test our values, it's part of being an adult. Spoilers do happen but we should not have to settle for less to avoid an unknown surprise.
There are many valid rebuttals to RCV. However, it’s what we have and I hope this information helps people with
their choices this year. Many people are unaware of RCV or intimidated by it. It’s important voters rank 3 candidates.
So I should write in a candidate if I truly dislike the others listed? My own morality will not allow me to vote for some ever.
I had forgotten about Nader in 2000. Imagine how the world would be different today if we had RCV nationally then.
Are you thinking the 3rd in popularity would have won with RCV?
No. It seems likely that Nader voters heavily preferred Gore over Bush. With RCV, Nader would’ve been eliminated in the first round. His votes would’ve gone to Gore in the second.
That is the danger of presumptions, it's like the Monday morning quarterback thing. Chances are if RCV was in place we would have seen very different campaigns run which would have changed things up. We most certainly would have seen something like what we currently have with RCV with candidates banding together with a rank us together and not the most popular giving rise to someone else completely in the primaries.
You’re right, the 2000 contest probably would’ve shaped up differently, although I still think Gore would’ve won with RCV. RCV doesn’t guarantee the candidate with the plurality of votes in the first round wins. What RCV does do is reduce the likelihood of a polarizing/extremist candidate from winning. People on the right won’t rank an extremist lefty, and people on the left won’t rank an extremist righty. RCV favors centrist candidates.
I think occasionally there are candidates that have forced people to vote against a particular candidate but it is more common in a primary. I don't see how a voting style can prevent extremist candidates from winning especially since they seem to be winning locally with relatively few votes. Even NY city has an extremist as a mayoral candidate, granted the incumbent was not included but they are running with it as a huge win.
Extremists may appear to be winning to you and me, but are they actually extremists for the wards they represent? I have a feeling Robin Wonsley, e.g., might be mainstream for her ward. At least for the few people who cared to vote.