RCV: How Many Did You Vote For?
We’re continuing this Ranked Choice Voting thread a bit …
Joyce McDonald is pledging to end RCV. Calvin Goings is suggesting that RCV is the cause of the less than stellar Democrat results in the District 2, Assessor-Treasurer, and Executive races.
As we see the preliminary results coming in, it is clear that many people did not put a second or third choice on their ballots. Many of our friends told us that they were torn by having to vote for a second or third pick. Others have said that they simply wanted to vote for just one.
So we’re curious to see a how many of you picked one, two, or three candidates for the Pierce County Executive race. We’d also like to know why you picked the number you did – particularly if you only picked one or two names. What do you think? You do remember voting, right?
<txp:pap_xpoll poll="3" />
Previously on Exit133
Filed under: Politics
8 comments
D Dmitri November 14, 2008
I’m a big fan of RCV. It allows for a 3rd party vote (like Ralph Nader in 2000) without that vote being wasted.
I think Calvin has it wrong and I wrote to tell him so. His email claims that RCV caused Shawn Bunney to win the Executive race. Last I looked (correct me if I’m wrong), Pat McCarthy was declared the winner.
Without RCV, Shawn Bunney would have won, since Calvin and Pat split the Democratic vote. RCV gave Calvin’s votes mostly to McCarthy. If Shawn Bunney had won, it would have been because of the questionable decision to have two Democrats run for the same office.
With RCV, there is more of a chance that George Bush would not have been declared President in 2000.
Why is everyone so confused?
D Dmitri November 14, 2008
As an addendum … after reading Joyce McDonald’s piece, I now understand why she’s against RCV, because without it, we’d have a Republican Executive.
I still don’t understand Calvin’s argument.
T twocents November 14, 2008
I agree with Dmitri about the attractiveness of RCV’s ability to have us not “waste” our votes in the way that Nader voters are often accused. And a national RCV would likely have given us President Gore or President Kerry.
One small clarification, at least as I understand it … is that without RCV (since Calvin and Pat both lean D), both would not have been on the ballot together in the general election without this version of RCV. (Unless it was top two style and they were the only two on it. But odds are, without RCV, it would have been narrowed down in a primary to one of the two vs. Shawn.)
However, would a primary have changed the outcome? Doubtful.
We’re basically seeing a primary and a general happen at the same time here … and Pat has been getting more votes than Calvin. So she likely would have won a primary and been up against Shawn, and a large portion of Calvin’s voters would have then likely voted for Pat … which is what’s been happening so far with RCV, and is why Pat has been ahead. (Though we’ll see tonight, I believe, and over the next few weeks, if that continues to hold up …)
D DavidS November 14, 2008
I enjoyed being able to vote for three candidates in this race, though I found it very tough to decide among the last couple of choices. Once you’ve already cast you’re vote for your favorite(s) it starts to become a choice between the lesser evil. Each time you have to ask, “If the other candidates were not in the race who would be the best choice to lead the _____?” It really forced me to evaluate the merits of Every candidate instead of just deciding I liked one or the other.
I hope the Auditor releases full ballot breakdowns after the results are certified. This would tell us how many ballots had Bunney-McCarthy-Lonergan, or Lonergan-Goings-McCarthy, or any of the other 30 or so choices. It would really give us in the peanut gallery something to review about how people chose their preferences. (Yup, I’m still a data nerd.)
B Ben November 15, 2008
I really enjoyed the RCV and I hope that it continues and expands to bigger races at the state and national level.
R RR Anderson November 15, 2008
Democrats are just dumb for splitting their ticket.
T Thorax O'Tool November 16, 2008
I like the RCV simply because it not only gives smaller parties a chance, but it also hurts the big parties should they split their ticket.
On another note, I really think that County Executive should be a nonpartisan position.
D DavidS November 17, 2008
I assume thoughts about parties being hurt or dumb for splitting a ticket assume that voters who want to vote for a party (rather than a person) are dumb enough not to simply vote 1-2-3 for a party.
Is there something else I’m missing here?
Of course if all local races were non-partisan it would move everyone back to voting for the person and would likely require more research by all voters. (I think Nebraska even has a non-partisan legislature – though I’m sure the parties are still somehow involved.)