Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 42

Thread: GOP Winner in Maine-02 Now Declared Loser Due to ‘Rank Voting’

  1. #1

    Exclamation GOP Winner in Maine-02 Now Declared Loser Due to ‘Rank Voting’

    GOP Winner in Maine-02 Now Declared Loser Due to ‘Rank Voting’

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...o-rank-voting/

    5 Dec 2018
    9:12

    On Monday, Maine Secretary of State Matt Dunlap announced that a recount of the November 6 election in Maine’s Second Congressional District will begin on Thursday and will continue for an estimated four weeks.

    Secretary of State Dunlap, a Democrat, declared Democrat Jared Golden the winner of the election on November 15, despite the fact that Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-ME-02) received 2,632 more votes than Golden on election day, a consequence of the state’s implementation of a controversial “rank voting” system.

    Thanks to a 2016 referendum that was placed on the state ballot and was passed due to the financial support of liberal Texas billionaire John Arnold, Maine’s 2018 federal election was the first time in American history that candidates were federal offices were selected using a complex “rank voting system.”

    Since a Maine judge had earlier ruled that the “rank voting system” passed by voters in 2016 and affirmed by voters in June 2018 violated the Maine Constitution, state offices were selected by the traditional voting system used in the rest of the country–winners were determined by who received the most votes.

    Federal offices–in this case the Senate race that incumbent Sen. Angus King (I-ME) easily won, and the state’s two seats in the U.S. House of Representatives–were decided by the complex “rank voting” system, as implemented by the Democrat Secretary of State, using a proprietary computer algorithm provided to the state by an outside vendor.

    When Maine voters stepped into the voting booth on November they cast traditional ballots for state offices, but voted for their first, second, and third choices in the one federal race for the U.S. Senate the two federal races for the U.S. House of Representatives.

    In order to be declared the winner, a candidate for federal office had to receive 50 percent plus one of the first place votes cast for the office. If no candidate received more than 50 percent plus one of the vote, then the second choice votes and third choice votes cast by voters whose first choice votes were cast for the third place and fourth place finishers were then allocated to the top two candidates based on the proprietary computer algorithm of the outside vendor selected by the Democrat Secretary of State.

    In the November 6 election, Republican Poliquin finished in first place, receiving 131,631 votes, or 46.41 percent of the 283,643 votes cast that day, according to election results provided by the office of Secretary of State Dunlap.

    Democrat Jared Golden finished in second place, receiving 128,999 votes, or 45.48 percent of the 2 votes cast that day, 2,632 fewer than Polquin.

    Independent candidate Tiffany Bonds received 16,260 votes, or 5.73 percent of the 283,643 votes cast that day and finished in third place. Another independent candidate, William Hoar, received 6,753 votes, or 2.38 percent of the 283,643 votes cast that day and finished in fourth place. Bonds and Hoard received a combined 23,013 votes.

    Since no candidate in the race received the 50 percent plus one votes required to be declared the winner under the new “ranked voting” law, Secretary of State Dunlap then used the outside vendor which deployed its proprietary algorithm to allocate the combined 23,013 votes cast for third place finisher Bonds and fourth place finisher Hoard.

    In what Secretary of State Dunlap described as Round 2, all 16,260 votes were removed from Tiffany Bonds’ total, giving her a new total of zero votes. In addition, all 6,753 votes were removed from Hoar’s total, giving him a new total of zero votes.


    Golden received 10,232 votes from voters who had declared in the November 6 election either Bonds or Hoar as their first choice, presumably declaring him on their ballots to be either their second or third choices. These additional votes gave Golden a new total of 139,231 votes, or 50.53 percent of the 275,557 votes counted in Round 2.

    Poliquin received 4,695 votes from voters who had declared in the November 6 election either Bonds or Hoar as their first choice, presumably declaring him on their ballots to be either their second or third choices. These additional votes gave Hoar a new total of 136,326 votes, or 49.47 percent of the 275,557 votes counted in Round 2.

