comment: >
  
  This is big news!
context: Hopefully the dem control in Mi means they will implement it here >
  
  I'm in favor! >
  
  If in favor does not win, what is your second choice? >
  
  We already have open primaries (no need to register with a party) so either keep it that way or move to top 2/top 3 primary win system similar to California >
  
  I think they were making a ranked choice vote joke lol “If not, what’s your second favorite?” >
  
  🤷‍♂️ I can whiff on a joke with a real answer and look like a since. Won't be the first time >
  
  Imagine if Trump loses the GOP nomination, decides to run as an Independent, and then as a result of this so many red states decide to pass ranked choice voting. >
  
  If the GOP irreparably fractures and passes RCV federally in a panic because of Trump, then he’ll have unintentionally had one of the most positive impacts on American politics in history. >
  
  It really well could destroy the 2 party system that we have, because lets say the the old school and new school Republicans decide to split. If the Dems get supermajorities in congress then everyone should pay very close attention to the relationship between moderate and progressive Democrats. Either progressives get enough concessions or we then get a 4 party system, or maybe even beyond that depending on what happens with current minor parties. 
  And to think this could all happen because of fucking Trump of all people. Weird. >
  
  RCV won't destroy the 2 party system.  AUS uses it for their lower chamber and 10% of seats are won by 3rd parties.  10% for the US would be amazing.  AUS's lower chamber is still a 2 party system.  
  Their upper chamber pairs it with multimember districts with 20% of seats won by 3rd parties and it is a multiparty system.
  I do not see democrats getting a supermajority anymore than now.  It probably just leads to a few more moderates being elected.  Perhaps you'd get a few more progressive democrats winning by virtue of them getting to the general.
  I think it probably reverts to the informal 4 party system of previous decades at best where both parties have more members of the smaller wing.  Perhaps slightly more cross party voting. >
  
  The effect of 3rd parties still can't be underrated.  One thing that it (theoretically) forces is the major 2 parties being made to adopt policy changes in reaction to popularity rising for a specific 3rd party.  This means that there needs to be more common ground and collaboration in politics than the extremist views that the US has all too often. >
  
  Good! This is a big step to ending the two party stranglehold >
  
  I wish California would adopt Alaska's approach rather than it's 1st in the nation, so head well up its collective butt open primary top-2 system.
  If there were RCV for GENERAL elections, there'd be much less need for open primaries. RCV would introduce high odds of 3rd party and independent candidates WINNING general elections when Republicans and Democrats nominate extremists, so discounting or eliminating the rationale for open primaries favoring more moderate/centrist candidates. Let parties nominate whoever they want. Let general election voters decide among them. >
  
  RCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning. Having a viable 3rd party that people vote for OVER the two parties increases their chance. 
  Right now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps. 
  Eliminating extreme candidates is definitely something RCV would do though. >
  
  
  Right now, the overwhelming majority of people would still vote Democrats or Republicans as their first choice which pretty much makes it's FPTP with extra steps.
  
  Again, we're letting perfect be the enemy of good. 
  Yes, it is a truism that if people still vote in a RCV election like it's FPTP, it'll end up with the same results of a FPTP election. 
  But the point is that nothing will get better unless something changes. And once people have an option other that strategic voting, it can get better. And this statement: 
  
  RCV doesn't increase the odds of 3rd party winning.
  
  Is just plain untrue. In a FPTP election a third party stands almost zero chance of winning due to strategic voting. You could say probably nonzero becasue it's so unlikely, in all but the smallest elections where local organization and recognition can overpower the big two names throwing money at it. >
  
  But isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good? If that doesn't work do we move on to the next one? 
  The thing is that changing the system doesn't change how people will vote. It's a people problem, not a system problem. 
  
  Is just plain untrue
  
  Once again you're pointing out that it's not the system, it's people making strategic decisions. What changes about RCV? People will still vote strategically. Like I mentioned below, place a D or R too low, helps the people who place a D or R higher becuase that candidate could be eliminated if they aren't ranked high enough. 
  A third party has just as much chance in FPTP to win as in RCV. People just don't vote for them. >
  
  
  But isn't trying to change an entire electoral system to get some hypothetical desired results the definition of letting perfect be the enemy of good?
  
  No, it's not. I'm not sure how to say it's not other than to point out that I wouldn't advocate for what you are saying, "a wholesale change." It's not a wholesale change, it's incremental from region to region, state to state, county to county even. It's a campaign for evolutionary change, not "changing the whole system overnight." 
  And besides that, RCV is probably not the best alternative voting method, it's just better than first past the post. The sooner we move past "which alternative voting method is best"-paralysis to "why not start with any better one at any level," the better. America could use every alternative voting method in a mix from RCV to STV to multi member elections/districts, etc... and it would be better than anywhere right now using single member, first past the post systems. It's the worst style of voting over time for anything with higher stakes than "where are we going to lunch."
  Besides, you are literally arguing against proof that has already notably surfaced in Alaska's house election the past two cycles there as to how a better representative candidate can succeed in ranked choice voting. 
  But wait! (you might say) Democrats aren't a third party! So that's wrong!
  The idea behind ranked choice voting is that it will drive a better consensus candidate that everyone can live with. If that means it's a third party in a purple district that people can vote for without fear of throwing their vote away who wins the first party ballot, or eventually against other round candidates, then great! In Alaska, the best consensus candidate was Peltola, who happens to be a democrat. What we got there was in effect a third party (MAGA/Palin) driving people towards a saner alternative that best represents them. The system still worked becasue the third party sucked! >
  
