Not infrequently, a Republican or Democratic candidate for office loses by a narrow margin and people point at a third party candidate who is supposedly to blame. For Republicans, this is usually a Libertarian who got more votes than the difference between the two major party candidates, and for the Democrats it is usually a member of the Green Party. There’s undeniable merit to these charges, but it’s also impossible to know how third-party supporters would have voted if they didn’t have their preferred candidate as an option.
It’s probably safe to say that Al Gore would have won Florida outright (and thus the presidency) on Election Night in 2000 if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot, and it’s likely that Hillary Clinton could say the same thing about Jill Stein. But people still argue about these elections because there’s no clear way to know for sure what would have happened in one-on-one races.
Maine has devised a solution and we can no see the results. Incumbent Republican Bruce Poliquin, who represents the state’s 2nd Congressional District, took a plurality of the vote on Election Night. However, he did not get a majority. In some southern states, this would lead to a second runoff election between the top two finishers. But in Maine the voters were asked to list the candidates in order of preference.
With ranked-choice ballots, if no one gets an initial majority, all but the top two finishers are dropped and votes for other candidates are reassigned. When this was done on Thursday, the Democratic candidate Jared Golden pulled ahead and was declared the winner.
We can surmise what happened. There were more third-party voters who listed Golden above Poliquin as a second choice, and that allowed Golden to leap ahead of Poliquin and claim a majority.
With this system, you can vote for a left-leaning third-party candidate instead of the Democrat or a right-leaner instead of the Republican without worrying that it will change the election result in way you don’t support. It gives you the option to support the candidate you like without guilt or extraneous considerations interfering in your decision. I don’t know why anyone wouldn’t prefer this system to what we have in the rest of the country.
I’d think third-parties would support it because it gives people more permission to consider their candidates. It should make it easier for them to occasionally finish in the top two. The major parties should like it in general (if not necessarily in every individual case) because it prevents fake candidates from running as spoilers who will peel away support.
I very much doubt we’d have suffered through eight years with George W. Bush as our president if we had ranked choice voting, and we almost definitely wouldn’t be dealing with President Trump now. But the best thing about ranked choice voting is that we don’t have wonder. More people in Maine’s 2nd District preferred Jared Golden to Bruce Poliquin, so they got the representative they wanted.
That didn’t happen for the country in 2000 or 2016.
I guess the Republicans won’t like this system after all.
It’s probably safe to say that Al Gore would have won Florida outright (and thus the presidency) on Election Night in 2000 if Nader hadn’t been on the ballot, and it’s likely that Hillary Clinton could say the same thing about Jill Stein.
Trump could say the same re: Gary Johnson and Evan McMuffin. You do know that Trump + Gary Johnson > Hillary Clinton + Jill Stein, right? That Johnson got 3 times as many votes as Stein did? People will hate me for pointing that out but it’s true.
That can all be waved away with a claim that Russia altered the results. Or maybe the Vote Fairy.
I’ll also add that this election along with 2000 proves that Florida needs a senility test for voters. If they don’t know today from the day they were born, they shouldn’t be voting. No matter who their addled brains choose.
No hating here Phil – the truth is respected in the pond.
For those in inhabit the Fox News bubble however truth is a 4 letter word….
Ireland has always had this system with the added complication that constituencies can have anywhere between 3 and 5 seats. Thus you often have a dozen or even 20 candidates to list in the order of your choice although you can omit those you don’t like at all.
Compared to the US and UK single seat first past the post system this has a number of effects:
Reminds me of the simpler system in the old Illinois Constitution. Three state reps were elected per district. In a very few districts a party could win all three. In most, the minority party only had one candidate while the majority party usually tried for all three. This resulted in heavily Dem areas like Cook County having two Dems and one Repub. Collar counties got two (R)’s and a (D). Some areas in Chicago got three (D)’s and a few downstaters got three (R)’s, but the usual split was 2-1 or 1-2. That way every voter has someone representing them, someone to voice their concerns to.
The new constitution has single seat districts and in most areas of the state, whoever wins the (D) or (R) primary, if they even have opposition there, is guaranteed a seat.