    Only 14,927 of the 23,013 votes cast in support of either Bonds, the third place finisher, or Hoar, the fourth place finisher, were reallocated to Poliquin, the election day first place finisher and Golden, the election day second place finisher, in Round 2.

    A total of 8,086 votes cast by supporters of Hoar or Bonds on election day were thrown away and not counted in Round 2 voting–“spoiled” is the legal term used–because, according to the Secretary of State, did not include choice rankings beyond the first choice.

    Notably, though Democrat Golden received more than 50 percent plus one (50.57 percent) of the votes counted in Round 2 using this “ranked voting” system, he still received less than 50 percent plus one of the votes cast and counted on election day, November 6, Round 1. (The 139,231 votes counted for Golden in Round 2 divided by the 283,643 votes cast and counted on election day, November 6, Round 1 equals 49.1 percent.)

    Poliquin’s general campaign consultant Brent Littlefield issued a statement earlier this week noting that “his win was clipped by a new ‘Rank Voting’ system employed for the first time in a U.S. Federal election giving losing candidate voters (in this case two liberal independents who finished 3rd and 4th on Election Day) a second or third choice and those additional votes allowed challenger Jared Golden (D) to go ahead. In any other state in America Bruce Poliquin would have been declared the winner of the election.”

    Poliquin and several voters in the Second Congressional District have filed a lawsuit in federal court arguing that the “rank voting” system approved by Maine voters in 2016 and reaffirmed in June 2018 is not constitutional.

    On Wednesday, federal judge Lance Walker said he would decide the case soon.

    “Attorneys for U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin and U.S. Rep.-elect Jared Golden argued in federal court Wednesday about the constitutionality of Maine’s ranked-choice voting law, the election process that propelled Golden to a victory over the two-term incumbent Poliquin in November,” the Portland Press Herald reported, adding:

    Poliquin’s lawyers are asking U.S. District Judge Lance Walker to rule that the law, passed by voters in November 2016 and affirmed with a citizens’ veto vote in June, violates the U.S. Constitution. They are arguing that Poliquin should either be declared the winner based on the fact he won the plurality of votes in the first round of counting or that there should be a special election, or runoff, between Golden, a Democrat, and Poliquin, a Republican.

    The hearing ended early Wednesday afternoon with Walker saying he intended to issue a decision by next week.

    James Gimpel, a professor of political science at the University of Maryland who studies voter behavior, testified Wednesday morning as an expert witness on behalf of Poliquin and his co-plaintiffs. Gimpel broadly criticized ranked-choice voting and suggested that some 8,000 voters were disenfranchised because they had no way of guessing who the final two candidates would be when they cast their ballots.

    “A tremendous number of voters expressed confusion over the new process where they voted one type of ballot for state races and another type of ballot for federal races which resembled an excel spreadsheet where they could make a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or even a 5th choice, adding a write-in,” Littlefield added:

    Rank Voting claims to produce a winner with majority support, over 50%, but the fact is the system is not designed to do so. If no candidate receives 50%+1 on Election Day the rank voting system is engaged. However, moving forward the last place candidates ballots are “spoiled” or eliminated if there is no additional ranking for other candidates… therefore the total number of voters is reduced by the computer and the eventual winner does not actually get 50%+1 of those who turned out on Election Day. This makes this system very different from normal runoff states like Louisiana. Here the computer algorithm determines the final ballot.

    Only those voters who voted for last place finishing candidates have their additional choices considered. Surviving candidates ballots simply stay in the mix. Those voters do not get the option to “ponder” their choices like the others in subsequent voting rounds by the computer system.

    Littlefield also added that, “The computer software was declared proprietary and the Secretary of State has refused to allow an inspection of the software or algorithm.”

