Left, Right and Center

Yep, totally Proportional voting. Been around in Australia ever since we began voting. I really don’t see the problem.

in practice, there are some practical ways of dealing with the preferences in tallying. You’ll find that various candidates assign their second and thirds to certain others in sweetheart deals, which is why idiots like me make a point of numbering every one of the 60 or 70 boxes ourselves instead of using endorsed shortcuts

drummerboy said:

 I bet not one 1% of New York City voters understand how this works.

Funny thing is, that surveys suggest quite the opposite among those who actually voted in the Special and Primary Elections this year in NYC. 

surveys suggested what? that people can explain the way votes are rolled up? I extremely doubt it.

Don't get me wrong. I think RCV is a good thing, and I think voters intuitively get the idea of how it works. The voter simply ranks their choices from best to worst. And that's good enough.

And not for nothing, the NYC board of elections needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. It has been an embarrassment for many, many years. (surprisingly though, except for the early snafu, they handled this primary reasonable well)

joanne said:

You’ll find that various candidates assign their second and thirds to certain others in sweetheart deals, which is why idiots like me make a point of numbering every one of the 60 or 70 boxes ourselves instead of using endorsed shortcuts

Something similar happened in New York, where two of the mayoral candidates teamed up in the Democratic primary near the end of the campaign. When one of them was knocked out in Round 7, his voters allowed the other to leapfrog another candidate in the final round, but not enough to catch the winner, who led from the start of tallying.

The eliminations can be traced round by round here, if anyone is interested:

https://web.enrboenyc.us/rcv/024306_1.html

drummerboy said:

surveys suggested what? that people can explain the way votes are rolled up? I extremely doubt it.

Don't get me wrong. I think RCV is a good thing, and I think voters intuitively get the idea of how it works. The voter simply ranks their choices from best to worst. And that's good enough.

And not for nothing, the NYC board of elections needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. It has been an embarrassment for many, many years. (surprisingly though, except for the early snafu, they handled this primary reasonable well)

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.  For example, see  http://readme.readmedia.com/Common-Cause-NY-Rank-the-Vote-Release-Exit-Poll-on-Ranked-Choice-Voting-in-Queens/17690146.  As for the BOE, City Hall loves to bash it (while underfunding it) because it doesn't control it.  It's really that simple.  Yes, there is patronage there but at the end of the day, no one questions the outcome of an election in NYC (unlike in upstate NY where the 22nd Congressional District race was handled incredibly poorly).  Until you've actually seen what is involved in putting on an election and the resistance that the Board faces (including from the NYC DOE) - particularly with regard to poll sites - please keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.  You might recall the 2012 Presidential Primary where there were complaints about the early reporting of results.  Funny enough, it was NYPD that screwed up the reporting.

Lastly, the NYC BOE is probably the only BOE in NYS that actually consistently follows the law (much to its detriment).  It holds open meetings and makes all decisions in public.  It has clear procedures concerning the canvassing of ballots (which led to the state adopting, with a slight modification, the NYC BOE's policy concerning manual recanvasses).
 

As this is such an established part of our voting system, how preferences are distributed is a critical part of campaigning and is shared on the How To Vote cards handed out as voters enter the polling place. In practice although we’re meant to distribute from the bottom of the ballot, we actually only count major parties and standout independents (since we’re a two-party democracy that often functions in minority coalitions). Basically, we follows the rulings of the Electoral Commissions, under the watchful eyes of the scrutineers. Anyone present could challenge -on valid grounds not frivolous ones - and the recount is taken to court as a matter of urgency. 

DaveSchmidt said:

Something similar happened in New York, where two of the mayoral candidates teamed up in the Democratic primary near the end of the campaign. When one of them was knocked out in Round 7, his voters allowed the other to leapfrog another candidate in the final round, but not enough to catch the winner, who led from the start of tallying.

The eliminations can be traced round by round here, if anyone is interested:

https://web.enrboenyc.us/rcv/024306_1.html

Steve said:

drummerboy said:

surveys suggested what? that people can explain the way votes are rolled up? I extremely doubt it.

Don't get me wrong. I think RCV is a good thing, and I think voters intuitively get the idea of how it works. The voter simply ranks their choices from best to worst. And that's good enough.

And not for nothing, the NYC board of elections needs to be wiped off the face of the earth. It has been an embarrassment for many, many years. (surprisingly though, except for the early snafu, they handled this primary reasonable well)

Let's not let facts get in the way of a good rant.  For example, see  http://readme.readmedia.com/Common-Cause-NY-Rank-the-Vote-Release-Exit-Poll-on-Ranked-Choice-Voting-in-Queens/17690146.  As for the BOE, City Hall loves to bash it (while underfunding it) because it doesn't control it.  It's really that simple.  Yes, there is patronage there but at the end of the day, no one questions the outcome of an election in NYC (unlike in upstate NY where the 22nd Congressional District race was handled incredibly poorly).  Until you've actually seen what is involved in putting on an election and the resistance that the Board faces (including from the NYC DOE) - particularly with regard to poll sites - please keep your uninformed opinions to yourself.  You might recall the 2012 Presidential Primary where there were complaints about the early reporting of results.  Funny enough, it was NYPD that screwed up the reporting.

