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
Related Stories
Common Dreams reports
Election reform advocates on [April 18] praised a decision by Maine's Supreme Court, upholding the use of ranked-choice voting for the state's upcoming primary elections, saying the ruling demonstrated that the court heeded the demands of Maine voters.
[...]Unlike in traditional voting, in which the candidate with the largest share of votes wins--even if he or she is far from capturing a majority of the support--in ranked choice voting, voters rank each candidate in order of preference. If no candidate has a majority after the first count, the least-popular contender is eliminated, voters' ballots are added to the totals of their second-ranked candidates, and the ballots are recounted. The eliminations and recounts continue until one candidate has a majority.
Supporters of the system say it increases voter turnout and proportional representation.
Maine's June 12 multi-party primary elections, in which voters will choose candidates for governor and congressional districts, will now make history as the first state election to use ranked-choice voting.
Fifty-two percent of Maine voters supported the system in a November 2016 ballot initiative, but lawmakers passed a bill last year delaying its implementation until December 2021 and argued that the state could not use a new voting system without direction from the legislature. The state Senate also threatened to repeal ranked-choice voting altogether if it could not pass a constitutional amendment by then.
More than 77,000 Maine residents signed a petition saying any repeal of the system by the legislature should be voided.
"The Maine legislature has changed or repealed all four of the initiatives passed by Maine voters in 2016", said Kyle Bailey of the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting in a statement on Tuesday. "Today's decision by the Maine Supreme Court confirms that the Maine people are sovereign and have the final say."
The Portland Press Herald, Maine's largest circulation daily newspaper, has extensive background details in their April 17th story: Ranked-choice voting will be used for June primaries, Maine supreme court rules.
Maine Is Trying Out A New Way To Run Elections. But Will It Survive The Night?
The man who lives in the Blaine House in Augusta, Maine, was, for many, a sneak preview of the 45th president of the United States. Like Donald Trump, Republican Gov. Paul LePage has transformed the face of government with his politically incorrect brand of conservatism — and he did it despite winning less than a majority of votes. LePage won a seven-way Republican primary for governor in 2010 with 37 percent of the vote, and he beat a Democrat and three independents in the general with just 38 percent.
Eight years later, it's far from clear that LePage would have a path to victory if he were running now in the Republican primary for governor. That's because, partly in response to LePage's plurality wins, Maine on Tuesday will become the first state to use ranked-choice voting to decide a statewide election. So not only are there races in Maine we'll be watching, but the process matters too. And if Maine voters don't pass an initiative reauthorizing the voting method at the same time, this real-life political-science experiment will be cut short.
The question of keeping ranked-choice in place for future primaries and Congressional races in the general election led 54-46 percent with 57% of precincts reporting at 12:05 AM EDT.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by ilPapa on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:08AM (21 children)
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.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:12AM (13 children)
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
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)
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)
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
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)
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
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)
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
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)
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
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
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)
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
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)
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
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
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)
I'll just leave this here [xkcd.com].
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:35PM
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)
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
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.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:09AM (1 child)
Politics? You call this politics? Where are the aristarchus submissions? There are not even any in the queue! Oh, no, eds, what have you done! Have you finally driven away the one Soylentil that submitted non-right-wing STEM gaming Tech crap? Say it ain't so, editors, say it ain't so!
(For those of you who are not Americans, what the hell am I saying? Non-Americans are more likely to catch the reference than the historically oblivious and geographically challenge actual Americans, who are very not smart. The reference is to what a young boy, a baseball fan, said to "Shoeless Joe Jackson" when reports came out that he helped throw the 1919 World Series [wikipedia.org] (Baseball, for you non-World unAmericans). "Say it ain't so, Joe, say it ain't so! This young lad was later subpoenaed to appear be for the House Unamerican Activities Communtion, and in a closed session, run only by Non-communist Republicans, like "Tail-gunner Joe". I wonder, in the contest of history, would not "Shoeless Joe" trump "Tail-gunner Joe", which after all sounds like a euphemism for a "top". Fuching gay Republicans!)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:46PM
Uh......thanks?
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:46AM (1 child)
Are there libraries or database plugins to run these calculations incrementally or on-demand? I thought it would be great if website polls offered ranked-choice drag-and-drop options. With current computational power availability, they could probably also provide near-/live poll results for these more complex voting methods.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Thursday November 07 2019, @07:02AM
Australia usually has the election results in same night. There may be cases in which they need to wait longer for some seats, postal votes and all that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Insightful) by shortscreen on Thursday November 07 2019, @07:49AM (10 children)
It'll be interesting to see what results come out of it. In particular, the pundit class may have to come up with something different to talk about than the lesser-of-two-evils. Because people will be able to safely vote for four other candidates before they are "forced" to vote for the second-most-evil candidate to hedge against whichever one is the most evil.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @08:33AM
Actually, you can still spoil it, see resistance to tactical voting and spoiler effect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Resistance_to_tactical_voting [wikipedia.org] The good thing is that it is harder to game. The only common situation where you run into trouble is when you have a good candidate against a bad one and then the bad guys run scapegoats to siphon votes from the guy they like or you have many similar candidates that the one that would have been the overall or the Concorde winner gets eliminated early.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:05AM (5 children)
http://u.osu.edu/kogan.18/files/2014/12/ElectoralStudies-2fupfhd.pdf
Check the reasons for exhaustion tables.
TL;DR Conclusion:
The US electorate is too stupid to understand how to use Instant Runoff Voting
Yes, this can be solved with education. However, so can the problem of weak/reused passwords. And almost every other problem. But so far they haven't. What makes you think this one's any different?
