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.

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".

I just read up on the current proposal for ranked choice voting, and I don't like the details of it. It sounds like the party that has the most candidates is almost guaranteed to "win" in the end. That's may not be the intent, but when a candidate can turn votes cast for them over to a candidate of their choice they have what amounts to a "super vote". The rule that requires that the winner of an election to receive more than 50% of the votes, one way or another, effectively eliminates the ability of a third party to win. Our system that favors two parties is the primary issue that I would like to change.

The approval voting system also being discussed also clearly focuses on two parties. We need to allow significant third party choices to be on the ballot and we need to allow them a fair way to win the election when so many voters do not care for the two primary parties.

I have little faith in the voting masses. I know too many who vote for someone they do not like because of their hate for someone else. Ranked choice is great for the well informed. But for the uninformed, easily manipulated masses it is simply a bit more complicated and I suspect they would vote against that option. So I guess the main reason for suggesting a "vote no" option is that I think it would be a positive change that more people might support, therefore making it more likely to accomplish. Ultimately the first issue is simply giving us more than two choices per position.

Yeah, ranked choice voting is a great option, also currently unavailable to us. I like it even better, but the right to vote no is enough to make a big change.