Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:41AM   Printer-friendly
from the people's-choice dept.

Ranked-choice voting adopted in New York City, along with other ballot measures

New York City will move to a system of ranked-choice voting, shaking up the way its elections are run after voters approved a ballot question to make the change.

The city will be by far the biggest place in the U.S. to put the new way of voting to the test, tripling the number of people around the country who use it.

A ballot question proposing the shift for New York primaries and special elections was approved Tuesday by a margin of nearly 3-1. It's now set to be in effect for New York's elections for mayor, City Council and other offices in 2021.

Under the system, voters will rank up to five candidates in order of preference, instead of casting a ballot for just one. If no candidate gets a majority of the vote, the last place candidate is eliminated and their votes are parceled out to the voter's second choice, a computerized process that continues until one candidate has a majority and is declared the winner.

Ranked-choice voting is now in use or approved in 18 other cities around the country, including San Francisco, Minneapolis and Cambridge. The state of Maine also uses it. Backers say the system discourages negative campaigning, and forces candidates to reach out to more voters rather than relying on a narrow base. It's also designed to allow voters to pick their true favorite, without worrying about throwing away a vote on someone who can't win.

Previously: Maine Supreme Court Approves Ranked-Choice Voting for 2018 Elections
Maine Debuts Ranked-Choice Voting


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by ilPapa on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:08AM (21 children)

    by ilPapa (2366) on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:08AM (#917187) Journal

    It's about time we start seeing more places in the US adopt democratic reforms. So many of the local elections here are structured around an 18th century view of how people interact and travel within a community.

    There's been a disconnect in the past 20 years where there is simply less "consent of the governed". Some of it is due to the fact that in that time we've had two presidents elected without getting the most votes. And the electoral college itself is based on an outdated notion of how far the electorate live from voting places and a patrician belief in an aristocracy ("common people just don't know any better").

    Maybe ranked-choice can help restore people's belief in a government by, of, and for the people.

    --
    You are still welcome on my lawn.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:12AM (13 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:12AM (#917193) Journal

    Maybe ranked-choice can help restore people's belief in a government by, of, and for the people.

    Fat chance that.

    However, I woulds still file this in the "sudden outbreak of common-sense" drawer.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:36AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:36AM (#917200)

      It is more about slowing down the process of people voting themselves free stuff.

      https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/88664-when-the-people-find-that-they-can-vote-themselves-money [goodreads.com]

    • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:39AM (9 children)

      by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:39AM (#917224)

      Don't ranked-choice/Condorcet methods produce a government -- or results in general -- by the choice everyone's willing to compromise on?

      • (Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:51AM (3 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:51AM (#917235) Journal

        Don't ranked-choice/Condorcet methods produce a government -- or results in general -- by the choice everyone's willing to compromise on?

        If you mean it will produce a government that will be:
        1. distrusted by all the voters (that needed to accept a compromise), but...
        2. ... the level of distrust each of the voters holds is not the maximum
        then yes, it is correct.

        At least the Australians don't quite hate each other on the ground of politics (but we still manage to elect lizzard people).

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:28PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @04:28PM (#917376)

          2. ... the level of distrust each of the voters holds is not the maximum

          Yes, the current system creates more or less the maximum amount of distrust. Constantly voting for 'the lesser evil' does that to you, and it only creates the illusion of unity.

        • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:04PM (1 child)

          by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:04PM (#917468)

          I thought they were more agriculturers [youtube.com] and the like. At least it looks like the average Australian citizen has better direct access to them.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:36PM

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:36PM (#917579) Journal

            The skyrocketing prices [wikipedia.org] in the urban areas would disagree with that depiction.

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:17AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:17AM (#917250)

        Except NYC didn't vote for a Condorcet method, they voted for instant-runoff voting [wikipedia.org]. The positive is that there is some evidence that IRV reduces negative campaigning/attack ads. But it doesn't do a good job of reducing polarization.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:59AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:59AM (#917256)

          But it doesn't do a good job of reducing polarization.

          Given that NYC is 7-1 Democratic, that's not really an issue.

          Come visit. It's a wonderful place to enjoy yourself, and we're happy to take your money even if you're a LIV [wikipedia.org].

          I recommend a Broadway show [tdf.org] and then take your friends/family to Carmine's [carminesnyc.com], Plataforma [plataformaonline.com] or both.

          But don't talk to the furries or take photos with them. They will grab your teenage daughter's ass [nypost.com] and that's your job.

        • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:47PM (1 child)

          by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:47PM (#917505)

          Now that they have the ballot, can't they feed it through the Condorcet method -- and first-past-the-post, for that matter -- and come up with those winners even if they're not the ones who will assume office? It would be interesting, if nothing else. You could also get the ranked losers that way if you wanted.

          • (Score: 2) by rondon on Friday November 08 2019, @03:09PM

            by rondon (5167) on Friday November 08 2019, @03:09PM (#917879)

            Can't really compare to first-past-the-post because the two different methods change voting methodology quite a bit. For example, someone who ranks Green Party first and Dem second may vote straight Dem if they don't have ranked choice.

      • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Thursday November 07 2019, @11:02PM

        by Mykl (1112) on Thursday November 07 2019, @11:02PM (#917607)

        It encourages parties to move away from the fringe extremes of the left and right, and move more toward the centre. There will still be nutbag groups, but they'll only gain 0.1% of the vote.

        The absolute best thing about this is that you reduce the risk of similar candidates cannibalising each other. In the current first-past-the-post system, 5 pro-widget and 1 anti-widget candidates will likely result in the anti-widget candidate winning, even if 75% of the population are pro-widget. In ranked/runoff/Condorcet methods, one of the pro-widget candidates is far, far more likely to win, because most of the population is pro-widget.

