Comments posted organically
SelectSmart.com Homepage
Display Order:

The Conservative Justices on the Supreme Court Hold the Record as the World's Most Expensive Whores...
Crime by Ponderer     February 29, 2024 10:35 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Curt_Anderson (13 comments) [116 views]


James Comer is not sure an impeachment of Biden is warranted
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 4:25 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: (0 comments) [16 views]


James Comer has been big on promises, short on delivery. MAGA is feeling let down.
Politics by Curt_Anderson     March 1, 2024 1:28 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (5 comments) [58 views]


So, Curt, can you still say that there's "NO EVIDENCE" that Joe was involved in the Crime Family?
Crime by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:33 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (15 comments) [109 views]


Oversight and Judiciary Committees Release Hunter Biden Transcript
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 5:51 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (13 comments) [94 views]


Is Trump going broke? Is he bringing the GOP down with him?
Politics by Curt_Anderson     February 28, 2024 5:46 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (5 comments) [108 views]


RFK Jr. Backs Sen. Rand Paul to Succeed McConnell...
Politics by HatetheSwamp     March 1, 2024 6:15 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (1 comments) [9 views]


Rep. Lauren Boebert's son Tyler allegedly made a sex tape with co-defendant
Crime by Curt_Anderson     February 29, 2024 11:24 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: oldedude (9 comments) [154 views]


Holy FrigginFreakinEFFIN Cow! Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump immunity claim!
Crime by HatetheSwamp     February 28, 2024 2:54 pm (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: Indy! (15 comments) [107 views]


9 Surprising Findings From Joe Biden's Physical
Medical by HatetheSwamp     February 29, 2024 9:51 am (Rating: 0.0) Last comment by: HatetheSwamp (2 comments) [19 views]


Government selectors, pages, etc.
Ranked Choice voting...yes or no?
By islander
August 25, 2023 1:20 pm
Category: Government

(5.0 from 1 vote)
Rules of the Post

SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com


Rate this article
5 Stars
4 Stars
3 Stars
2 Stars
1 Star
0 Stars
(5=best, 0=poor)


Are you in favor of Ranked Choice Voting? I’m curious about what the SS posters here think about it?

The people here in Maine voted in favor of it even though the Republicans tried to block it and have, since it was passed, tried twice to pass measures to repeal it and failed each time.

So far...they have been able to block it for state elections but we do have it for Federal elections.

I’m very happy with it. Among other things it gives us the opportunity to vote for a third party candidate without fear of throwing our vote away and whichever candidate wins an election, that candidate will always have at least 50% of the votes plus one so there can be no "spoilers".


Cited and related links:

  1. maine.gov

Comments Start Below


The views and claims expressed by contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views and beliefs of SelectSmart.com. Not every statement made here can be assumed to be a fact.
Comments on "Ranked Choice voting...yes or no?":

  1. by Curt_Anderson on August 25, 2023 1:58 pm
    So in theory, a liberal voter might vote for Cornel West #1, Joe Biden #2. But if Donald Trump is the alternative, the voter would prefer Biden. That's all good.

    We don't have a parliamentary system in America. Unlike the UK, our US candidates cannot cobble together a coalition government with another political party. Our system forces our major parties to broaden their appeal--Democrats are obliged to appeal to Green Party voters, for example.


  2. by Indy! on August 25, 2023 4:40 pm

    We need ranked choice voting everywhere - as well as ending the electoral college. Also a national holiday for voting and a rule limiting elections to 6 months.


  3. by Curt_Anderson on August 25, 2023 5:35 pm
    “… and a rule limiting elections to 6 months.”. —Indy

    You probably mean 6 months of campaigning or maybe 6 months of political ads. Any such limit is contrary to the First Amendment. Your other ideas are ok. Except instead of an election holiday, it’s better all voting should be by mail or drop-off box as we do in Oregon.


  4. by islander on August 26, 2023 4:58 am


    Being a pragmatic idealist, ranked choice voting made it possible for me to vote in according with my ideals...I voted for Bernie Sanders.

    The practical part of me voted for Joe Biden as my second choice.

    I never had to worry that voting in accordance with my ideals would mean throwing my vote away. I think we should all be able to make choices like that.


  5. by Indy! on August 26, 2023 7:37 pm

    The First Ameendment would not come into play at all, and your mail only voting leaves out millions of Americans - the ones who are living on the streets (for instance).


  6. by Curt_Anderson on August 26, 2023 7:58 pm
    Indy,
    It certainly would be a First Amendment issue. How would you craft a law that limits candidates to six months of campaigning without curtailing their speech?

    In Oregon, homeless people can vote. They need to describe where they reside, which could be a shelter, park, etc. I would imagine in states where people show up at the polls, the voters still have show some sort of identification and residency.

    I could be wrong, but I don't think homeless people are all that concerned about voting.


  7. by Indy! on August 26, 2023 8:34 pm

    There are all kinds of laws limiting campaigns from the number of signatures needed to get on a ballot to the date you have to get them into the state to qualify. Is your google broken again?

    And while I'm sure you don't care about homeless people voting - I suspect you are not their official spokesperson.


  8. by Curt_Anderson on August 26, 2023 8:56 pm
    The number of signatures needed for a proposition on the ballot has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

    As I said, try to write a law that limits campaigning to six months but doesn't infringe on anybody's freedom of speech. It cannot be done. Political speech in particular is protected speech.

    I speak for all God's children: the down-trodden and well-heeled alike



  9. by islander on August 27, 2023 6:16 am

    In my opinion one of the most important and valuable pluses for RCV is that it helps prevent a candidate from winning an election even though the majority of voters neither wanted nor voted for that candidate, and it prevents “spoilers” from determining an election.


    For instance, in a three way race a candidate with only 34% of the votes could win even though 66% of the voters disapproved of that candidate. Former Gov. LePage of Maine won the 2010 election, with only 37 percent of the vote in a five-candidate race.

    I suspect this is why the Republicans are fighting so hard to repeal RCV where it has been approved and preventing it from being approved where it hasn’t yet been approved.


  10. by Indy! on August 27, 2023 9:01 pm

    The number of signatures needed for a proposition on the ballot has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

    Just as limiting the time to campaign has nothing to do with the First Amendment.


    I speak for all God's children: the down-trodden and well-heeled alike

    Curt, you are not just a rightwinge who doesn't care about the down trodden - you are a FAR right winger who doesn't care about the down trodden.


Go To Top

Comment on: "Ranked Choice voting...yes or no?"

* Anonymous comments are subject to approval before they appear. Cookies Consent Policy & Privacy Statement. All Rights Reserved. SelectSmart® is a registered trademark. | Contact SelectSmart.com | Advertise on SelectSmart.com | This site is for sale!

Find old posts & articles

Articles by category:

SelectSmart.com
Report spam & abuse
SelectSmart.com home page