    Democrats and their allies spent more than $20 million to defeat Poliquin. Should he win the recount or the pending lawsuit, he will be the only Republican member of the House of Representatives in the 116th Session of Congress from the six states that comprise New England–Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Ranked choice voting is supposed to give 3rd party candidates and independents a chance because they aren't seen as "wasted votes" but it doesn't sound like this system is being run properly.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Ranked choice voting is supposed to give 3rd party candidates and independents a chance because they aren't seen as "wasted votes" but it doesn't sound like this system is being run properly.
    It doesn't matter what the system is, it matters who's running it?
    "The Patriarch"

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post

    Not going to happen.
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    The man did not think clearly. It was almost as if he had brain cancer of something.
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    I missed out on the dick pills , they any good ?

  5. #4

  6. #5

    Thumbs up

    More voters would rather have Golden than Pokeum if neither gets the majority of the votes, so he's the popular choice, aka the winner. It (Instant Runoff Voting) is a better system of election.



    The GOP is the party of whining crybabies. Look at Donnell, always sniveling about something or the other.
    DACA S**thole Dreamers - Make America Great Again?

  7. #6
    “Proprietary algorithm”? Sounds a lot like how Twitter, Facebook and Google filter things.

    If there ever was a situation that demands open source code, it’s here.

    It’s kind of interesting how so many of these “recounts” have reversed the Election Day results. Seems to always be in favor of the Democrats too. California is a prime example.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    “Proprietary algorithm”? Sounds a lot like how Twitter, Facebook and Google filter things.

    If there ever was a situation that demands open source code, it’s here.

    It’s kind of interesting how so many of these “recounts” have reversed the Election Day results. Seems to always be in favor of the Democrats too. California is a prime example.
    Don't forget Florida too. Wait- those all went Republican.

    How often do recounts change the initial vote result?

    https://www.clickorlando.com/news/el...ection-results

    According to fairvote.org, 27 out of 4,687 general elections between 2000 and 2015 ended up with recounts.

    Of those 27 recounts, only three changed the outcome.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 12-06-2018 at 01:26 PM.
    Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'

    "Truth isn't truth"- Rudy Giuliani

    "China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump's very, very large brain," - Donald Trump.

    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    “Proprietary algorithm”? Sounds a lot like how Twitter, Facebook and Google filter things.

    If there ever was a situation that demands open source code, it’s here.

    It’s kind of interesting how so many of these “recounts” have reversed the Election Day results. Seems to always be in favor of the Democrats too. California is a prime example.
    Gives a new meaning to the phrase - reality has a liberal bias.



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Origanalist View Post
    It doesn't matter what the system is, it matters who's running it?
    Both matter.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    “Proprietary algorithm”? Sounds a lot like how Twitter, Facebook and Google filter things.

    If there ever was a situation that demands open source code, it’s here.
    yeah that's a huge redflag. The word proprietary shouldn't be used anywhere near vote counting.
    Hell a few years ago drunks in Florida managed to have their DUI charges dismissed because the breathalyzer company wouldn't disclose the source code to their devices. I can't see how this vote counting software could win in court.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Ranked choice voting is supposed to give 3rd party candidates and independents a chance because they aren't seen as "wasted votes" but it doesn't sound like this system is being run properly.
    Anyone with brains should have known that line of thinking is bull, and in the end this system will only increase Leftist control. Ranked voting helps the statist with the highest name recognition/fundraising ability.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Anyone with brains should have known that line of thinking is bull, and in the end this system will only increase Leftist control. Ranked voting helps the statist with the highest name recognition/fundraising ability.
    How so?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    How so?
    People only vote for candidates they know. Normally a third party liberty candidate could potentially win with 34%. In ranked choice voting they need 50% + 1. It should be pretty obvious.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  16. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    People only vote for candidates they know. Normally a third party liberty candidate could potentially win with 34%. In ranked choice voting they need 50% + 1. It should be pretty obvious.
    But without ranked choice voting they never get more than 10% or so because most people view them as a "wasted vote" that makes it more likely for the party they hate the most to win.

