Constitutionality of Ranked Choice Voting
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 02:06:15 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Discussion
  Constitution and Law (Moderator: World politics is up Schmitt creek)
  Constitutionality of Ranked Choice Voting
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Constitutionality of Ranked Choice Voting  (Read 998 times)
Politics geek
Newbie
*
Posts: 14
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 11, 2022, 01:16:36 PM »

The recent special election in Alaska has cast light in ranked-choice voting and its alternatives. Personally, I think RCV is only good for primaries and will inherently disadvantage a candidate depending if two parties split the vote and the second choice votes partially go to the opposition but I noticed RCV fundamentally violates the 'one man, one vote' principle whereas voters who picked a losing candidate get a second vote in deciding the winner but those who select better performing candidates do not have their second vote candidate as their choice is not eliminated. Should and/or will RCV be declared unconstitutional?
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 11, 2022, 01:36:08 PM »

No, that’s silly. Everybody gets the same one vote in each round of voting. If your first choice candidate is still in the running after the first round of voting, your vote gets cast for them again in the second round. No one gets more votes than you (unless you choose not to rank all the candidates).

Guys, it’s not complicated. RCV is just a series of runoffs. If it was a traditional runoff where everybody had to come back in a month and physically cast a new ballot, you would never say that the people who didn’t turn out for the runoff had somehow been “defrauded” or that the “one person, one vote” principle had been violated.

Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 11, 2022, 01:38:06 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 11, 2022, 01:39:56 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
Logged
Donerail
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,345
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 11, 2022, 01:42:06 PM »

I noticed RCV fundamentally violates the 'one man, one vote' principle whereas voters who picked a losing candidate get a second vote in deciding the winner but those who select better performing candidates do not have their second vote candidate as their choice is not eliminated. Should and/or will RCV be declared unconstitutional?
You noticed incorrectly. In ranked-choice voting, each voter casts a single vote. This vote is transferrable, but voters do not "get a second vote." Only one vote per voter can be counted in each round, and each voter's vote counts only as a single vote.
Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 11, 2022, 01:43:09 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
How extreme the median justice is, who is much closer to Thomas than to Roberts.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 11, 2022, 01:46:18 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
How extreme the median justice is, who is much closer to Thomas than to Roberts.
What does that have to do with ranked choice voting, a subject which SCOTUS has never heard a case about?
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 11, 2022, 04:06:14 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
How extreme the median justice is, who is much closer to Thomas than to Roberts.
What does that have to do with ranked choice voting, a subject which SCOTUS has never heard a case about?

Also note that Gorsuch and Thomas operate in super duper defer to the states mode on voting issues.  Gorsuch in particular is likely to be consistent on this.  While I think there is a reasonable equal protection argument against it, that argument would almost surely invalidate separate runoffs as well, and runoffs, especially in primaries, are a century+ longstanding tradition in many states.   
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 11, 2022, 04:19:07 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
How extreme the median justice is, who is much closer to Thomas than to Roberts.
What does that have to do with ranked choice voting, a subject which SCOTUS has never heard a case about?

Also note that Gorsuch and Thomas operate in super duper defer to the states mode on voting issues.  Gorsuch in particular is likely to be consistent on this.  While I think there is a reasonable equal protection argument against it, that argument would almost surely invalidate separate runoffs as well, and runoffs, especially in primaries, are a century+ longstanding tradition in many states.   
What would the equal protection argument against runoffs be?
Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 11, 2022, 04:53:20 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
How extreme the median justice is, who is much closer to Thomas than to Roberts.
What does that have to do with ranked choice voting, a subject which SCOTUS has never heard a case about?

Also note that Gorsuch and Thomas operate in super duper defer to the states mode on voting issues.  Gorsuch in particular is likely to be consistent on this.  While I think there is a reasonable equal protection argument against it, that argument would almost surely invalidate separate runoffs as well, and runoffs, especially in primaries, are a century+ longstanding tradition in many states.   
What would the equal protection argument against runoffs be?

Not all votes counting equally and/or a candidate who finished on top in the first round losing the second round. 
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 11, 2022, 04:57:28 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
How extreme the median justice is, who is much closer to Thomas than to Roberts.
What does that have to do with ranked choice voting, a subject which SCOTUS has never heard a case about?

Also note that Gorsuch and Thomas operate in super duper defer to the states mode on voting issues.  Gorsuch in particular is likely to be consistent on this.  While I think there is a reasonable equal protection argument against it, that argument would almost surely invalidate separate runoffs as well, and runoffs, especially in primaries, are a century+ longstanding tradition in many states.   
What would the equal protection argument against runoffs be?

