390

We should be pushing for legislation for Ranked Choice Voting (r.50501.chat)

submitted 1 week ago by FiftyFiftyOne@50501.chat to c/Mirror@50501.chat

26 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Ranked choice voting (RCV) — also known as instant runoff voting (IRV) — makes our elections better by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference.

RCV is straightforward: Voters have the option to rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third and so forth. If your first choice doesn’t have a chance to win, your ballot counts for your next choice.

RCV works in all types of elections and supports more representative outcomes. RCV means better choices, better campaigns, and better representation.

Originally Posted By u/Albany50501 At 2025-04-22 02:51:32 PM | Source

all 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Sunshine@lemmy.ca 22 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

The single transferable vote is way better:

The single transferable vote (STV) or proportional-ranked choice voting (P-RCV) is a multi-winner electoral system in which each voter casts a single vote in the form of a ranked ballot. Voters have the option to rank candidates, and their vote may be transferred according to alternative preferences if their preferred candidate is eliminated or elected with surplus votes, so that their vote is used to elect someone they prefer over others in the running. STV aims to approach proportional representation based on votes cast in the district where it is used, so that each vote is worth about the same as another.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

[-] Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

I like that. I'm still going to support any improvement to the system, though, even if it's not my preferred solution. Even, if we just got ranked-choice voting, we'd still have more influence on further improvements to the system, like moving to STV.

[-] iceonfire1@lemmy.world 14 points 1 week ago

Instant-runoff voting (IRV) is the single-winner analogue of STV. It is also called single-winner ranked-choice voting and preferential voting

Seems like STV is an extension of ranked choice voting for the special case of multiple-winner elections.

[-] Natanael@infosec.pub 2 points 1 week ago

And slightly fancier than approval voting for multiple winner elections.

[-] putitoutwithyourbootsted@piefed.social 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

RCV is the way, or some derivative of that. It also encourages bipartisan cooperation rather than the endless gridlocks and stalemates we see commonly with party politics. I appreciate that more people are bringing this topic into the mainstream discussion.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

For single seat elections: Ranked Choice is good, Approval Voting is better, but anything is better than First Past The Post. So I'll happily accept RCV, especially as it opens up the door inches our way inti to better voting systems.

For multi-seat elections, proportional voting should be used.

[-] purewater@50501.chat 4 points 1 week ago

Approval voting might be easier to implement since we wouldn't have to change our ballots

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

I mean, we would a little bit. We'd have have to allow for the cast and counted to include multiple people per seat. It's easier to explain and understand for the layman than instant runoff, though, which is a big benefit too

[-] makyo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

We gotta figure out how to get out of the nasty self-reinforcing cycle we're in. Yeah, we absolutely need ranked choice or some other fair voting system, but is that likely with the amount of money that goes into elections these days? But can we get money out with the politicians we have right now?

The usual avenues seem useless - we need to find another way to enforce change.

[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

That was exactly my thought when OP said to "push for" legislation. How exactly? If "representatives" only listen to money and votes, and the people have no money, then the only way to push is to vote differently.

[-] S_H_K@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 1 week ago

What you really need to end is the winner takes all thing. That's the full bs that keeps it locked to 2 parties.

[-] kryptonianCodeMonkey@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

It's called Plurality voting or First Past The Post. And yes, it's garbage. Any other system is better. Ranked Choice/Instant Runoff, Approval voting. There are others too I'm sure

[-] Melatonin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 week ago

I imagine this would be hard to count and validate

[-] desktop_user 4 points 1 week ago

Alaska already does it

[-] aasatru@kbin.earth 3 points 1 week ago

STV began permanent and wider adoption throughout Australia beginning in 1907 and the 1910s. The single transferable vote system, using contingent ranked votes, has been adopted in Ireland, South Africa, Malta, and approximately 40 cities in the United States and Canada. The single transferable vote system has also been used to elect legislators in Canada, South Africa and India.

If the Aussies could figure it out a hundred years ago, one would think America could also be up for the task. Then again, America.

[-] nico198X@feddit.nl 3 points 1 week ago

I'd prefer Approval, but yes, FPTP needs to end.

US needs MAJOR electoral reforms.

[-] sepi@piefed.social 2 points 1 week ago

The problem is not the voting mechanics. The problem is that there are a lot of idiots voting. Were you around for the 2024 election?

[-] macronage@startrek.website 7 points 1 week ago

More Americans didn't vote in the 2024 election than voted for Trump. Plenty of Trump voters acknowledged that they didn't like him. If people had more than two choices, they're less likely to not vote or to vote for the fascist.

[-] aasatru@kbin.earth 5 points 1 week ago

A huge part of the problem is the voting mechanics. People are forced to back candidates they don't support because of a moronic two-party system that only makes sense as a historical relic, and barely even then.

[-] sepi@piefed.social 1 points 1 week ago

Will this change the minds of MAGA voters to not vote for a racist dipshit? Your proposal does not deal with the large amount of people who voted for the current jerk. You have a hammer and everything looks like a nail to you.

[-] aquafunk@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 1 week ago

you misunderstand, I think. The number of people who voted for 47 is a product of the current voting system. changing the system will do a few things:

some people who voted for 47 may have still selected them as their first choice, but in a different system with ranked choices, one of their second or third choices may have been elected instead, if that candidate had more support overall from a greater majority of the voters (depending on the system uses to select the winner) but basically: better to have a large majority's agreed second choice than a tiny majority's first choice

secondly, some people who voted for 47 may have chosen someone else as their first choice if they did not feel it was the only way to make sure their least favorite candidate wouldn't be elected - a ranked system removes the "spoiler" effect.

so if you see that people who voted the way they did, did so because of the FTTP system AND importantly how the FTTP system can be manipulated with certain types of propaganda, meticulously targeted, to elect an extreme candidate, then it's not a matter of first "changing their minds," and more a matter of having a system that elects the representative that most represents most of the people. that is an effective tool against extremism.

[-] Natanael@infosec.pub 3 points 1 week ago

Ranked choice also opens up for people voting for the "safe" choice while still expressing discontent by ranking another much less viable option representing their real preference. This also generates a strong signal of how strong support alternative candidates have, giving them a significant advantage in determining when it's worth campaigning

[-] AckPhttt@beehaw.org 1 points 1 week ago

It's worth remembering that the majority of votes cast for President in 2024 were for a candidate other than Donald Trump; he got less than 50% of the votes that were cast for President. Making it so that those majority of votes aren't automatically split (and thus diminished) can be impactful, imo.