Maine Wants to Scrap Traditional Voting for a Ranked-Choice System

[Majestic Electric]

Source:
https://qz.com/767651/election-day-maine-wants-to-scrap-traditional-voting-in-favor-of-the-less-polarizing-ranked-choice-election-system/

Something truly radical could happen on November 8, and it has nothing to do with electing the first female, or perhaps the first reality television star, as president. It's the introduction of a better, fairer voting system altogether—at least on the state level. When Mainers go to the polls on election day this year, they will choose whether to make their state the first in the US to adopt what's called "ranked-choice" voting. The new method, which would apply to Maine's federal and state elections, empowers voters to rank candidates in terms of preference, instead of betting on just one.

If state voters choose in favor of Question 5, as the ballot measure (pdf) is known, they could upend their traditional voting system in a good way: Unlike the current system, ranked-choice voting rewards moderates, helps third-party candidates compete, and discourages negative campaigning.

The most recent poll on Maine's proposed system was done in March, but it suggested a strong swell of support behind the measure (pdf, p.9) at the time.At every political level, here's how Americans usually cast their ballots: Each voter picks one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes (a "plurality") wins. But those candidates might not have the majority of votes (i.e. more than half).

Consider the 2016 Republican primary vote in South Carolina. If you counted only voters' first choices, Donald Trump clearly won by plurality. But he won only about one-third of the total vote—which means the majority of voters didn't support Trump.Some think the plurality voting system tends to push candidates to ideological extremes. What usually happens is that whoever can motivate the most people to hit the polls wins. And the most enthusiastic voters often tend to be those most driven by extreme world views.

Candidates who are less ideologically extreme might not attract voters who are as committed. And moderate candidates who clump around the middle of the ideological spectrum are more likely to split each others' votes—allowing ideological purists to divide and conquer. Even if a majority of South Carolina primary voters couldn't stand him, Trump wins as long as those voters are divided over which candidate they support. Another potential problem with plurality voting is that it makes lots of voters not vote for their first choice—precisely because they're worried about vote-splitting. A woman we spoke with in South Carolina days before the state's primary told us that she detested Trump and really liked John Kasich, the Ohio governor who was relatively unknown in southern states. However, she was worried that voting for an underdog would mean her "vote wouldn't count." She wound up voting for Rubio, a candidate she thought stood a chance of defeating Trump. What if instead of voting for either Kasich or Rubio, she could have voted for both of them—and indicated how much she didn't like Trump?

That's what Maine is proposing to do. Ranked-choice voting (which is sometimes called instant-runoff voting) would require voters to rank candidates as their first choice, second choice, and so on.Once the first choices are tallied up, if no one has won the true majority of the vote (50.1%), the last-place candidate is knocked out. Voters who picked that candidate as their top choice now have their second choices tabulated. This keeps happening until a candidate finally earns a majority.

Maine wouldn't be the first to adopt this system. Australia, Ireland, Papua New Guinea, Hong Kong and several other countries or territories use it. So do many US cities—including Minneapolis and St. Paul, most of the Bay Area, as well as Portland, ME, Hendersonville, NC, and Takoma Park, MD.

But the Maine ballot measure is a big development. If Question 5 passes, Maine will be the first state to use the ranked-choice system in state and congressional elections. In other words, the methodology will be used not only for state legislature and gubernatorial elections, but also to pick Maine's US senators and Congressional representatives. (Question 5 does not affect presidential elections.) The new system would roll out in 2018, in order to permit careful implementation.

According to polls, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee Donald Trump are some of the least liked presidential candidates in history. As a result, many are turning to third party candidates and plan on voting for them instead. The problem with this is the sheer fact that these third party candidates, such as those in the Green Party, have a very low chance of winning the election, which is pretty unfair. In fact, more often than not, you won't even find their names listed on the ballots! This could change if Question 5 passes in Maine and more states follow suit. Question 5 would not only help citizens get their voices heard, but it also means that third party candidates could have a better chance of being elected president.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you think other U.S states should also adopt a ranked-choice voting system?

Discuss!

 

[Ivysaur]

Why is this happening? Because two centre-left candidates ran in the last two Maine Gubernatorial elections, split the majority left-wing vote and allowed crazy tea partier Paul LePage -the guy who last week sent a voicemail death threat to a state legislator- to win the election twice in a 40-35-25 finish. With ranked vote, the elections would have ended more like 40-(35+25)60 and LePage would have never been elected in the first place. So yes, I'm all for it. if you are going to have First Past The Post, at least this makes it possible to have more than two actual choices and prevents things like Trump winning because people who would have otherwise voted for Clinton are going to protest vote for Johnson or Stein.

 

[BubbleBeams]

I think that ranked-choice voting is an absolutely brilliant idea and I wish we'd pick up a few things from other countries' politics. The electoral college in the American political system is extremely outdated and at this point is just another tool for electing the "chosen" people who will continue to give those on top what they want.

We need one person, one vote, ranked-choice voting. I am all for that.

 

[Desert Stream~]

Oo that's a neat idea! I think it would be cool if other states did it too. that way if trump placed #1 in one state, and #4 in the next, but Clinton got #2 in both, she would win, unless a third canadite got #1 and #3, in which case, the majority of the vote would likely decide on the president.

