When we were first considering RCV, I was a full-on advocate. However, I truly regret that, now that I have seen how it works. People like to talk about how it empowers folks who have no chance to win to run, and how it empowers voters to vote for someone they like best without regard to their chances of winning. If one actually THINKS about that, though, those are truly unimpressive "advantages".
However, there are many unintended consequences to RCV that have major impact for the candidates who DO have a chance of winning. The biggest of these is that, unless a campaign is willing to gamble on getting to 50.1% in 1st-place votes alone, no matter how many candidates are on the ballot, that candidate absolutely HAS to "pull their punches" when it comes to describing what they would do if elected. And it is "campaign suicide" for a candidate to explain in detail how they would differ from the candidates who are "closest" to them ideologically. One cannot afford to "tick off" the voters for "ideologically close" candidates - because one may well need their #2 and #3 votes.
This dumbs down our elections. Which is just about the last thing we need these days. The Mayoral election may not be greatly impacted by this, this year, precisely because the two leading candidates are about as different on the issues as they can be. But I will be very surprised to see either of them go out of his way to distinguish how he would be different from the next-most-popular two or three.
In an election like 2017, though, where there were multiple fully-viable candidates, and it was almost impossible to place them on an ideological "spectrum" because they differed in so many ways and on so many issues, the net result was that most failed to campaign on policy preferences at all. Websites and literature pieces for some were totally devoid of specifics. This is the hidden cost to the public of RCV, sometimes called "instant runoff". We would be better served by skipping a primary, holding an all-comers plain old "election", and followed by a REAL run-off among the top two (or even three), if/when no one gets to 50.1% on election day.
Jeanne Massey is full of pretty words and grand ideas, but look at the reality of Minneapolis politics…it’s the stark opposite of her vision. Consider today’s Strib article about CM Chughtai’s speech at Porchfest, ““We are going to transform this city,” Chughtai said. “F*** Jacob Frey, f*** fascism and f*** Donald Trump.”” This is not what moderation looks, or sounds like. Something has gone wrong.
Michelle, I agree, but is RCV to blame, or would we be in the same situation without it? I suspect the latter. Hopefully the city does a major course correction this fall.
I think our problems derive from a complex set of issues. So can we blame RCV? Probably not, though it might play a part. RCV certainly hasn’t delivered on its promises though.
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.
I voted for RCV but now I am not so sure if it's a good idea. Considering the prominence of the DFL here, DFL endorsement is important for low information voters. With RCV we have exchanged a primary with 5-10% participation for the Caucus/Convention system with 2% deciding who gets the endorsement.
Also, you could have a viable candidate, possibly your best candidate, lose the election because of a "Don't rank Cuomo" campaign like Lander and Mamdani ran in the NY Primary. (Not suggesting Cuomo was the best candidate.) Would that be considered negative campaigning?
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.
When we were first considering RCV, I was a full-on advocate. However, I truly regret that, now that I have seen how it works. People like to talk about how it empowers folks who have no chance to win to run, and how it empowers voters to vote for someone they like best without regard to their chances of winning. If one actually THINKS about that, though, those are truly unimpressive "advantages".
However, there are many unintended consequences to RCV that have major impact for the candidates who DO have a chance of winning. The biggest of these is that, unless a campaign is willing to gamble on getting to 50.1% in 1st-place votes alone, no matter how many candidates are on the ballot, that candidate absolutely HAS to "pull their punches" when it comes to describing what they would do if elected. And it is "campaign suicide" for a candidate to explain in detail how they would differ from the candidates who are "closest" to them ideologically. One cannot afford to "tick off" the voters for "ideologically close" candidates - because one may well need their #2 and #3 votes.
This dumbs down our elections. Which is just about the last thing we need these days. The Mayoral election may not be greatly impacted by this, this year, precisely because the two leading candidates are about as different on the issues as they can be. But I will be very surprised to see either of them go out of his way to distinguish how he would be different from the next-most-popular two or three.
In an election like 2017, though, where there were multiple fully-viable candidates, and it was almost impossible to place them on an ideological "spectrum" because they differed in so many ways and on so many issues, the net result was that most failed to campaign on policy preferences at all. Websites and literature pieces for some were totally devoid of specifics. This is the hidden cost to the public of RCV, sometimes called "instant runoff". We would be better served by skipping a primary, holding an all-comers plain old "election", and followed by a REAL run-off among the top two (or even three), if/when no one gets to 50.1% on election day.
Jeanne Massey is full of pretty words and grand ideas, but look at the reality of Minneapolis politics…it’s the stark opposite of her vision. Consider today’s Strib article about CM Chughtai’s speech at Porchfest, ““We are going to transform this city,” Chughtai said. “F*** Jacob Frey, f*** fascism and f*** Donald Trump.”” This is not what moderation looks, or sounds like. Something has gone wrong.
Michelle, I agree, but is RCV to blame, or would we be in the same situation without it? I suspect the latter. Hopefully the city does a major course correction this fall.
I think our problems derive from a complex set of issues. So can we blame RCV? Probably not, though it might play a part. RCV certainly hasn’t delivered on its promises though.
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 voted for RCV but now I am not so sure if it's a good idea. Considering the prominence of the DFL here, DFL endorsement is important for low information voters. With RCV we have exchanged a primary with 5-10% participation for the Caucus/Convention system with 2% deciding who gets the endorsement.
Also, you could have a viable candidate, possibly your best candidate, lose the election because of a "Don't rank Cuomo" campaign like Lander and Mamdani ran in the NY Primary. (Not suggesting Cuomo was the best candidate.) Would that be considered negative campaigning?
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.