Ranked choice voting was on the ballot here in Colorado this election cycle. It failed because both Republicans and Democrats opposed it. One of the most progressive people I know voted against it because her “progressive voting guide” from the Democratic Party said it was bad.
Weird how the two party system both don’t want meaningful changes made.
Win big or lose big. Ultrapartisonship and division will continue as long as only two viable choices exist.
Somehow it passed in Maine. Seems like a no brainer
In Alaska’s new system, all candidates regardless of party run in one primary that is open to all voters. Then, the top four candidates advance to the general election, at which stage voters can rank them. The state then tabulates the ballots and rankings until one winner emerges.
I like it. More please.
Better than “top two” primaries for sure. You do need choices in ranked choice but some ballots I’ve seen, almost a dozen candidates in a race, is a good way to encourage apathy or pretend it’s a straight ticket vote.
Thank fuck something went right.
I watched it closely.
For ~a week, it RCV was down by 4K votes.
It was only in the last couple days that it started to pull ahead.
Final tally had it win by only 664 votes.
I’m still not sure I can forgive Oregon voters for voting RCV down
Ooo, this was a close one, right? I seem to recall that it was looking like RCV was going away in AK.
Yes. Came down to a few hundred votes
664 votes.
For a good 1.5 weeks, it was lost. The last couple days it started to get saved. The day before they stopped counting votes, it was only ahead by 45 votes.
It was decided by a margin of 664 votes (0.21%) according to the article
Why not simply ranked choice voting? why the open primary?
Partisan primaries tend to produce more extreme candidates. The hope is switching to a combined primary will result in moving candidates of more general appeal on to the general election.
I understand that. My question was: why is a primary needed in the first place? It makes sense with first past the post, but with ranked choice voting and instant runnoff, I don’t get why. Does the US constitution require state to organise primaries?
Primaries can have so many candidates the median voter is never going to learn about all of them. A primary is a reasonable way to down-select to a candidate pool where they all have a chance to make their case to voters without being seen as noise.
Guess who’s getting disenfranchised?