Not all votes counting equally and/or a candidate who finished on top in the first round losing the second round. 
What’s the argument for that being unconstitutional? I don't follow at all. There’s no constitutional right to election by simple plurality. And all the votes do count equally.
Logged
Politics geek
Newbie
*
Posts: 14
United States
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 12, 2022, 11:40:30 AM »

I noticed RCV fundamentally violates the 'one man, one vote' principle whereas voters who picked a losing candidate get a second vote in deciding the winner but those who select better performing candidates do not have their second vote candidate as their choice is not eliminated. Should and/or will RCV be declared unconstitutional?
You noticed incorrectly. In ranked-choice voting, each voter casts a single vote. This vote is transferrable, but voters do not "get a second vote." Only one vote per voter can be counted in each round, and each voter's vote counts only as a single vote.
But every vote has a different weight. Say someone votes Republican A but ranks the Democrat as a second choice; the voter essentially propels Republican A in a close race but then also gets a vote for a Democrat counted in a close election. Nominally all voters get the same voice BUT it matters who you rank and inherently disadvantages a party who has their candidates split. A voter can vote Republican B but say B barely edges A out of the race; the second choice votes of B don't matter essentially giving initial voters of A far more weight in the election as a whole even though they already voted. Now in a system like Approval Rating all voters could get a second or even third choice counted from all candidates so all second choice votes of Democrat, GOP A and GOP B are counted. Now the conundrum is once these 'second votes' are counted how will candidates be eliminated since not doing an actual runoff would render the party with two candidates at an extreme disadvantage. The difference with runoffs is that all voters have an equal say in determining which of the candidates emerges victorious. Purely from opinion I see RCV unsuitable for GE's due to the fact that the party with 2/3 candidates is at a disadvantange and the main issue outlined above but it could be very useful in open partisan primary elections allowing a balanced view and perhaps in blanket primaries.
Logged
SteveRogers
duncan298
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,155


Political Matrix
E: -3.87, S: -5.04

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 12, 2022, 01:05:05 PM »

I noticed RCV fundamentally violates the 'one man, one vote' principle whereas voters who picked a losing candidate get a second vote in deciding the winner but those who select better performing candidates do not have their second vote candidate as their choice is not eliminated. Should and/or will RCV be declared unconstitutional?
You noticed incorrectly. In ranked-choice voting, each voter casts a single vote. This vote is transferrable, but voters do not "get a second vote." Only one vote per voter can be counted in each round, and each voter's vote counts only as a single vote.
But every vote has a different weight. Say someone votes Republican A but ranks the Democrat as a second choice; the voter essentially propels Republican A in a close race but then also gets a vote for a Democrat counted in a close election. Nominally all voters get the same voice BUT it matters who you rank and inherently disadvantages a party who has their candidates split. A voter can vote Republican B but say B barely edges A out of the race; the second choice votes of B don't matter essentially giving initial voters of A far more weight in the election as a whole even though they already voted.
No, everyone's votes are weighted the same. The voter who ranked Republican B first still gets a vote in the second round of voting. Their second choice doesn't matter because their first choice candidate made it to the final matchup! So they haven't been disadvantaged in any way.

The scenario you are describing is no different than if those two voters both voted in a traditional republican primary between Candidate A and B, and then went on to vote in the general election between B and the Democrat. Your first voter now gets to vote for the Democrat. Your Second voter gets to vote for Republican B again. Their votes obviously both count the same. You would never say that one or the other was disadvantaged. So why do you say that one was disadvantaged under Ranked Choice Voting merely because all the votes were cast at once?
Logged
I’m not Stu
ERM64man
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,747


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 12, 2022, 03:40:53 PM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
How extreme the median justice is, who is much closer to Thomas than to Roberts.
What does that have to do with ranked choice voting, a subject which SCOTUS has never heard a case about?

Also note that Gorsuch and Thomas operate in super duper defer to the states mode on voting issues.  Gorsuch in particular is likely to be consistent on this.  While I think there is a reasonable equal protection argument against it, that argument would almost surely invalidate separate runoffs as well, and runoffs, especially in primaries, are a century+ longstanding tradition in many states.   
But Thomas is known for hypocrisy.
Logged
Senator Incitatus
AMB1996
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,472
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.06, S: 5.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 13, 2022, 06:54:11 PM »

The "one man, one vote" principle is not in the Constitution, and courts should stop pretending it is.
Logged
Vosem
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,625
United States


Political Matrix
E: 8.13, S: -6.09

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 27, 2022, 12:48:09 AM »

Only John Roberts and the liberals believe ranked choice voting is constitutional under the current SCOTUS.
What are you basing that on?
How extreme the median justice is, who is much closer to Thomas than to Roberts.
What does that have to do with ranked choice voting, a subject which SCOTUS has never heard a case about?

Also note that Gorsuch and Thomas operate in super duper defer to the states mode on voting issues.  Gorsuch in particular is likely to be consistent on this.  While I think there is a reasonable equal protection argument against it, that argument would almost surely invalidate separate runoffs as well, and runoffs, especially in primaries, are a century+ longstanding tradition in many states.   
But Thomas is known for hypocrisy.

...by whom? What legal questions has Thomas vocally changed his opinion on since joining the Court in 1991? (Or even since the 1980s?)
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.227 seconds with 12 queries.