GOP Winner in Maine-02 Now Declared Loser Due to ‘Rank Voting’

[Swordsmyth]

Look at Lisa Murkowski, she pissed off the Alaska GOP enough that she lost the nomination to Joe Miller. What did she do then? Run and WIN as a write in. None of our guys could do that.

There are enough stupid people that we may not be able to make any progress until after secession/expulsion or a civil war that gets rid of enough of them one way or the other.

 

[William Tell]

This just makes me like my other idea even more:

Why not give each Rep. multiple votes?


The threshold for getting a seat in the House would drop to less than 1% and we could give whoever is our best candidate (like Ron) many votes.

There are pros and cons to any change in the system, historically the only changes that are made end up having a bad effect. Bottom line though is there is no silver bullet. realistically we need better candidates with better strategies and fundraising abilities. Maybe more regional focus, like the Free State Project, which unfortunately is about to be erased at least for now.

 

[Aratus]

having a tidy vote total at or near 45% that is added to brings about a situation where the ultimate victor is like
being THE politician in the 1800s who begins a political convention with an "acorm" of support only to be an oak.

 

[Swordsmyth]

A federal judge rejected a lawsuit Thursday by a Republican incumbent from Maine who lost the nation's first congressional election held under a candidate-ranking system.Republican U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin sought to have the voting system declared unconstitutional after he lost the election to Democrat Jared Golden despite having the most first-place votes.
Poliquin asked U.S. District Judge Lance Walker either to declare him the winner or order another election for the 2nd Congressional District.
But Walker, appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, said states are given great leeway in how they conduct elections. Critics can question the wisdom of ranked-choice voting, Walker said, but such criticism "falls short of constitutional impropriety."
There was no immediate word from Poliquin on whether he planned to appeal. A recount that Poliquin requested, meanwhile, will continue for a few more weeks.
Golden and supporters of ranked voting said after the ruling that they felt vindicated by Walker's decision. Golden said that Walker's "decision is clear" and that he hopes Poliquin works with him to ensure a smooth transition for the congressional district.
James Monteleone, an attorney for the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, said he believes Walker's ruling "will stand up to any appeal."
Poliquin, however, said he remained concerned about some Maine voters expressing confusion with the voting system. He defended Maine's old system as a "common sense, one-person, one-vote process."


In his ruling, Walker rejected Poliquin's arguments that ranked balloting gives some voters more expression than others or proves too confusing for the average voter.
"The point is that 'one person, one vote' does not stand in opposition to ranked balloting, so long as all electors are treated equally at the ballot," Walker said.
Poliquin's lawyer had argued the candidate-ranking system required voters to "guess" which candidates would survive until the second, runoff-style round of tabulations. Poliquin also argued several thousand Maine voters who didn't select Poliquin or Golden were effectively disenfranchised.
But Walker said it's just as likely that such ballots were "protest votes."
"I am not persuaded that it is unduly burdensome for voters to educate themselves about the candidates in order to determine the best way to rank their preferences," Walker said.
The judge also said he failed to see how Maine's ranked-choice voting system undercut voters' First Amendment rights "in any fashion." The system, he said, was "motivated by a desire to enable third-party and non-party candidates to participate in the political process, and to enable their supporters to express support, without producing the spoiler effect."
The new method of voting "actually encourages First Amendment expression, without discriminating against any voter based on viewpoint, faction or other invalid criteria," said Walker.

More at: https://news.yahoo.com/judge-tosses...essman-lost-election-150132454--election.html

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Don't forget Florida too. Wait- those all went Republican.

How often do recounts change the initial vote result?

https://www.clickorlando.com/news/elections/what-are-the-odds-of-recounts-changing-election-results

So your point is that these California election reversals defy all odds.

 

[r3volution 3.0]

This is surely of immense significance.

As we all know, the average voter really wants to vote for small government candidates.

He wants to give up his government job, social security, medicare, medicaid, food-stamps, minimum wage, and other freeshit.

Because people don't like free shit.

It's only the dastardly voting system which prevents these imaginary motivated small government voters from having their way.

We should probably expend a lot of time and energy working on making sure that, uh, you know, people get to vote as hard as they want.

 

[Anti Federalist]

This is surely of immense significance.

As we all know, the average voter really wants to vote for small government candidates.

He wants to give up his government job, social security, medicare, medicaid, food-stamps, minimum wage, and other freeshit.

Because people don't like free shit.

It's only the dastardly voting system which prevents these imaginary motivated small government voters from having their way.

We should probably expend a lot of time and energy working on making sure that, uh, you know, people get to vote as hard as they want.

It's not often we agree, but, this.

 

[Occam's Banana]

Poliquin also argued several thousand Maine voters who didn't select Poliquin or Golden were effectively disenfranchised.