    With ranked choice voting you can vote 3rd party secure in the knowledge that your vote will go to the "lesser of two evils" if your preferred candidate isn't in the top 2.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    But without ranked choice voting they never get more than 10% or so because most people view them as a "wasted vote" that makes it more likely for the party they hate the most to win.
    So? Unless you really believe 51% of voters secretly want Ron Paul etc, despite 100 years of actual voter history it doesn't matter. You are increasing the threshold for liberty candidates to win. That's plain stupid.


    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    With ranked choice voting you can vote 3rd party secure in the knowledge that your vote will go to the "lesser of two evils" if your preferred candidate isn't in the top 2.
    In practice this means that Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn won't even need to pretend to be conservative at all, since they are guaranteed to have your vote when the last ballot is counted.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    So? Unless you really believe 51% of voters secretly want Ron Paul etc, despite 100 years of actual voter history it doesn't matter. You are increasing the threshold for liberty candidates to win. That's plain stupid.


    In practice this means that Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn won't even need to pretend to be conservative at all, since they are guaranteed to have your vote when the last ballot is counted.
    You make good points.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    So? Unless you really believe 51% of voters secretly want Ron Paul etc, despite 100 years of actual voter history it doesn't matter. You are increasing the threshold for liberty candidates to win. That's plain stupid.


    In practice this means that Lindsey Graham and John Cornyn won't even need to pretend to be conservative at all, since they are guaranteed to have your vote when the last ballot is counted.
    One thought though:

    If Graham and Cornyn become overly confident of getting people's votes due to ranked choice voting won't that make them expose themselves sufficiently to get more people to vote 3rd party?
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    One thought though:

    If Graham and Cornyn become overly confident of getting people's votes due to ranked choice voting won't that make them expose themselves sufficiently to get more people to vote 3rd party?
    Yep, maybe, but professional politicians like them never come in third, even when they have scandals. So in the end either Graham wins or the Democrat, as per usual.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  22. #19
    Look at Lisa Murkowski, she pissed off the Alaska GOP enough that she lost the nomination to Joe Miller. What did she do then? Run and WIN as a write in. None of our guys could do that.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Yep, maybe, but professional politicians like them never come in third, even when they have scandals. So in the end either Graham wins or the Democrat, as per usual.
    This just makes me like my other idea even more:

    Why not give each Rep. multiple votes?

    The threshold for getting a seat in the House would drop to less than 1% and we could give whoever is our best candidate (like Ron) many votes.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by William Tell View Post
    Look at Lisa Murkowski, she pissed off the Alaska GOP enough that she lost the nomination to Joe Miller. What did she do then? Run and WIN as a write in. None of our guys could do that.
    There are enough stupid people that we may not be able to make any progress until after secession/expulsion or a civil war that gets rid of enough of them one way or the other.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    This just makes me like my other idea even more:

    Why not give each Rep. multiple votes?


    The threshold for getting a seat in the House would drop to less than 1% and we could give whoever is our best candidate (like Ron) many votes.
    There are pros and cons to any change in the system, historically the only changes that are made end up having a bad effect. Bottom line though is there is no silver bullet. realistically we need better candidates with better strategies and fundraising abilities. Maybe more regional focus, like the Free State Project, which unfortunately is about to be erased at least for now.
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    It's a balance between appeasing his supporters, appeasing the deep state and reaching his own goals.
    ~Resident Badgiraffe




  26. #23
    having a tidy vote total at or near 45% that is added to brings about a situation where the ultimate victor is like
    being THE politician in the 1800s who begins a political convention with an "acorm" of support only to be an oak.

