Anaxamenes t1_itcku5k wrote on October 22, 2022 at 4:41 PM

Reply to comment by MoreCommonCents in Freedom of choice... for who we may vote for... or against by MoreCommonCents

That’s not how it works. Voters choose their ranked choices, if their first choice doesn’t get enough votes they are removed from consideration and that voters next choice is then awarded their vote instead. The voters chooses who that is, not the candidate.

MoreCommonCents OP t1_itedys5 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 12:30 AM

I think the site I first found details for had those details incorrect. Or maybe I read it wrong, but I don't think so. Thank you for that clarification. That makes more sense.

I still don't like it, for a different reason though. It is would still be difficult to get a third party to receive more votes than either of the other two primary parties. Which bring me back to being able to cast one negative vote instead of ranked voting. If someone feels really strongly about preventing one of those two candidates they vote negatively for them. That increases the chance of a third party winning, even if they receive less positive votes than either of the "major parties".

Anaxamenes t1_itgmfm4 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 2:36 PM

It should actually be easier for a third party to get votes. In an area where one party has more voters, that second round might actually be more valuable to the voter who is from the party with fewer voters in that district. They may not get their first choice, but their second choice would be better for them than no choice at all. The likely second choice would be more moderate but that is still a better choice for a voter than someone completely opposite of what they want.

Early on, this would allow many more candidates to be on the ballot. Perhaps your favorite didn’t make it on the ballot normally because it’s difficult to stand out. This could give them more of an opportunity because you wouldn’t have to throw your vote away to vote against someone else. You would select your favorite, then perhaps the candidate you think is tolerable and more likely to win. Not damaging either candidates chances but actually voting the way you really want to.

MoreCommonCents OP t1_itihm00 wrote on October 23, 2022 at 9:56 PM

More than 2 choices on the actually ballot is of course essential. And anything that moves us towards that is a good move. The battle with regards to third party candidates is the age old argument that if you don't vote for someone who can actually win you are wasting your vote altogether. And that is why people continually vote for someone they do not support in an effort to prevent someone they really are concerned might win if they do not. If given the choice to cast a negative vote for that candidate I think they would take it as they are less concerned about which of the other choices might win.

So how does one vote when they really don't want one candidate to win? I guess they rank them last, and hope that everyone is clever enough to do the same. If voters actually did that they could effectively cast a negative vote as well as casting preferential votes to anyone other than that last choice.

Anaxamenes t1_itj4oj4 wrote on October 24, 2022 at 12:46 AM

You don’t rank them last, you don’t rank them at all. Essentially that is a vote against them because your vote will go to someone else no matter what. The best part is it allows for third party candidates. You don’t like your party candidate? No problem, you can vote for a different person first and if that person doesn’t end up getting it, you might get your second or third choice but they would still be much better than getting the person you felt you should use your vote to vote against.