LMAO ... as if Polquin gave a damn about anyone but Rs & Ds being "disenfranchised" before rank voting was used ...

The system, [the judge] said, was "motivated by a desire to enable third-party and non-party candidates to participate in the political process, and to enable their supporters to express support, without producing the spoiler effect."

But if you lose the spoiler effect, what do you gain? Cui bono?

Without the ability to produce the spoiler effect, the participation of third-party and non-party candidates (and the enablement of their supporters to express support) can be effectively nullified. It may well destroy or seriously degrade one of the only useful things there is about voting.

I have argued elsewhere that voting is not an effective means of changing anything. Voting does not cause change - rather, it is the result of change (if any). At best, voting is like a windsock - but in that capacity, it can still be a somewhat useful thing. Voting won't change the direction of the wind, but it may at least tell you when and in what direction the wind is changing.

But if the so-called "spoiler effect" (which serves as a signal informing the losing party that something has changed) is eliminated or significantly reduced, then even that marginal usefulness of voting will be neutered. For just one example, far more attention is likely to be paid to single-vote "spoilers" than to a mish-mash herd of ranked-vote "also rans" ... (IOW: signal spectrum may widen, but at the cost of a big drop in signal-to-noise ...)

 

[Brian4Liberty]

LMAO ... as if Polquin gave a damn about anyone but Rs & Ds being "disenfranchised" before rank voting was used ...



But if you lose the spoiler effect, what do you gain? Cui bono?

Without the ability to produce the spoiler effect, the participation of third-party and non-party candidates (and the enablement of their supporters to express support) can be effectively nullified. It may well destroy or seriously degrade one of the only useful things there is about voting.

I have argued elsewhere that voting is not an effective means of changing anything. Voting does not cause change - rather, it is the result of change (if any). At best, voting is like a windsock - but in that capacity, it can still be a somewhat useful thing. Voting won't change the direction of the wind, but it may at least tell you when and in what direction the wind is changing.

But if the so-called "spoiler effect" (which serves as a signal informing the losing party that something has changed) is eliminated or significantly reduced, then even that marginal usefulness of voting will be neutered. For just one example, far more attention is likely to be paid to single-vote "spoilers" than to a mish-mash herd of ranked-vote "also rans" ... (IOW: signal spectrum may widen, but at the cost of a big drop in signal-to-noise ...)

How much does the spoiler effect play in California, where only the top 2 go to the General Election?

 

[Swordsmyth]

LMAO ... as if Polquin gave a damn about anyone but Rs & Ds being "disenfranchised" before rank voting was used ...



But if you lose the spoiler effect, what do you gain? Cui bono?

Without the ability to produce the spoiler effect, the participation of third-party and non-party candidates (and the enablement of their supporters to express support) can be effectively nullified. It may well destroy or seriously degrade one of the only useful things there is about voting.

I have argued elsewhere that voting is not an effective means of changing anything. Voting does not cause change - rather, it is the result of change (if any). At best, voting is like a windsock - but in that capacity, it can still be a somewhat useful thing. Voting won't change the direction of the wind, but it may at least tell you when and in what direction the wind is changing.

But if the so-called "spoiler effect" (which serves as a signal informing the losing party that something has changed) is eliminated or significantly reduced, then even that marginal usefulness of voting will be neutered. For just one example, far more attention is likely to be paid to single-vote "spoilers" than to a mish-mash herd of ranked-vote "also rans" ... (IOW: signal spectrum may widen, but at the cost of a big drop in signal-to-noise ...)

The idea is that the Swampublicans will feel free to act more liberal and that the voters will then feel free to vote 3rd party and actually elect the 3rd party candidate because the Swampublicans are no longer significantly better than the Demoncrats and the 3rd party candidate isn't a "wasted" vote because if there is still some advantage to having the Swampublican instead of the Demoncrat he will get their vote in the 2nd or 3rd round.

Whether or not the 3rd party candidate can ever win in your opinion decides whether it is better to have ranked choice voting or the spoiler effect.

If we elected House candidates as I have suggested in this thread:
Why not give each Rep. multiple votes?
it would be a distinct improvement.

 

[Occam's Banana]

How much does the spoiler effect play in California, where only the top 2 go to the General Election?

None at all - because California also eliminates the spoiler effect.

They just use a different method to do it (by allowing only two candidates in the general).

 

[Occam's Banana]

The idea is that the Swampublicans will feel free to act more liberal and that the voters will then feel free to vote 3rd party and actually elect the 3rd party candidate because the Swampublicans are no longer significantly better than the Demoncrats and the 3rd party candidate isn't a "wasted" vote because if there is still some advantage to having the Swampublican instead of the Demoncrat he will get their vote in the 2nd or 3rd round.

But "having the Swampublican [...] get their vote in the 2nd or 3rd round" is exactly what eliminates the so-called "spoiler effect". And when you combine that with the fact that as a result (as you yourself acknowledge) "the Swampublicans will feel free to act more liberal [...]", then you have set yourself up for a double-whammy - the Republican party will become that much more insulated from reaction, and at the same time the "spoiler effect" will have been eliminated as a possible corrective ...

Whether or not the 3rd party candidate can ever win in your opinion decides whether it is better to have ranked choice voting or the spoiler effect.

If we elected House candidates as I have suggested in this thread:
Why not give each Rep. multiple votes?
it would be a distinct improvement.

For whatever they might (or might not) be worth, my thoughts on the subject of voting and any of various voting schemes are offered solely arguendo.

Presently, the matter is moot. Regardless of what schemes for representation might be engineered, neither republics nor democracies (nor any mixture of the two) are even remotely viable or maintainable at the scale of a third of a billion people - or even at the scale of the more populous states. Democracy in particular scales especially poorly (I suspect that even a scale measured in the hundreds would be too large for democracy to avoid significant dysfunction).

 

[Swordsmyth]

But "having the Swampublican [...] get their vote in the 2nd or 3rd round" is exactly what eliminates the so-called "spoiler effect". And when you combine that with the fact that as a result (as you yourself acknowledge) "the Swampublicans will feel free to act more liberal [...]", then you have set yourself up for a double-whammy - the Republican party will become that much more insulated from reaction, and at the same time the "spoiler effect" will have been eliminated as a possible corrective ...



For whatever they might (or might not) be worth, my thoughts on the subject of voting and any of various voting schemes are offered solely arguendo.

Presently, the matter is moot. Regardless of what schemes for representation might be engineered, neither republics nor democracies (nor any mixture of the two) are even remotely viable or maintainable at the scale of a third of a billion people - or even at the scale of the more populous states. Democracy in particular scales especially poorly (I suspect that even a scale measured in the hundreds would be too large for democracy to avoid dysfunction).

I take it then that you don't believe that a 3rd party candidate can win even if the Swampublicans go more liberal?

 

[Brian4Liberty]

I take it then that you don't believe that a 3rd party candidate can win even if the Swampublicans go more liberal?

A “third” (write-in) party candidate can win, if they are the lead swamp rat. Lisa Murkowski being the prime example.

 

[Swordsmyth]

A “third” (write-in) party candidate can win, if they are the lead swamp rat. Lisa Murkowski being the prime example.

Do you think that any of our 3rd party candidates can ever win?

 

[angelatc]

A “third” (write-in) party candidate can win, if they are the lead swamp rat. Lisa Murkowski being the prime example.

She won only with the support and backing of the GOP. Also, when I was up there, I learned that hundreds of Natives voted for the first and only time, turning in registrations all in the same handwriting. They all voted for her.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you think that any of our 3rd party candidates can ever win?

Probably not. But you never know.

She won only with the support and backing of the GOP. Also, when I was up there, I learned that hundreds of Natives voted for the first and only time, turning in registrations all in the same handwriting. They all voted for her.

Dems don’t have a monopoly on cheating. And GOP establishment is the swamp just as much as Pelosi and Schumer.

 

[angelatc]

Dems don’t have a monopoly on cheating. And GOP establishment is the swamp just as much as Pelosi and Schumer.

But the point is that her win was not actually an independent win.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

But the point is that her win was not actually an independent win.

Yeah. That’s what I meant when I called her the “lead swamp rat”. She is an establishment insider, not independent or outsider in any way.

 

[Occam's Banana]

I take it then that you don't believe that a 3rd party candidate can win even if the Swampublicans go more liberal?

It depends on just what you mean by "can win". If you mean "can win" merely in the sense of "is it possible", then I suppose it is. But if you mean "can win" in the sense of "is it any more likely under ranked-vote schemes than under the current single-vote system", then I am skeptical. The problem occurs if people "backstop" their first choice with the Republican (just as you suggested would happen). This eliminates any "spoiler" effect and insulates the Republicans against reaction, leading them to skew more liberal. But even worse, it also makes Republicans more likely to defeat Libertarians or Conservatives even if the Republican is not able to achieve a first-rank plurality (just as the Democrat defeated the Republican in Maine even though the Democrat failed to win the first-rank plurality).

There are only two ways around this under a ranked-vote system:
(1) win an absolute majority (with at least 50% + 1 of first-rank votes), or
(2) win without "backstopping" votes with the lesser evil (else the backstop is apt to win even without a first-rank plurality).

But (1) will be even harder to do under a ranked-vote system than it already is under a single-vote system.

And (2) will also be more difficult, since under a single-vote system (where the only votes are "first rank" votes), winning a first-rank plurality is strictly sufficient to win the election, which is not the case under a ranked-vote system (as the OP article clearly illustrates).