  27. #24
    A federal judge rejected a lawsuit Thursday by a Republican incumbent from Maine who lost the nation's first congressional election held under a candidate-ranking system.Republican U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin sought to have the voting system declared unconstitutional after he lost the election to Democrat Jared Golden despite having the most first-place votes.
    Poliquin asked U.S. District Judge Lance Walker either to declare him the winner or order another election for the 2nd Congressional District.
    But Walker, appointed by Republican President Donald Trump, said states are given great leeway in how they conduct elections. Critics can question the wisdom of ranked-choice voting, Walker said, but such criticism "falls short of constitutional impropriety."
    There was no immediate word from Poliquin on whether he planned to appeal. A recount that Poliquin requested, meanwhile, will continue for a few more weeks.
    Golden and supporters of ranked voting said after the ruling that they felt vindicated by Walker's decision. Golden said that Walker's "decision is clear" and that he hopes Poliquin works with him to ensure a smooth transition for the congressional district.
    James Monteleone, an attorney for the Committee for Ranked Choice Voting, said he believes Walker's ruling "will stand up to any appeal."
    Poliquin, however, said he remained concerned about some Maine voters expressing confusion with the voting system. He defended Maine's old system as a "common sense, one-person, one-vote process."


    In his ruling, Walker rejected Poliquin's arguments that ranked balloting gives some voters more expression than others or proves too confusing for the average voter.
    "The point is that 'one person, one vote' does not stand in opposition to ranked balloting, so long as all electors are treated equally at the ballot," Walker said.
    Poliquin's lawyer had argued the candidate-ranking system required voters to "guess" which candidates would survive until the second, runoff-style round of tabulations. Poliquin also argued several thousand Maine voters who didn't select Poliquin or Golden were effectively disenfranchised.
    But Walker said it's just as likely that such ballots were "protest votes."
    "I am not persuaded that it is unduly burdensome for voters to educate themselves about the candidates in order to determine the best way to rank their preferences," Walker said.
    The judge also said he failed to see how Maine's ranked-choice voting system undercut voters' First Amendment rights "in any fashion." The system, he said, was "motivated by a desire to enable third-party and non-party candidates to participate in the political process, and to enable their supporters to express support, without producing the spoiler effect."
    The new method of voting "actually encourages First Amendment expression, without discriminating against any voter based on viewpoint, faction or other invalid criteria," said Walker.

    More at: https://news.yahoo.com/judge-tosses-...-election.html
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Don't forget Florida too. Wait- those all went Republican.

    How often do recounts change the initial vote result?

    https://www.clickorlando.com/news/el...ection-results

    So your point is that these California election reversals defy all odds.
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  30. #26
    This is surely of immense significance.

    As we all know, the average voter really wants to vote for small government candidates.

    He wants to give up his government job, social security, medicare, medicaid, food-stamps, minimum wage, and other free$#@!.

    Because people don't like free $#@!.

    It's only the dastardly voting system which prevents these imaginary motivated small government voters from having their way.

    We should probably expend a lot of time and energy working on making sure that, uh, you know, people get to vote as hard as they want.
    "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

    -H. L. Mencken

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    This is surely of immense significance.

    As we all know, the average voter really wants to vote for small government candidates.

    He wants to give up his government job, social security, medicare, medicaid, food-stamps, minimum wage, and other free$#@!.

    Because people don't like free $#@!.

    It's only the dastardly voting system which prevents these imaginary motivated small government voters from having their way.

    We should probably expend a lot of time and energy working on making sure that, uh, you know, people get to vote as hard as they want.
    It's not often we agree, but, this.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Poliquin also argued several thousand Maine voters who didn't select Poliquin or Golden were effectively disenfranchised.
    LMAO ... as if Polquin gave a damn about anyone but Rs & Ds being "disenfranchised" before rank voting was used ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The system, [the judge] said, was "motivated by a desire to enable third-party and non-party candidates to participate in the political process, and to enable their supporters to express support, without producing the spoiler effect."
    But if you lose the spoiler effect, what do you gain? Cui bono?

    Without the ability to produce the spoiler effect, the participation of third-party and non-party candidates (and the enablement of their supporters to express support) can be effectively nullified. It may well destroy or seriously degrade one of the only useful things there is about voting.

    I have argued elsewhere that voting is not an effective means of changing anything. Voting does not cause change - rather, it is the result of change (if any). At best, voting is like a windsock - but in that capacity, it can still be a somewhat useful thing. Voting won't change the direction of the wind, but it may at least tell you when and in what direction the wind is changing.