 

[gimmepie]

I actually not very fond of a preferential system. We have that here and it honestly becomes a mess of reallocated votes where you're never totally sure where your vote will end up.

I think the problem is with a two-party system and not with the voting method.

 

[Ivysaur]

I actually not very fond of a preferential system. We have that here and it honestly becomes a mess of reallocated votes where you're never totally sure where your vote will end up.

I think the problem is with a two-party system and not with the voting method.

Except the voting method is what creates two party systems.

Give out seats proportionally to each party's share of the vote and suddenly you'll end up with the two major behemots giving birth to two or three smaller parties reflecting views that don't feel fully comfortable within the two-party mainstream.

 

[gimmepie]

Except the voting method is what creates two party systems.

Give out seats proportionally to each party's share of the vote and suddenly you'll end up with the two major behemots giving birth to two or three smaller parties reflecting views that don't feel fully comfortable within the two-party mainstream.

and yet a proportional system hasn't prevented two parties from dominating politics here at all. In fact it's a part of why because people vote for the major parties as their highest preference instead of minor parties they prefer because ultimately it's the only way they actually know where their vote will go.

 

[Ivysaur]

and yet a proportional system hasn't prevented two parties from dominating politics here at all. In fact it's a part of why because people vote for the major parties as their highest preference instead of minor parties they prefer because ultimately it's the only way they actually know where their vote will go.

?? Australia doesn't have a proportional system. Australia has a majority system in which each constituency elects a single MP, which goes to the party with the most votes and the rest of the ballots are thrown into the paper recycling bin. The preference system is just a fix so that the final result does kind of reflect the "lesser evil" option instead of allowing a minority to rule and giving the rest of the parties a tiny fighting chance that other purer "winner takes all" systems (UK, US) do not even care about.

But, in the end, it's a majority system. If a party gets 25% of the total vote but properly concentrated so it manages to get 51% of preferences in 51% of the constituencies, the election is over. That's not proportional. In proportional systems, you either take all those "wasted" votes for all other parties and then give them seats until every party gets a fair share equal to their total national percentage (Scotland, Germany); or you make larger constituencies that elect, say, 10 or 20 (or 50, if you want it to be as precise as possible) MPs and then hand them out according to the vote share (Spain, Portugal, European Parliament). In our elections, Madrid elects 33 seats that are awarded proportionally, and we ended up with four parties (right, left, centre-left, centre-right) getting at least 7 seats each. That's, I think, far more proportional than anything you can possibly ever get in Australia.

 

[gimmepie]

?? Australia doesn't have a proportional system. Australia has a majority system in which each constituency elects a single MP, which goes to the party with the most votes and the rest of the ballots are thrown into the paper recycling bin. The preference system is just a fix so that the final result does kind of reflect the "lesser evil" option instead of allowing a minority to rule and giving the rest of the parties a tiny fighting chance that other purer "winner takes all" systems (UK, US) do not even care about.

That's all well and good but the Senate exists. You just described the house of representatives.

 

[Ivysaur]

That's all well and good but the Senate exists. You just described the house of representatives.

Oh yes. I'd appreciate it if you explained to me how the fuck does that electoral system work because I tried to understand it during the elections and I gave up :( (which I honestly think is a good reason why it'd fail, when it's too complex to understand).

(Incidentally, while the Senate is far more relevant in Australia than in other Parliamentary systems, it's still the House that has the higher relevance by electing the Government).

 

[gimmepie]

Oh yes. I'd appreciate it if you explained to me how the fuck does that electoral system work because I tried to understand it during the elections and I gave up :( (which I honestly think is a good reason why it'd fail, when it's too complex to understand).

(Incidentally, while the Senate is far more relevant in Australia than in other Parliamentary systems, it's still the House that has the higher relevance by electing the Government).

Honestly it's so convoluted that I don't think I could do a very good job of explaining it. A quick google search would probably be more effective.

You're right though that technically the lower house is the more relevant one, but not so much more that the upper house shouldn't be a key part in discussing our politics.

 

[Esper]

I think that it's a good move if they implemented it. No voting system is going to be without flaws, true, but I think a ranked system is preferable to what is used in most of the US.

For instance, under a system like this all the people who don't like Clinton could safely vote for Stein or Johnson or whoever else they feel better represents their views and not feel like they're throwing their votes away because if when those third party candidates don't get enough votes the people's votes can go to the next candidate down the line, Clinton, and they can feel safe that Trump isn't getting a free vote from their thrown away vote.

I think this would do wonders for politics in America. People could start to feel like they do matter. Perhaps not in the end result (which would probably mostly still reflect wins for the two parties) but that third parties and their candidates can say "Look, I got 20% of the initial vote and you only got 25%" or something and it would be a lot harder to ignore the people who don't fall into the two parties. Like, it would better reflect what the people actual want even if that's not what they get in the end. That, I think, is a step in the right direction. Once we can show that the system we have isn't properly reflecting the will of the people we might begin to change it.

 

[Caaethil]

First past the post is the worst. All voting systems have flaws, but first past the post has the most abundant. Two party systems suck. That's not to say this would fix them, it just got me thinking about the prospect of changing the voting system at all.