However, IRV/RCV strictly dominates FPTP, and so this is definitely progress in cases where an individual needs to be selected. (Selecting a parliament/congress/house/assembly/council/senate/... by parties is a different problem with different solutions.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:23AM (4 children)
Or, voters are so distrustful of the whole political process, they just number randomly.
(Is it better to be self-aware and cynical, or stupid/incompetent?)
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:37AM (3 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:47AM (2 children)
People are stupid.
I was trying to find a less negative option
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Funny) by FatPhil on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:10PM (1 child)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by MostCynical on Thursday November 07 2019, @10:06PM
Yay! There is a third way!
"I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
(Score: 3, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:44AM (2 children)
I have nothing to add apart from wanting to see the concept of safely voting for four other candidates before being "forced" to vote for the second-most-evil candidate to hedge against whichever one is the most evil repeated. More people need to get the implications of that statement in their heads. Perhaps Duverger's law can be reversed, if third-party votes are no longer seen as wasted votes - there's nothing from the third party candidate creeping up on the Kodos or Kang that he/she was previously thought of as an alternative for, and eventually assuming dominance over same if credibility is maintained.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:50PM (1 child)
That's exactly the point, you can vote for e.g. the green candidate first and the lesser-evil candidate second and not have 'thrown your vote away.'
According to game theory, first past the post voting will always tend towards a two-party system. [wikipedia.org]
If you don't like the two party system electoral reform is the only way to get rid of it.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday November 08 2019, @01:05AM
Oh, yeah, not narcisistic psychopaths.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @12:42PM (4 children)
"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."
So what about this use case?
1/4 or voters like D1 over D2
1/4 of voters like D2 over D1, but admit that D1 is way more likely to win.
1/2 of voters like R.
Doesn't R win in the first round and D2's folks lost their chance to get a D in office?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:30PM
Your case isn't very useful because, due to the way that you've specified ties for everyone, it's impossible to know who would or should win. Does R have more, or less than 50% of the vote? Does D1 have more votes than D2, or fewer?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Bethany.Saint on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:33PM (2 children)
The way I understand it, no. If all people who voted for D1 or D2 selected the other D person (and there was one more overall vote for D1+D2 than R) then R wouldn't win first because they didn't have the majority of votes. D2 would be removed from the results and the votes would go to the next top person voted for which would be D1 in this case. If R had one vote more than D1+D2 then R would win outright but would have won a popular election also.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:44PM (1 child)
This does not guarantee that voting for you true favorite is the best way to get the to come you want.
Put another way, it does not prevent tactical voting for something you don't prefer.
It's more difficult to get a better outcome via tactical voting, than first past the post.
Consider:
4 candidates, none of whom have over 50%.
Candidate A is (polling) in the lead.
Candidate B is in a close second.
Candidate C is a distant third.
Candidate D is forth and in a near tie with Candidate C.
Voters who favor C tend to favor A as a second choice (and vice versa).
Voters who favor D tend to favor B as a second choice (and vice versa).
If only D is eliminated, the "D" voters mostly shift to B who likely wins.
If only C is eliminated, the "C" voters mostly shift to A who likely wins.
If both C & D are both eliminated, the votes shift as described above and A likely wins
If people who favor "A then C" (the largest block) vote their "true favorite", they lose.
If people who favor "A then C" instead vote For "D then A", they get their "true favorite".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 14 2019, @05:52PM
Updated to better show "teams" without using the distracting "R" & "D" labels in the GP.
Consider this as though you are team "A" and again as though you are team "B".
4 candidates, none of whom have over 50%.
Candidate A1 is (polling) in the lead.
Candidate B1 is in a close second.
Candidate A2 is a distant third.
Candidate B2 is forth and in a near tie with Candidate A2.
Voters who favor A2 tend to favor A1 as a second choice (and vice versa).
Voters who favor B2 tend to favor B1 as a second choice (and vice versa).
If only B2 is eliminated, the "B2" voters mostly shift to B1 who likely wins.
If only A2 is eliminated, the "A2" voters mostly shift to A1 who likely wins.
If both A2 & B2 are both eliminated, the votes shift as described above and A1 likely wins
If people who favor "A1 then A2" (the largest block) vote their "true favorite", they lose.
If people who favor "A1 then A2" instead vote for "B2 then A1", they get their "true favorite".
(Score: 2) by jmichaelhudsondotnet on Thursday November 07 2019, @01:15PM
This is pretty cool, kindof surprised to hear this democratic socialist reform but I'll take it. Sadly at the same time national socialistic copyright, ID Card and restrictions of speech lockdowns are moving ahead at a very rapid pace.
It won't matter how many choices you get on the ballot if everything you do that might affect the profits of a business negatively is made illegal. The right to boycott is actually being taken away, meaning you literally are being forced to buy products and the 'free market' talk we have heard for 50-100 years is negated by fiat, by the same people who swear they want a free market.
Democratic Socialism and National Socialism are, like, neck and neck at the moment in the United States and it is making everybody on the entire fucking planet very nervous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @02:35PM (1 child)
Why do people keep going for IRV?
It's trash. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 07 2019, @06:23PM
But trash is still better than the disastrous, rancid fecal sludge that is our current system. That said, I do prefer range voting.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday November 07 2019, @05:40PM
If ya'll want more than two parties this is how we get more than two parties. Math!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mobydisk on Thursday November 07 2019, @09:08PM
Presidential primaries tend to have many candidates. And considering our current president go the nomination with less than 1/3rd of the vote of his own party in the primary, we really should consider ranked voting for primaries.