Ranked Choice Voting Public Meeting
The League of Women Voters of Tacoma-Pierce County are hosting a public meeting to discuss ranked choice voting.
The Pierce County Council is considering a resolution that will give the public the opportunity to overturn RCV this November and they need to hear from all of us. Presentations will include a description of the 2008 election experience by the recently appointed Pierce County Auditor, Jan Shabro, as well as statements for and against RCV.
Plus you’re invited. What do you think? How’d it go? What did you learn? What do you think should be different?
All are welcome. Refreshments will be provided.
Details
Friday, February 6th, 2009 at 6:00 pm
University of Puget Sound – Rotunda
(in the Wheelock Student Center – N. 14th & N. Lawrence)
For additional information contact Lyz Kurnitz-Thurlow (253) 924-0288
Previously on Exit133
7 comments
R RR Anderson January 28, 2009
RR Anderson supports ranked choice voting. He was able to vote both for The Traveller and Mike Lonergan without feeling like his ‘vote went into the garbage’
K Kevin January 28, 2009
I do not like RCV. I also don’t like the top 2 primary system.
Primaries are for the parties to choose their candidate in the most democratic way, by a vote of the people. If someone does not want to vote in a primary because they have to pick a party, then so be it.
J jamie from thriceallamerican January 29, 2009
@Kevin “Primaries are for the parties to choose their candidate in the most democratic way, by a vote of the people.“
Ok, devil’s advocate then…why aren’t the parties paying for the primaries?
G Gloria January 29, 2009
Get rid of it.
RCV allows some people’s vote to count twice, which strikes me as constitutionally unsound.
Let’s say you rank Ralph Nader #1, even though you know he has no chance, and then John Kerry #2. Your first vote counts but is thrown out, and then your second vote counts again, so you were effectively able to vote twice, logging both a “protest” vote and a “real” vote. And this neat double-voting trick applies only to some people, and not to everybody.
I think people ought to vote their real vote the first time.
Then there are the administrative problems that come with people who pick only a first choice, or only a second choice, or a first and a second and a last but no third, fourth or fifth.
This is needless complication for what ought to be a one-person-one-vote system.
I say scrap RCV and go back to just regular old voting.
J jamie from thriceallamerican January 29, 2009
I would contend that (the merits of the individual aside, since I think he tends to be a pompous ass) a vote for Ralph Nader ceases to be a “protest vote” once people are no longer scared to do it. RCV removes the “scary factor” of throwing your vote away on your favored candidate by allowing more pragmatic backup votes.
R RR Anderson January 29, 2009
RCV is the least corruptible voting method ever conceived. People who say otherwise are puppets/tools of political machines. Power to the people! Ranked Choice Voting ALL THE WAY! Don’t be a party whore.
J J. Cote January 31, 2009
Back-up votes??? Least corruptible?? Protest vote?!? Huh??!! Saywaa?!?
What ever happened to the concept of one man, one vote?
If you want to vote for Nader, vote for Nader. Why should you get a second vote in case your first one doesn’t stand a snowball’s chance in Ft. Lauderdale? The concept in and of itself is contrary to the Democratic process. And don’t even try to justify a vote for “the Lunatic” Hill. That subject has stopped being funny.
I saw absolutely nothing wrong with the way that voting was done in this State for decades. It was the Party wonks that complained and the Supreme Court that took our choices away. That’s how we ended up with this mess that we have now.