Lastly, the NYC BOE is probably the only BOE in NYS that actually consistently follows the law (much to its detriment).  It holds open meetings and makes all decisions in public.  It has clear procedures concerning the canvassing of ballots (which led to the state adopting, with a slight modification, the NYC BOE's policy concerning manual recanvasses).
 

there is nothing in that link that refutes my contention that literally no one knows how the final votes are tabulated. All it shows is that voters know how to fill in the ballot.

The NYC BOE has been a sh!t show for years, and it's malfeasance is well documented. I'm surprised, actually, that you're defending it so strongly.

drummerboy said:

… my contention that literally no one …

And after all the work I put in coming up with those fake names. 

drummerboy said:

there is nothing in that link that refutes my contention that literally no one knows how the final votes are tabulated. All it shows is that voters know how to fill in the ballot.

The NYC BOE has been a sh!t show for years, and it's malfeasance is well documented. I'm surprised, actually, that you're defending it so strongly.

Again, because you buy into the media/politician portrayal of the BOE, you have your beliefs. I've actually seen it up close and have had significant contact with the BOE and seen it working from the inside.  Very few people actually know what the BOE does and is required to do.

As for the tabulation, I have no idea why you have that belief.

DaveSchmidt said:

drummerboy said:

… my contention that literally no one …

And after all the work I put in coming up with those fake names. 

y'know, I consider myself reasonably bright, but whenever I read through one of those RCV explanations, my eyes just glaze over.

Maybe it's me.

Steve said:

As for the tabulation, I have no idea why you have that belief.

because it's complicated. Look at Dave Schmidt's explanation. How many people do you think could reproduce that?

Why do you think otherwise? Your survey doesn't prove it.

Anyway, it's a minor point.

It seems appropriate to share tonight’s Sammy J wry political reflection - it’s almost as if he’s been eavesdropping on some of these discussions

(Coles, mentioned towards the end of the brief clip, is a nationwide ubiquitous supermarket chain)

drummerboy said:

because it's complicated. Look at Dave Schmidt's explanation. How many people do you think could reproduce that?

Why do you think otherwise? Your survey doesn't prove it.

Anyway, it's a minor point.

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/explaining-ranked-choice-voting-with-pizza/3117980/

drummerboy said:

y'know, I consider myself reasonably bright, but whenever I read through one of those RCV explanations, my eyes just glaze over.

Maybe it's me.

 Now there's something most of us can agree with. 

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

 the other part of this that's pretty simple is if one candidate gets a majority on the first ballot, the ranked choices don't even count. The other choices only come into play when no candidate gets a majority.  I've seen ranked choice voting described as "instant runoff", which is probably easier for some voters to grasp.

ml1 said:

 I've seen ranked choice voting described as "instant runoff", which is probably easier for some voters to grasp.

Or call it the "Fine-vote-for-the-Green-Party-candidate-but-please-don't=be-a-jerk-and-leave-the-other-choices-blank" method. 

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

Ranked Choice Voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.^[1][2]

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

Ranked Choice Voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.^[1][2]

 those two explanations don't appear equivalent to me.

Are all RCV schemes the same?

drummerboy said:

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

 "Next to no one"????? I understand it quite simply, as do the vast majority of the folks I've seen comment here. Maybe a more careful examination of the explanations given might help unfog your mind.

Dennis_Seelbach said:

drummerboy said:

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

 "Next to no one"????? I understand it quite simply, as do the vast majority of the folks I've seen comment here. Maybe a more careful examination of the explanations given might help unfog your mind.

The vast majority? There are, I believe, two posts by two people (maybe 3) that attempt to explain the tallying algorithm.

And I'd bet ten bucks that you can not write out an accurate explanation of the tallying algorithm from memory.

drummerboy said:

Anyway, it's a minor point.

So it is. One can argue that it’s important for a democracy’s participants to understand the mechanism for tallying their votes, but it’s probably a part of the system where most of us can let others sweat the details. More so, maybe, than the Senate filibuster’s role in cloture, for instance.

drummerboy said:

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

 

 Sorry, it was off the top of my head. I didn't debug it. I didn't write something like  "IF TopFinisherTotal>TotalVoters THEN END", because I assumed the average reader knew it was about an election, which stops once you find out who got the most votes.

But your response sounds as if you're trying to find something to object to.

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

Ranked Choice Voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.^[1][2]

 those two explanations don't appear equivalent to me.

Are all RCV schemes the same?

 The processes described are equivalent.