  Alaska still has a Republican in office. Despite their being multiple third party candidates. Matter of fact, RCV around the world hasn't produced any major third party. Because RCV doesn't change why people vote, it just changes how they vote. 
  At the end of the day, we can have any given system, but if people still prefer the two parties that's what we will get. 
  If you want a third party, let's start with having a viable third party first.
  Changing an entire system, incrementally or not, isn't going to make the two parties disappear, or magically introduce a viable alternative.
  All of this to say, your example is exactly why RCV is a long winded solution that does nothing at all. >
  
  RCV helps a little because 3rd parties are sabotaged by the 2 main parties when even getting on the ballot.  Recent example is the Green party in the NC senate race.  Dems on the elections board kicked them off the ballot just because.  They had to get reinstated via the courts.  That wastes time and limited campaign funds.   
  With RCV there is less incentive for the main parties to sabotage 3rd party spoilers for their own side. 
  They likely won't win more than once in a blue moon.  
  The real goal in my mind is to help tamp down extremism a bit and hopefully switch to multi member districts for legislative elections.  That then creates the conditions for the 2 parties to split at least in some localities.  Also 3rd parties can win the odd seat since the district will be larger and in some places there are enough voters who could vote for them once they realize they stand a chance.  
  Failing that they can push issues to be co-opted by the 2 main candidates. >
  
  Good. Maybe we'll actually start to break the two party dynamic that has stymied change in this nation. >
  
  Seems less likely to challenge the two party dynamic and more likely to just force candidates of both parties more to the center >
  
  Under that interpretation, RCV would make things worse, so I sure hope not. >
  
  Except there really isn't A single center. There are lots of dimensions that get oversimplified into R vs D, so there are many different kinds of centers (or edges) that can start to gain support and we might be able to better improve the amount of consensus we can arrive at.  At least in theory >
  
  I could see it initially going more "center" and then branching out from there. >
  
  Exactly, it would probably go center for things that have a near consensus like common sense abortion access and gun laws. The drug war and military spending are areas that would probably see some shift, where both parties tend to agree against a majority of the population. >
  
  We’ve used preferential voting here in Australia for over 100 years. Anyone who thinks the American people are too stupid to understand it is kidding themselves. >
  
  There'll be hysteria in the US.  To think otherwise is kidding ourselves. It will die down though as it will be overblown crap based on some dumb people.  The magic of RCV is that people can still just vote for one candidate.
  We got STV for local elections here in the mid 2000s.  Only half the people ranked but now around 60-70% are ranking.  So it can take time to get used to it no matter how simple it is. We also use different systems for different elections so that can cause a bit of confusion. >
  
  Yay ranked choice and based on the article even some red states are jumping in to the party.
  Ranked choice voting will do so much to save this country. >
  
  Georgia does it, but in the stupidest, most expensive and most time-consuming manner they could imagine. >
  
  No it doesn't
  "Ranked choice" is another way of saying "instant runoff voting". Georgia has runoffs but they don't have instant runoff voting
  Maybe it seems like a minor distinction, but it is nonetheless a difference >
  
  They actually use RCV ballots for overseas military.  It's just not applied instantly. >
  
  Interesting, didn't know that >
  
  Good! The more the better >
  
  The biggest issue I have is that it seems to encourage candidates to run as block to ensure their party/interest group gets the top 2 slots, especially as the number of candidates increases. As a result, encourage large political parties, rather then discourage them. 
  As someone who works for a company where a star-like rating system is an integral part of the brand, with 10s if not 100s of millions of ratings. I’ve seen that people are extremely binary when ratings things such that the existence of 2-4 ratings will probably have little impact an circumventing above shenanigans and generate compromise candidates with real-life usage.
  It does seem like a good alternative to RCV so hopefully this can be deployed somewhere more general outside the handful of primary/internal elections I have found that use it. >
  
  I don’t believe ranked choice voting will have the impact folks think it will. Approval voting seems like a better method to me. >
  
  There are better systems thank RCV but RCV has momentum and name recognition.  Plus the goal is to get RCV entrenched and then switch to multi member districts for legislative elections.  That can provide the conditions for a multi party system to emerge. >
  
  One of my assorted dreams is to get to vote in on RCV election before I die. >
  
  Dream big and dream of STV! >
  
  Imagine a system that better reflects the interests of the people… >
  
  Non American here, is this good or is this bad? What are the implications of ranked choice voting? >
  
  Right now there isn’t really a path for a third party to win an election and just by running they tend to hurt the party most similar to theirs as they steal votes from it.  Ranked choice will plausibly allow the US to move past a 2 party system.  
  It also makes it harder for more extreme candidates to win. This is good and bad as giving a boost to moderates isn’t always good but at the same time we are struggling with candidates that want to destroy democracy and it will block some of those.
  Overall I’d say it is a good thing for sure. >
  
  I don’t understand how this helps third parties. 
  Will ranked choice be similar to run offs? Or more similar to the 5% minimum overall votes for parties to represent in German Bundestag? >
  
  So lets say a Republican runs, a Democrat runs and a 3rd party runs, I prefer the 3rd party person but I absolutely do not want one of the other 2 to win.  Right now nobody wants to vote for the 3rd party because they have no chance to win so your vote effectively does not count.  With ranked choice I can now go and vote for that 3rd party candidate and then pick the other party I want to win out of the normal 2.  Over time maybe that 3rd party candidates numbers grow and more and more people realize they can be a viable candidate now.
  As it is right now you really cannot have a 3rd party candidate.  Usually the 3rd party candidate is supported by the side who will lose the least votes from them running, it is more as an act of sabotage than one of support.