    But if the so-called "spoiler effect" (which serves as a signal informing the losing party that something has changed) is eliminated or significantly reduced, then even that marginal usefulness of voting will be neutered. For just one example, far more attention is likely to be paid to single-vote "spoilers" than to a mish-mash herd of ranked-vote "also rans" ... (IOW: signal spectrum may widen, but at the cost of a big drop in signal-to-noise ...)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 12-14-2018 at 04:27 PM.

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    LMAO ... as if Polquin gave a damn about anyone but Rs & Ds being "disenfranchised" before rank voting was used ...



    But if you lose the spoiler effect, what do you gain? Cui bono?

    Without the ability to produce the spoiler effect, the participation of third-party and non-party candidates (and the enablement of their supporters to express support) can be effectively nullified. It may well destroy or seriously degrade one of the only useful things there is about voting.

    I have argued elsewhere that voting is not an effective means of changing anything. Voting does not cause change - rather, it is the result of change (if any). At best, voting is like a windsock - but in that capacity, it can still be a somewhat useful thing. Voting won't change the direction of the wind, but it may at least tell you when and in what direction the wind is changing.

    But if the so-called "spoiler effect" (which serves as a signal informing the losing party that something has changed) is eliminated or significantly reduced, then even that marginal usefulness of voting will be neutered. For just one example, far more attention is likely to be paid to single-vote "spoilers" than to a mish-mash herd of ranked-vote "also rans" ... (IOW: signal spectrum may widen, but at the cost of a big drop in signal-to-noise ...)
    How much does the spoiler effect play in California, where only the top 2 go to the General Election?
    Twitter: B4Liberty@USAB4L
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    LMAO ... as if Polquin gave a damn about anyone but Rs & Ds being "disenfranchised" before rank voting was used ...



    But if you lose the spoiler effect, what do you gain? Cui bono?

    Without the ability to produce the spoiler effect, the participation of third-party and non-party candidates (and the enablement of their supporters to express support) can be effectively nullified. It may well destroy or seriously degrade one of the only useful things there is about voting.

    I have argued elsewhere that voting is not an effective means of changing anything. Voting does not cause change - rather, it is the result of change (if any). At best, voting is like a windsock - but in that capacity, it can still be a somewhat useful thing. Voting won't change the direction of the wind, but it may at least tell you when and in what direction the wind is changing.

    But if the so-called "spoiler effect" (which serves as a signal informing the losing party that something has changed) is eliminated or significantly reduced, then even that marginal usefulness of voting will be neutered. For just one example, far more attention is likely to be paid to single-vote "spoilers" than to a mish-mash herd of ranked-vote "also rans" ... (IOW: signal spectrum may widen, but at the cost of a big drop in signal-to-noise ...)
    The idea is that the Swampublicans will feel free to act more liberal and that the voters will then feel free to vote 3rd party and actually elect the 3rd party candidate because the Swampublicans are no longer significantly better than the Demoncrats and the 3rd party candidate isn't a "wasted" vote because if there is still some advantage to having the Swampublican instead of the Demoncrat he will get their vote in the 2nd or 3rd round.

    Whether or not the 3rd party candidate can ever win in your opinion decides whether it is better to have ranked choice voting or the spoiler effect.

    If we elected House candidates as I have suggested in this thread:
    Why not give each Rep. multiple votes?
    it would be a distinct improvement.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: 11-30-2016, 02:36 PM
  2. Replies: 49
    Last Post: 08-20-2010, 01:51 AM
  3. Thompson the winner, Paul the loser???
    By Jennifer in forum S.C. Fox News Debate
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-10-2008, 09:54 PM
  4. Winner: Ron Paul, Loser: Fox News
    By Mike S. in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-08-2008, 11:40 AM
  5. John Gibson???Winner/Loser???
    By speciallyblend in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-05-2007, 07:57 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •