I've seen what ranked choice did in Oakland, CA where the two "best"
candidates split the vote, and a third not-so-good candidate appeared as
#2 in a majority of votes. The #3 got elected, and it was a difficult 4
years.
I prefer the "top 2" primary voting method that was instituted a couple
years ago in CA. I would like it better if it was a "top 3", but I think
it's had the intended effect. It has encouraged more candidates to move
more to the middle instead of pandering to the extremes at either end.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
On 11/9/2016 2:38 PM, Forrest Christian (List Account) wrote:
I firmly believe that having ranked choice voting in place would
encourage more people to pay attention to all of their choices.
Because the system empowers voters to be able to choose the candidates
they actually want without the risk of splitting the vote between
similar candidates, I believe people would spend a bit more time
becoming aware of their choices instead of picking the one they hate
the most then voting for the other one.
Two examples in this cycle are Johnson and Sanders. I believe that the
libertarian views that Johnson represented is shared large chunk of
the population. I also believe that a lot of the views that Sanders
has has fairly wide appeal as well. Who knows if either would have
been elected, but I know of a lot of people where one of those two
would have been their first choice.
On Nov 9, 2016 4:11 PM, "Rory Conaway" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
The problem with the popular vote though, kind of comes back to
what Jefferson said,
"Convinced that the people are the only safe depositories of their
own liberty, and that they are not safe unless enlightened to a
certain degree, I have looked on our present state of liberty as a
short-lived possession unless the mass of the people could be
informed to a certain degree." --Thomas Jefferson to Littleton
Waller Tazewell, 1805.
90% of the people in the country really don’t have an intelligent
grasp of the issues and don’t have the critical thinking skills or
the morals/ethics to do the right thing. Just look at any man on
the street interviews by both sides. They are lucky to find one
person who can even recognize a picture of the vice-president or
have any clue who stands on what side of an issue.
I’m for keeping the electoral college until that gets fixed and we
can guarantee clean elections. Terry McAuliffe giving 60,000
felons the right to vote days before an election and Barack Obama
going on national TV telling illegal aliens to vote and there will
be no repercussions doesn’t give me confidence that the popular
vote is a good idea yet. Not when one party is willing to break
the law to win.
Rory
*From:*Af [mailto:[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>] *On Behalf Of *Josh Reynolds
*Sent:* Wednesday, November 9, 2016 8:00 AM
*To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Vote
Agreed. Hillary is up 160k with 98% reporting. Around 6 million
third party votes...
On Nov 9, 2016 8:54 AM, "Travis Johnson" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This election is a perfect example of why the whole Electoral vote
should be gone. I have been talking about this very issue for over
20 years, and this election is a prime example of a flawed system.
I was a Trump supporter, like it or not. I was ready for a change,
and could not stomach the thought of Hillary being the President.
However, if the vote was actually based on the popular vote count,
Hillary would be our new President.
It's amazing how our political system has become so screwed up
over the last 200 years. I am both excited and scared for the next
four years.
Travis