P.S. Like Frank says of Ireland, the result was less extremism in government and more deal making.
Forgotto mention the important point. Each voter has three votes. He can apply one vote to each of three candidates, two to one and one to another, or put all three votes on one candidate.
The problem is, the state supreme court said we can’t use ranked-choice voting for governor, or state senator and state representative — in general elections anyways — until the state constitution is amended.
RCV was originally a response to the five- and four-candidate gubernatorial race that produced Gov. LePage.
Yet another win in a series of post-election night narrow victories for Democrats. The election night story “Democrats Fall Short” after disappointing losses in GA and FL and TX is being re-written as we watch.
But check out the result in CO. It’s a total wipeout for the GOP. They haven’t been in such bad shape here since 1938:
Colorado is no longer a Purple state after last week. And other parts of the Southwest are next, Nevada and Arizona. We have a real chance of winning AZ in 2020. The GOP no longer has a single congressional seat in New England. It’s a lot slower than we want and scares the Hell out of a lot of voters, but there is real progress being made.
More like AZ is next. Nevada is looking pretty blue already with a trifecta in the state government and both Senators.
Plus Orange County California is now completely blue. Orange-friggin-county! Never thought I’d live to see that happen.
Orange County? ORANGE GODDAMNED COUNTY??? Blue???
They’re playing hockey in Hell!
See
http://tinyurl.com/y7y4efpp
While I vehemently disagree with your remarks, I also support ranked choice voting to encourage all citizens to vote and not just those who can stomach the “mainstream” candidates.
I also would like to see “No Candidate” listed on the ballots at least when there is only one choice. Here in Cook County Illinois we had a Soviet-style ballot in which Board President, Sheriff, Treasurer, Recorder of Deeds and County Clerk were unopposed. That’s a travesty of an election. In California, the jungle primary was the chosen answer. I much prefer “No candidate” with the winner having to get more votes than “No candidate”.
Looks like the gain is now probable D+39 thanks to Cisneros
There are so many needed reforms to American democracy that one hardly knows where to start. Its an Augean stable. Many (Blue) cities have already adopted rank choice voting as well. Was the adoption of the Maine rank choice a bipartisan effort? I read that the Repub loser here attempted to get a federal court to enjoin the ranked choice result. The court refused, but presumably the loser can now appeal that decision and see if Roberts’ Repubs will bite (this time).
Of course this is a superior system in that citizens are given more choices and outcomes more in line with citizen preferences. of course voting systems that operate more along these lines result in greater “satisfaction” with the nation’s government and democracy. Of course there are voting systems vastly superior to our antiquated sclerotic one.
But with the dominance of the “conservative” movement we can’t have nice things. One can cherry pick all one wants, but there is little doubt that reforms of democracy along these lines would almost certainly harm the prospects of a radical rightwing party and the reactionary movement that completely controls it.
One doesn’t like to harp on the haplessness of the Dems as an opposition party, but the rhetoric of the national Dems is simply feeble and short sighted. WE should be labeling ourselves the party of election reform. Massive reform. Of reform of these outmoded, failed systems that continually produce an enormous amount of consternation and (now) tidal waves of post election litigation across every state.
There really is very little doubt that Repubs would (and do!) violently oppose any attempts at real election reform, as they now rely almost exclusively on erecting endless restrictions and obstacles to voting as well as anything that has been shown to produce greater citizen “satisfaction” in other countries. So make them have to constantly own the fact that they are the party of stagnation and citizen dissatisfaction. The Anti-democracy Party: that should be the label Repubs are branded with.
The same can be said for their (serial) democratically illegitimate prezes, and now their democratically illegitimate 5 man “conservative” majority running the Supreme Court. The narrative of (Repub) democratic illegitimacy and failure has to be built if one actually wants to be a party of democratic reform. And Rome wasn’t built in a day.
If you throw out at-large voting, that number dwindles to a handful…
https://www.fairvote.org/research_electoralsystemsus
. . . hate democracy because their actual program is consistently rejected by the majority, so functional democracy consigns them to permanent minority status. But they like power. They want their program enacted, even against the will of the majority. So they cheat. End of story.