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

 

 Sorry, it was off the top of my head. I didn't debug it. I didn't write something like  "IF TopFinisherTotal>TotalVoters THEN END", because I assumed the average reader knew it was about an election, which stops once you find out who got the most votes.

But your response sounds as if you're trying to find something to object to.

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

Ranked Choice Voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.^[1][2]

 those two explanations don't appear equivalent to me.

Are all RCV schemes the same?

Click to Read More

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

Ranked Choice Voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.^[1][2]

 those two explanations don't appear equivalent to me.

Are all RCV schemes the same?

 The processes described are equivalent.

 show your work.

Seems DB has embraced Smedley’s role with gusto! 

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

 The processes described are equivalent.

 show your work.

He should just be prepared for glazed eyes.

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

Ranked Choice Voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.^[1][2]

 those two explanations don't appear equivalent to me.

Are all RCV schemes the same?

 I haven't studied every RCV system, so I don't know the. answer. But every one I've read about works like that description.

Maybe it would be easier to think of it in terms of a game with physical game pieces.  Let's say a room full of 100 people decided to have a popularity contest among 5 people.  But to be declared the "most popular" a contestant needed to get a majority from the people in the room.  Each person gives a token to one of the five contestants and when they're finished each contestant tallies their tokens.  If a person has a majority of the total tokens handed out, the game is over and a contestant is named most popular.  But if no one has a majority of tokens, the last place finisher is eliminated and has to distribute his/her tokens to the remaining contestants.  Each person in the room who gave a token to the last place finisher directs that contestant to give a token to a 2nd choice candidate.  The tallies are taken again, and if someone has a majority, he/she wins "most popular."  If not, the fourth place contestant is eliminated and has to distribute his/her tokens to the remaining 3 candidates.  First step is for the 4th place finisher to give tokens to the remaining candidates designated as second choices.  However, if the second choice was eliminated in a previous round, the third choice contestant gets the person's token.

The process continues until one candidate gets a majority.  In the NYC primary the process required going down to two candidates before one received a majority.

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

drummerboy said:

those two explanations don't appear equivalent to me.

Are all RCV schemes the same?

Click to Read More

drummerboy said:

ml1 said:

drummerboy said:

nohero said:

RE: Ranked choice voting. I think too many "pundits" decided that they wanted to go with the theme of "It's too complicated!"

It's just a two part process.  Part One is voting - people were told that after they picked the candidate they most wanted to win, they could put down who they would want if their first choice didn't get in.  And then a third if neither of the first two, etc.

I read and heard a lot of allegedly smart political commentators who couldn't handle simple questions like, "Will it help my candidate if I leave the other choices blank?" I think that's why there were so many ballots that weren't completely filled in.

Part Two is counting - also simple:

1. Count all the first choices. Wait for absentee ballots to come in, so you know who got the most and who got the least.
   
2. Eliminate last place finisher, and go to the second choices of any voter who put that candidate as first.
3. Count all the votes again, and determine who now has the least votes.
4. Repeat Step 2, and for any voter who was counted for that candidate, go to the next candidate on their list who is still in the running.
5. Repeat steps 3 and 4.

It may be harder to describe in words than to just show an example.

But, as I said above, the voting part is more easily explained.  I think DeBlasio did an example with pizza toppings (pineapple being "not ranked at all" in that example).

we have different definitions of the word simple, I think. Line 2 by itself is confusing. what does "go to" mean, and what do you do when you get there?

And I've never contended that the voting part is difficult. I'm just saying that next to no one actually understands how the votes are tallied. Does that even matter? Probably not.

But don't pretend it's "simple". In line 4, do you mean "repeat step 2", or "go to step 2, and then to step 3"?

I assume it's the latter, but they're not the same thing.

Your 5 step process has got two embedded loops, and in one case you jump out of the loop. If that was a program, it would get a D.

Ranked Choice Voting

A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, he or she is declared the winner. If no candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated. First-preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots. A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes. The process is repeated until a candidate wins an outright majority.^[1][2]

 those two explanations don't appear equivalent to me.

Are all RCV schemes the same?

 The processes described are equivalent.

 show your work.

Go through it with an example using just three candidates. The one who came in last is eliminated, and look at the second choices of the voters for whom that candidate was the first choice. 

If you can get that than races with more than three candidates should be understandable.

jimmurphy said:

Smedley said: 

How my Tavistock analogy turned into me saying Biden voters are far left is beyond me.... 

Virtually everyone here was a Biden voter and you have called us all “far left” , “very progressive”, or “super progressive”.

How does your statement above make any sense at all?

I beg you to stop with this nonsense. 

 Oh come on. Who people voted for in Nov. says little about their political leanings because there were only two choices, Trump or not Trump. Go back to 2018/19 discussions and Biden was probably about MOL's 10th choice. In fact he was probably the single most scorned candidate on here.