Ranked Choice Voting?
We’ve now been through this Ranked Choice Voting process that we (the collective we of Pierce County) voted in last year. We’re now waiting for the results.
What did you think? We’ve heard that the RCV ballot may have been partially responsible for the long lines at the polls. What was your experience with RCV? Do you get it? Do you like it? Do you want to do it again? Seriously … we want to know what you think.
Filed under: elections, pierce-county
18 comments
N NSHDscott November 6, 2008
The TNT has a poll on whether to keep RCV or trash it, and I’m going to cheat and copy over the comment I wrote for why I say we should keep it:
I think it worked great! Take the PC Executive race as an example. Bunney, who got the majority of first-round votes, was a polarizing figure, and if he would have won, a lot of people would have been very unhappy. McCarthy was also popular, with close to the same number of first-round votes. Because she had more widespread appeal than Bunney, even if her appeal wasn’t as intense, she passed him on second- and third-round votes. Because more people liked her, fewer people are unhappy, and are not as intensely unhappy, that she won.
You could argue that RCV leads to more “lukewarm” candidates than “hot/cold” candidates, but is that such a bad thing? It weakens the extremes in favor of the middle ground. It makes us reds and blues a little more purple, and that’s a good thing.
D Douglas Tooley November 6, 2008
As a purple, my thanks to NSHDscott@1. I too like it.
One thing though, the whole RCV format thing doesn’t need to be played out when there are only two candidates. And, if there are only three, than you only need two voting opportunities.
J John Sherman November 7, 2008
So, how does this RCV voting tally work if only votes made for first choice and ignoring the 2d. and 3d. choice columns completely? What happens to candidate votes of first and only choice voted?
I think I must understand the RCV voting effect a little more.
It follows, if the first choice votes are discarded when evaluating the second-choice; as a result, seems like the candidate as the last and final voters choice might become the victor of votes because they were the third and last voters choice and every other candidate was thrown out. Just and interesting way of thinking about what I don’t understand about the RCV process details of counting.
R Roland November 7, 2008
Get rid of it.
Parties should be able to simply pick their candidates (via primary election or otherwise), with only party members voting. Then a simple general election.
What’s so difficult about that?
T Thorax O'Tool November 7, 2008
“Parties should be able to simply pick their candidates (via primary election or otherwise), with only party members voting. Then a simple general election. What’s so difficult about that?“
Because parties that aren’t democrat or republican all too frequently DON’T end up on ballots or even getting attention amidst the mudslinging….
And god help you if you have no party affiliation. At least since ranked choice is party independent, someone who isn’t a party-line automaton has at least a remote shot.
E Erik B. November 7, 2008
RCV is a great idea. They just need to get the kinks out of counting ballots.
J J. Cote November 7, 2008
This is the dumbest idea since McCain asked Palin to be his VEEP!
The results take far too long to tabulate and read, thus adding to the expense of the election.
People of modest education don’t understand it (hell, I’ve got a degree and I don’t know how, why or if it works). The additional paper needed to print the ballots and the instructions as well as all of the instructions posted in the TNT probably took half a rainforest worth of trees.
Does anybody know at this time (Thursday evening @11:30PM) who now sits on the County Council? Who is the Assessor/Treasurer? Who is the Executive? When will we know?
R RR Anderson November 7, 2008
You should run Thorax. Just don’t say you’re the * excellence party… you could probably think of a better party name than that.
hey also did anybody notice that Jesse Hill got more votes than Lonergan?
how cool is that.
N NSHDscott November 7, 2008
The math is pretty simple, I’m sure SOMEONE could come up with a way to explain it so that everyone can understand. How about a little contest?
It also shouldn’t take long to tabulate. I know there are a lot of ballots, but it’s simple math! Get a better computer or something, sheesh.
G Greg November 7, 2008
I think its great. Like NHSDscott said, they just need to work the kinks out. The Elections Dept wasn’t particularly prepared this time around, in part because they had a presidential election with an unprecedented turnout to deal with. Give it a bit of time to settle it. Minnesota doesn’t know their Senator until December, but the world isn’t going to come to and end in the meantime. We can wait a few days without our heads exploding.
B Bob Richard November 8, 2008
@John Sherman: “… if the first choice votes are discarded when evaluating the second-choice; as a result, seems like the candidate as the last and final voters choice might become the victor of votes because they were the third and last voters choice and every other candidate was thrown out.”
Nope (although opponents do try to describe it this way to confuse you). If your first choice is still in the running, your vote stays with your first choice. It’s only given to your second choice if/when your first choice is eliminated. The net result is that at every step your vote counts for the candidate you ranked highest among those who can still win.
When no candidate has a majority of first choices, RCV eliminates candidates from the bottom up, weakest candidate first, until someone does have a majority.
K Ken November 8, 2008
Trash it – all that it does is combine a party primary with a general election. So we do both elections at the same time, and cannot seem to decipher the results.
We would not have been the situation of electing an official with secondary choices if we had actually had primaries where the candidates legitimately competed against each other to win their party’s local leadership mandate.
To me this feels a whole lot less like democracy, and a lot more like a shell game.
J justin camarata November 8, 2008
i supported rcv because i too liked the romantic notion of third parties and independent candidates having some semblance of a chance in elections. that said, if it’s going to be this problematic and time-consuming and expensive, it’s not worth it.
of course, mccarthy’s predictably poor work as auditor may be primarily to blame. who knows. in either way, it’s ridiculous that we don’t know the results nearly a week after the election.
J jamie from thriceallamerican November 9, 2008
Justin, I probably don’t need to point this out to you, but there’s no way we can know the RCV results until all the votes have been counted, as there is potential for eliminations and next-ranked choices to break down differently at different phases of the count. The only way to have results faster is to have the count done faster. (Seems like outside of the Assessor-Treasurer race, we have at least a pretty good idea of who’s going to win, though…)
R RR Anderson November 9, 2008
Ranked Choice is really the way to go. Imagine a world where the first time people voted for Nader, Nader didn’t make the cut then all those second choice votes swam into Gore’s mansized fishing net… Imagine a world without B U S H.
yes. I love Ranked Choice Voting.
I would like to see it implemented in FROST PARK CHALK CHALLENGES so that rookie chalkers would stand a chance for victory.
K Kim November 9, 2008
I want to keep RVC. With time we are going to get politicians that need to be decent overall, not just run on a few hot topics.
K Karin November 9, 2008
I am for it, I wasn’t confused by the ballot (though I was glad I was looking at it on my couch with days to think it over instead of in the voting booth). I do hope though that next time we can get results faster.
J J. Cote November 10, 2008
It is now Sunday, Nov. 9th and I’m faced with the fact that Dale Washam may very well be the next Assessor for Pierce County. I don’t know yet because the current auditor doesn’t know yet, because the 1st, 2nd and 3d choices of people that mailed their ballots at 11:59 on Monday night, haven’t been counted, recounted, tabulated, crosschecked, verified, copied and God-knows-what else-you-could-do to a ballot hasn’t been done. It’s a pipe dream that can not work. The Mother of all bad ideas. A “romantic notion” that needs a morning after pill. If Washam IS “elected” then God help us all as the lawsuits will surely fly at great expense to the taxpayers that can ill afford it.