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:30PM (1 child)

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:30PM (#917419) Journal

      Ranked Choice voting tends to produce more popular results (i.e., more people find the winning candidate tolerable), but it is subject to information overload.

      There's no perfect answer. Probably, though, when there are a lot of diverse opinions it's worth the cost. Personally, I prefer Condorcet voting, but that's harder to explain to people, so Instant Runoff Voting is probably a better approach. Both are versions of Ranked Choice.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:09PM

        by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:09PM (#917470)

        Information overload? Like, worse than what we have now with all numpteen Democratic contenders? Other countries with coalition governments would seem to have a worse time of it.

        Why is Condorcet voting hard to explain? I thought it was just, like, drag and drop your candidates from the 'too lame; didn't rank' pile to one of the spots on the rocks <--> sucks continuum, and the Dexter Boffinmatic Egghead-o-tron will pick the best one for you.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:36AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:36AM (#917199)

    I dunno, the current system has worked well to keep corrupt politicians from coming to power. The last loser thought the (c) on documents stood for cookie and resulted in dozens of Chinese informants being murdered. Go ahead and try to pass an amendment though.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by c0lo on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:49AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:49AM (#917202) Journal

      I dunno, the current system has worked well to keep corrupt politicians from coming to power.

      Hey, SETI! We just got a message from an alien planet here.
      You think you can trace the origin? If the message is true, it should be nicer than anywhere/anytime on Earth.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:37AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:37AM (#917222) Journal

      4/10. That actually got a real-life out-loud "Is this guy fucking serious or is he trolling?" from me.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:48AM (1 child)

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:48AM (#917231)

    And the electoral college itself is based on an outdated notion of how far the electorate live from voting places

    I'll just leave this here [xkcd.com].

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:35PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:35PM (#917421) Journal

      The purpose of the Electoral College was to give states with lower population some share in the power. This was necessary to get them to agree to join the US. Since then, state governments have lost so much power that many people think it's time to remove that feature. It was always biased against states with high populations.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:27PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:27PM (#917278)

    And the electoral college itself is based on an outdated notion of how far the electorate live from voting places and a patrician belief in an aristocracy ("common people just don't know any better").

    This is a weird misconception that somehow stays alive. The electoral college was a compromise designed to satisfy all the various interests that were significant at the time. Some of them, like how much representation should be given to slaves, are obviously no longer relevant. Others, like protecting the interests of sparsely populated states from being trampled by densely populated states, are still very significant.

    None of these reasons have to do with practical problems of getting votes to the capital for counting or getting voters to polling places, although it has turned out to sometimes protect against vote counting problems. In 1960, Kennedy defeated Nixon with a narrow popular vote margin, but a comfortable electoral margin. If you think the vote counting debacle in 2000 was bad, imagine it happening nationwide.

    It is true that the Electoral College does not really work the way it was originally intended to. The Founders did not expect the two-party system (despite designing a political system that not only allowed but guaranteed it - but I speak with the benefit of two centuries of hindsight), and none of their decisions were made with it in mind. The original concept was that presidential electors would be similar to representatives in Congress, except that their only function would be to deliberate and then vote for the President. Acceptable systems had been devised to manage representation in Congress, so a similar, parallel system was devised to select the President as well. This is no more "patrician belief in an aristocracy" than the Congress itself is, and most of the Founders hated anything that had even the faintest whiff of nobility and feudalism. (For many years America's navy had commodores instead of admirals, because of the connection [wikipedia.org] the admiralty of the Royal Navy had to the Royal Family).

    Alexander Hamilton, who was one of the people most responsible for the design of the Electoral College, hated the "winner take all" system of selecting electors currently used in most states and introduced a constitutional amendment to mandate electors being chosen by district, as is done in Nebraska and Maine, but he died before he could gain sufficient support for it. This system would certainly be better as it would eliminate "swing states" and the general problem where virtually everyone that doesn't live in Florida, Ohio, or a few other places is effectively disenfranchised. But it wouldn't be perfect, as gerrymandered districts would now affect the Presidency as well as the Congress.

    Something that many people don't realize is that, a few decades ago, support for Electoral College reform was widespread, but today, overall support has generally dropped and is now roughly split evenly. To some degree, of course, this is due to the election of two Republican presidents without popular vote majorities, and the current popular opinion splits mostly along party lines. But I think it's better to look at this as a consequence of the Democrats becoming a party that represents mostly densely populated states, and increasingly only densely populated cities, while the Republican party generally represents rural and sparsely populated areas. It's worth noting that protecting the interests of rural, sparsely populated states is one of the original intents of the Electoral College, and so, the election of two Republican presidents without popular vote majorities represents the system working as designed.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:47PM

      by ilPapa (2366) on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:47PM (#917305) Journal

      This is a weird misconception that somehow stays alive. The electoral college was a compromise designed to satisfy all the various interests that were significant at the time. Some of them, like how much representation should be given to slaves, are obviously no longer relevant. Others, like protecting the interests of sparsely populated states from being trampled by densely populated states, are still very significant.

      At its heart, the electoral college was designed to protect landowners and slaveholders. Giving voters in sparsely populated states a vote that carries more weight than a city-dweller is a throwback to a time when aristocrats were farm and plantation-owners. In an age of an imperial presidency, why should the vote of someone living in a trailer park in Oklahoma count for more than a doctor in Chicago when it comes to choosing the president?

      It is an anachronism and an abomination. A republic will always be inferior to a democracy, since it requires less from its citizens.

      --
      You are still welcome on my lawn.