RCV is the way to buy elections when a candidate can’t win on ideological grounds or merit. The worst part about it is that you are essentially voting blindly because negative campaigning is repressed. It diminishes voter confidence that the candidate is being honest in their opinions and it complicates voting opening up the election process to more corruption.
What’s funny also is that Democrats want a more informed electorate ( even this weekend there’s a clip from one of the astroturf rallies stating that ) yet when they get an informed energized bloc of voters they seek to nullify it.
The only outcome of RCV is the best organized party wins as limiting candidates to one in a given race dramatically increases chance of a win. A dangerous precedent where the win goes to a party, not the candidate. Open primaries likewise favor the best organized party allowing manipulation of outcome.
Having lived with RCV in Australia for many years i found the advantages far outweighed the theoretical flaws. We need it most in primaries where in my state we have seen multiple times multiple conservatives split a majority allowing the RINO to win.
Australia does not have primaries yet in the general election preferential voting has allowed minor parties to gain seats AND influence the direction of the 2 big parties.
Ballot exhaustion is a fake issue : if you get so far down the list that only 2 liberals (or RINOS if a primary) are left it means the voting population cannot possibly elect a conservative.
So yes, get rid of open primaries (or just eliminate primaries). And yes EVERY system has mathematically possible ways to get results which seem "unfair" but our plurality system is the worst of all!
“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?
RCV is BS.
RCV is the way to buy elections when a candidate can’t win on ideological grounds or merit. The worst part about it is that you are essentially voting blindly because negative campaigning is repressed. It diminishes voter confidence that the candidate is being honest in their opinions and it complicates voting opening up the election process to more corruption.
What’s funny also is that Democrats want a more informed electorate ( even this weekend there’s a clip from one of the astroturf rallies stating that ) yet when they get an informed energized bloc of voters they seek to nullify it.
The only outcome of RCV is the best organized party wins as limiting candidates to one in a given race dramatically increases chance of a win. A dangerous precedent where the win goes to a party, not the candidate. Open primaries likewise favor the best organized party allowing manipulation of outcome.
Having lived with RCV in Australia for many years i found the advantages far outweighed the theoretical flaws. We need it most in primaries where in my state we have seen multiple times multiple conservatives split a majority allowing the RINO to win.
Australia does not have primaries yet in the general election preferential voting has allowed minor parties to gain seats AND influence the direction of the 2 big parties.
Ballot exhaustion is a fake issue : if you get so far down the list that only 2 liberals (or RINOS if a primary) are left it means the voting population cannot possibly elect a conservative.
So yes, get rid of open primaries (or just eliminate primaries). And yes EVERY system has mathematically possible ways to get results which seem "unfair" but our plurality system is the worst of all!
I’ve questioned before its legitimacy. GOP is just becoming a waste. At least who is in there.
More importantly, it's against the constitution. One person, one vote. Why doesn't anyone push back with this argument. What am I missing?
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! 🇺🇸