Ranked Choice Voting (aka instant runoff voting) in Pennsylvania

Submitted by squirreltalk t3_10ggx5r in Pennsylvania

Hi everyone! This upcoming Monday, 1.23, is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) day, and the PA-based, non-partisan, better government organization March on Harrisburg is hosting a presentation on how it works and how we can get it in PA. The presentation will be held at 7pm via zoom on 1.23!

Ranked Choice Voting, also known as instant runoff voting, is a voting system that improves fairness in elections by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference. RCV diminishes the “lesser of two evils” voting, eliminates vote splitting aka the “spoiler effect,” discourages hostile campaigning, results in higher voter turnout, and encourages a more diverse pool of candidates. If you’re interested learning more, you can sign up to attend the virtual presentation below!

RCV Day Presentation

485

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

ArcherChase t1_j52ses4 wrote

This is the only way for effective democracy and a chance to break the ruinous two corporate party system that is rapidly devastating the people in this country.

Start small at state level and show that it works and gives the people the best voice in choosing leaders.

174

the_real_xuth t1_j52v3jn wrote

We've long ago started small in that lots of local governments have been using it in various forms for a while (I used to live in Cambridge MA which has been doing so for about 80 years now) and it continues to work just fine. Recently several smaller states have also begun to use it.

24

ArcherChase t1_j52xhyt wrote

Personally I just want to vote for a candidate who I believe in. Not just vote because the one candidate is so bad that I fear what the result of their power would result in. I've seen it working well in many areas. Let's get it together PA and be the foundation of real democracy!

23

ruppy99 t1_j53kieo wrote

Having moved from Ireland with single transferable vote proportional representation, the voting system here boggles my mind. Hope ranked or some form of transferable vote becomes the norm everywhere

31

HornetFN t1_j53026z wrote

I am a conservative and I encourage this

25

8Draw t1_j53i5ba wrote

Cheers. This really should be the one thing we can all agree on.

15

mtelesha t1_j53umf8 wrote

Sarah Palin lost and she blamed RCV and why a Democrat won the seat. "Conservatives" will hate on this so fast. Never going to happen to the party of Scott Perry.

−1

ActionShackamaxon t1_j530uzr wrote

This needs a ton more momentum, like, yesterday. What’s a realistic plan for implementation in PA?

21

squirreltalk OP t1_j533h3x wrote

This session will contain both educational content and actions steps! As an overview of what you can help with right now:

  1. You can sign up to volunteer for the campaign at https://www.mohpa.org/rcv - we need people to work on social media, outreach, write letters to the editor, meet with legislators, research policy, etc.

  2. You can contact your state rep and senator to let them know that you support RCV - the biggest thing we hear when we meet with legislators is that “their constituents have never brought it up.” But a lot of legislators have expressed interest in RCV in general. We have a bill written, we have a couple potential co-sponsors, and we are in the process of meeting with every state representative and legislator.

14

Riftus t1_j52wnaw wrote

We need RCV

20

WyldeGi t1_j53blwc wrote

Does this actually have a chance of passing? If so, that would be wonderful

15

Sayse t1_j52xxn0 wrote

I'd love to see RCV in PA! Can't wait to see how to help.

9

gslavik t1_j53h7ze wrote

TL;DR: RCV is better than plurality/fptp, but it is not without critique and it's worth learning/thinking about other election methods for a deeper discussion.

One issue with RCV is that it might not always produce a Condorcet winner. This is because RCV does not allow for circular preferences.

If you have three candidates: A, B, and C. The Condorcet winner is the one who wins all the "heads up" (1v1) contests. But it is also possible for voters to have a circular preference (A>B, B>C, C>A), whereas RCV removes that ability.

There is also STAR (Score Then Automatic Runoff), which I think is better than RCV due to it being able to pick a much better neutral winner, but good luck educating the average American on how that is good. In STAR, you score every candidate. Top two average/total scores win and move on to second round. Then you count ballots where one candidate is preferred more (scored higher) than the other candidate. So a candidate with the highest average/total in round 1 might end up losing to the second place finisher (of round 1).

On a side note: House districts should be multi member districts with STV/proportional representation voting.

6

squirreltalk OP t1_j53j0g2 wrote

I agree with a lot of what you said. RCV is where the momentum is, and that's largely why I personally support it.

6

ForgottenWatchtower t1_j55ds43 wrote

While you're not wrong, the improvements by moving from RCV to STAR are basically inconsequential when comparing either to FPTP. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

5

PPQue6 t1_j53ansr wrote

God yes we desperately need this for our state!!

2

Ok_Variation_130 t1_j54bio9 wrote

this would be great.

by the way is there any push for citizen ballot initiatives? that would really help circumvent our shady state legislators

2

squirreltalk OP t1_j54e9zy wrote

Not possible in PA, unfortunately

1

Ok_Variation_130 t1_j55pd70 wrote

its a matter of getting the law changed (which would definitely be a challenge), right? is something else blocking it?

