The WSJ editorial board’s argument is very weak, and seems very partisan. They cherry picked a few very strange, rare scenarios that would still not be any different with the current first past the post system.
Ranking things in order of preference is something we do all the time. “They’re out of my favorite fruit, but I’ll get this other one instead.” “You don’t have that chair in this color? Okay, I’ll take that other color.” etc
The WSJ editorial board says, “Major parties could be weakened to the benefit of more extreme candidates.” That already happens with first past the post. The 2016 GOP primary season for President is an example of this: the eventual GOP candidate did not win 50% of the vote in the majority of 2016 primaries. Instead, more GOP voters wanted a more moderate candidate, but the many moderate candidates split the vote. Thankfully the WSJ article points this out, but totally undersells it, and doesn’t make a strong case to at least use it in those situations.
RCV reduces the chances of an extreme point of view getting elected, because they have to be able to get approval from at least 50% of everyone voting, rather than relying on their opponents to split the vote.
Get more people running, so we have more options to vote for, and we can express more accurately who and what we support. RCV, or one of the many other alternatives to FPTP, is the best shot at doing this, and in my opinion one of the few ways to truly improve the US’s democracy without a bunch of massive changes that are even less popular with politicians (limiting donations, lobbying, etc).
Very weak evidence offered but the motivation behind the article was near the top.
"They also appeal to more ideological voters—especially on the left—by arguing that they can express their views with more precision in a ranked-choice system."
I personally think none of them are good enough points, they can all be dealt with. And 3 just means you can vote for who you like best, not just the ones in power.
taywrobel|4 years ago
It’s frustrating that they claim RCV is second best but (presumably) put what they argue is best below the fold.
karmelapple|4 years ago
The WSJ editorial board’s argument is very weak, and seems very partisan. They cherry picked a few very strange, rare scenarios that would still not be any different with the current first past the post system.
Ranking things in order of preference is something we do all the time. “They’re out of my favorite fruit, but I’ll get this other one instead.” “You don’t have that chair in this color? Okay, I’ll take that other color.” etc
The WSJ editorial board says, “Major parties could be weakened to the benefit of more extreme candidates.” That already happens with first past the post. The 2016 GOP primary season for President is an example of this: the eventual GOP candidate did not win 50% of the vote in the majority of 2016 primaries. Instead, more GOP voters wanted a more moderate candidate, but the many moderate candidates split the vote. Thankfully the WSJ article points this out, but totally undersells it, and doesn’t make a strong case to at least use it in those situations.
RCV reduces the chances of an extreme point of view getting elected, because they have to be able to get approval from at least 50% of everyone voting, rather than relying on their opponents to split the vote.
Get more people running, so we have more options to vote for, and we can express more accurately who and what we support. RCV, or one of the many other alternatives to FPTP, is the best shot at doing this, and in my opinion one of the few ways to truly improve the US’s democracy without a bunch of massive changes that are even less popular with politicians (limiting donations, lobbying, etc).
chishaku|4 years ago
Very weak evidence offered but the motivation behind the article was near the top.
"They also appeal to more ideological voters—especially on the left—by arguing that they can express their views with more precision in a ranked-choice system."
thepete2|4 years ago
1. may decrease voter turnout by 5-6%
2. not as obviously fair as traditional voting
3. increases existing divides
I personally think none of them are good enough points, they can all be dealt with. And 3 just means you can vote for who you like best, not just the ones in power.
lalaithion|4 years ago