“The winner may clear 50% of the remaining ballots, but that is not 50% of everyone who voted.” — This is the crux of the issue. This is the key point to drive home to the general public.
That’s not just bad policy—it’s dangerous history repeating itself. Ranked choice voting doesn’t “moderate” outcomes; it empowers backroom coalition math over voter clarity. In the Weimar Republic, fragmented voting systems allowed extremist factions—including the Nazi Party—to maneuver through alliances and chip away at established power centers like Paul von Hindenburg’s Christian nationalist base. That’s the lesson. When elections become games of redistribution rather than conviction, the most disciplined coalitions—not the most popular ideas—win. Conservatives should be wide awake. Systems that dilute first-choice strength don’t protect democracy—they rig it against clarity, conviction, and tradition. They favor students of radicals like Lenin and Alinsky. Look at what New York City has become rather quickly.
Republicans are being exposed with each passing day as being either totally stupid or thoroughly corrupted.
Most likely, both.
And while I almost choke even having to say it, I will still vote red in November because Democrats are pure unadulterated evil and should never, ever be near the levers of power ever again.
I was originally intrigued by RCV because it set the conditions for multiple viable parties. The system of one person, one vote, must inevitably create two dominant parties, for whom any alternative party becomes a game changer, a new way to lose through a divided vote. Presumable if every candidate on an RCV ballot was a member of a different party, it would be more fair, would you agree?
It seems to me that the problem you outlined is specifically caused by using RCV in open primaries. Open primaries are already problematic for the reasons you’ve mentioned.
But if every candidate is chosen by a restricted party vote, it still seems to me that RCV would be more meaningful.
We see low voter turnout in the U.S. because people don’t think the major party candidates represent their views. Do you see a different method, apart from RCV, that would get intensity candidates onto the ballot without splitting the Republican vote?
It seems our current system is giving candidates from the farther poles. Candidates why do not represent the major in the middle. These candidates are mostly ridiculous, hyper partisan, who refuse to govern via compromise. I would be happy with RCV if it gets candidates in who are not hyper partisan.
when are you going to start your own university Alexander?
“The winner may clear 50% of the remaining ballots, but that is not 50% of everyone who voted.” — This is the crux of the issue. This is the key point to drive home to the general public.
That’s not just bad policy—it’s dangerous history repeating itself. Ranked choice voting doesn’t “moderate” outcomes; it empowers backroom coalition math over voter clarity. In the Weimar Republic, fragmented voting systems allowed extremist factions—including the Nazi Party—to maneuver through alliances and chip away at established power centers like Paul von Hindenburg’s Christian nationalist base. That’s the lesson. When elections become games of redistribution rather than conviction, the most disciplined coalitions—not the most popular ideas—win. Conservatives should be wide awake. Systems that dilute first-choice strength don’t protect democracy—they rig it against clarity, conviction, and tradition. They favor students of radicals like Lenin and Alinsky. Look at what New York City has become rather quickly.
So much for one person one vote.
Republicans are being exposed with each passing day as being either totally stupid or thoroughly corrupted.
Most likely, both.
And while I almost choke even having to say it, I will still vote red in November because Democrats are pure unadulterated evil and should never, ever be near the levers of power ever again.
It’s just another way to cheat.
I was originally intrigued by RCV because it set the conditions for multiple viable parties. The system of one person, one vote, must inevitably create two dominant parties, for whom any alternative party becomes a game changer, a new way to lose through a divided vote. Presumable if every candidate on an RCV ballot was a member of a different party, it would be more fair, would you agree?
It seems to me that the problem you outlined is specifically caused by using RCV in open primaries. Open primaries are already problematic for the reasons you’ve mentioned.
But if every candidate is chosen by a restricted party vote, it still seems to me that RCV would be more meaningful.
We see low voter turnout in the U.S. because people don’t think the major party candidates represent their views. Do you see a different method, apart from RCV, that would get intensity candidates onto the ballot without splitting the Republican vote?
True
Amen; resist Ranked Voting! 🇺🇸
It seems our current system is giving candidates from the farther poles. Candidates why do not represent the major in the middle. These candidates are mostly ridiculous, hyper partisan, who refuse to govern via compromise. I would be happy with RCV if it gets candidates in who are not hyper partisan.
Portland used RCV for the first time in 2024. The results were predictably awful. Don't do it.
Because conservatism is unpopular and can only win in a binary choice against the extreme left.