Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A Real American President: Donald Trump -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (340846)	3/19/2022 9:32:50 PM
From: Sr K	2 Recommendations Recommended By Honey_Bee pak73 Respond to of 455132

I'm going to start with the opposite, that it avoids someone winning who has 34% but where the 66% get splintered, and the 34% is sent to a runoff. 34% might be first but has to campaign to get a 50+% total or more. Many areas look for a majority for a primary winner but sometimes there isn't one in the race for Judge or other contests. To answer your question, a 44% first round winner of most votes, might not win right away, but RCV then takes out the last place pick or several not in the top five, and reallocates each of those to the voter's second choice, and if needed, the third choice. Taking out a 7th Rank or 8th Rank or even 6th Rank, will (electronically) make it to >50% for the declared winner. If it's a close contest, there might be more appeals and scrutiny. New York made it worse by allowing votes to be received after Election Day.

To: Woody_Nickels who wrote (340846)	3/19/2022 10:12:06 PM
From: didjuneau	3 Recommendations Recommended By Honey_Bee pak73 Woody_Nickels Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 455132

You are correct, Sir! In the RCV example the State passed out, they show how a voter who voted first preference for a candidate with less votes in the first round could eventually win. No candidate wins the first round if no candidate gets more than 50% + 1. (Each subsequent round the definition of "1st place" changes - kind of like liberal logic - daily redefinitions of the dictionary.) Of course, anyone seeing that would think that it would be a great thing if they could still get their preferred candidate to win in a later round. What the example doesn't explain, because their specific example puts the voter in the position of eventually "winning" their first preference, is that if things don't work exactly as the hypothetical situation that is shown in the pamphlet mailing, your first preferred choice may lose, even if it has the MOST votes in the first round. Essentially, you are diluting your own choices with the subsequent ranked preference selections you make. It invites pandering and watered down positioning by the candidates, more so than usual. Nobody wants to risk being the outlier who gets eliminated in the last round because of some strong position they took, even though they had the most support initially. So we're back to Ayn Rand - Your choice - food or poison. Poisoned food is not the way to go, but everyone's going to say "you go first". Most people will not fill out the ballot with only one choice. Kind of like the stock market - "diversify your portfolio". Well, in this example, you KNOW that 4 of the 5 stocks are going to go bankrupt. If you know that in the stock market, wouldn't you want to put all your money on the best thing going? Try to convince everyone of that when the State Division of Elections is using public money to put out biased examples. We've got to get to a point of more trust and less hidden bias, less pandering, so we know what we're getting.