2

squirreltalk OP t1_j55rqff wrote

MOH is advocating for a state law that would allow municipalities to use RCV in their own elections. That's step 1, and probably the most difficult lift. Step 2 is getting municipalities like Philly to change their own laws to use RCV.

1

Griff82 t1_j55nykh wrote

My gut says this would address our extremist problem in PA. It seems effectively pro-moderate in Maine.

2

[deleted] t1_j5336hm wrote

What happens if a person only ranks one candidate?

As polarized as our country is I could see a significant portion of voters only ranking one candidate (the republican or democrat) that they would have voted for regardless. I have read about this happening with a subset of voters in last year’s election in Alaska.

I’m neutral to the idea of RCV but this is an aspect that I have never understood.

I get that people believe it could promote 3rd party and independent candidates but I have less faith in people actually using it as intended.

0

squirreltalk OP t1_j533rib wrote

I think there's various ways of dealing with that, and different election systems do different things. I believe in Australia, if you don't rank all candidates, your ballot is voided.

4

[deleted] t1_j534cwg wrote

A system where all candidates have to be ranked would solve the problem I proposed.

If that was the case here then I would support RCV.

2

gslavik t1_j53fx85 wrote

> What happens if a person only ranks one candidate?

That's called bullet voting. We technically already do that. You rank your most preferred candidate and if they get eliminated, they get eliminated.

Ranked choice allows you to vote (as an example) for a 3rd party candidate with whom you agree more and still have a backup.

The issue with having to rank all candidates is when you end up with 20 candidates that are eligible. In NYC, for example, their last primaries were ranked choice and the Democratic party had over 10 candidates.

IMHO, the way Alaska does it, is a bit nicer. I'd prefer if all eligible candidates simply ended up on the ballot regardless of party affiliation and then parties can endorse whatever candidates they want.

2

[deleted] t1_j53kd4d wrote

Just to be clear I have no issue with people wanting to promote third party and independent candidates (in fact I believe it would be a good thing).

I’m just skeptical that RCV would ever yield these results in reality. On paper it sounds promising but I don’t know how that would translate to the real world.

I feel like people would still effectively just vote for a Democrat or Republican by either only ranking one candidate or just continually ranking R’s and D’s number 1.

You bring up a decent point about ranking a plethora of candidates being a tedious process.

Maybe rank choice voting is the way to combat the stigma of voting third party but I feel like it’s a steep hill to overcome.

1

gslavik t1_j53mdgk wrote

You bring up a good point and that is definitely a concern. Only counter argument I have is that RCV doesn't make things worse.

In NYC, they let you rank 5 candidates. In Alaska, they have a primary that is essentially plurality and top 3 go into general where RCV determines the winner (it was 2 Republicans and 1 Democrat in the last election).

There are definitely ways to solve this that can be done on computerized ballots and on paper ballots. We can print a 20x20 grid of bubbles, I am sure. Alternatively, use a computer to create the list that is then printed, scanned and counted (so you have a paper ballot that can be manually verified and an electronic count for a much quicker result).

1

BufloSolja t1_j54zh6r wrote

RCV would allow ppl to pick 3rd party voters if they wanted to for first choice. As it is now, most ppl don't because they won't realistically win because they don't think enough other people will vote, and also as their vote will be 'wasted'.

With RCV essentially leading to more first rank votes to 3rd parties, they do increase the chance for victory, but mainly it will be a better way to see the opinions of the public imo.

1

bitterbeerfaces t1_j53kzt0 wrote

We don't even have open primaries. No way is this happening here.

0

Kd4Z t1_j5o4ghy wrote

RCV is a method for 'how not to make a decision'. A methodology for the weak minded to avoid a real choice and still feel good about themselves. Smart people over complicating your voting system thru algebra when arithmetic works just fine.

0

matt_1060 t1_j53k41u wrote

That will be a hard no in that swath of alabama running down the center of the state.

−1

Odd-Seaworthiness330 t1_j56qi1o wrote

This is total baloney. 1 man 1 vote. You don’t get a unlimited edited vote dependent on the number of people running. Sorry for me this plain does not work.

−2

Unfamiliar_Word t1_j578cq7 wrote

Arguably, there is only one vote, it's simply transferred among candidates until there is a majority winner. Interestingly, there are variant counting methods for the single transferable vote, which is the multiple-winner version of 'RCV' and actually preceded it, wherein votes are counted fractionally, so one vote may count for multiple candidates, but only partially.

Closer to 'unlimited votes' would be something like range voting and arguably approval voting.

Even accepting your complaint, two basic questions arise.

  1. Why should, "1 man one vote' dictate what is acceptable in voting systems.
  2. Do you consider Australia and Ireland, which uses ranked voting systems universally, to be undemocratic or otherwise defective?
5

106473 t1_j53yfmk wrote

No

−9

vinnie5451 t1_j540ks5 wrote

That’s a hard no for me

−11

KenMacMillan123 t1_j538yft wrote

Ranked choice voting is where you don't feel bad that your preferred candidate lost because you voted for everyone.

−19