RCV repeal effort gets tricky with three alternatives

Opponents say RCV is complicated, but so are the current efforts to repeal it.

The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to vote on July 10 whether to place a controversial charter amendment on November’s ballot that would largely repeal San Francisco's ranked-choice voting (RCV) system, but the outcome of that effort has become murky with the introduction of two competing alternatives.

The original charter amendment, sponsored by Sup. Mark Farrell, would eliminate RCV for all citywide elected officials, instead holding a primary in September and runoff in November. The board rejected an earlier effort by Farrell to repeal RCV, but Farrell came back with a modified measure that was co-sponsored by Sup. Christina Olague, much to the dismay of her progressive supporters, particularly Steven Hill, the father of RCV in San Francisco.

Hill said runoff elections in September, a month notorious for having low-voter turnout, will invariably favor the conservatives who always vote in high numbers. He said that RCV is a fairer representation of what voters want and a November election allows for more voters to be heard.

After widespread criticism from her progressive constituents, Olague publicly turned away from the measure, telling Hill and board members she would remove her name from it. Yet instead of removing her name, in a surprise move she proposed her own amendment to the charter, which only angered progressives more.

“Progressives are pretty furious with Christina right now because she is working with conservatives and went back on her word,” Hill said.

Olague’s proposal would eliminate RCV for only mayoral elections, with the primary still in September, even though she previously told the Guardian that she opposes having an election in September. Olague didn’t respond to email inquiries from the Guardian, but she has maintained in previous interviews that she is only trying to create a compromise between opposing parties on the board.

It's unclear whether Farrell and the other center-right sponsors of his measure might back Olague's alternative, but her colleagues who support RCV have put forward an alternative of their own. Board President David Chiu introduced another proposal amending Farrell’s measure that keeps RCV intact—more or less.

Although Chiu told the Guardian he thought the current RCV method has worked well for the city so far and that most people seem to understand how to use the system, he offered the amendment to address certain issues which have arisen because of Farrell’s measure and Olague’s amendment.

“My amendment addresses the concerns that have been raised in an appropriately tailored way,” Chiu told us.

Chiu’s proposal incorporates run-off elections for the top mayor candidates, but only after rank choice voting has narrowed the field to two candidates. It supports elections in November with the mayoral runoff in December.

However, this still allows for a second election, which RCV advocates think is a costly and unnecessary alternative that RCV was designed to eliminate – an imperative they see as more important than ever given court rulings that now allow unlimited spending by wealthy individuals and corporations to influence elections.

Although Hill isn’t happy with any repeal of the current voting methods, he said he reluctantly supports Chiu’s amendment.

“These are poorly made proposals,” Hill said. “It’s like being at the factory and watching sausage getting made.”

Hill fears that if Olague’s co-sponsorship of Farrell’s charter amendment or her own proposed amendment are approved by the board and allowed on the ballot in November that conservative money and power would most likely influence the election enough to pass the RCV repeal.


>"It's unclear whether Farrell and the other center-right sponsors of his measure might back Olague's alternative"

No, it's not unclear. He said during the meeting that he would support Olaque's amendment. So now there are only two proposals. Farell's as amended by Olague and Farell's amended by Chiu. There are not 3 proposals like you state.

"Progressives are pretty furious with Christina right now because she is working with conservatives and went back on her word"

Whoa! She is working with members of the board who are not Progressive?????? Isn't that treason or sedition or something???

RCV is toast. The taheaway next November will be that San Francisco abandoned it, no matter what happens.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 2:03 pm

Notice how the anti-RCV commenters will focus on anything but the relative merits of the proposals.

The September proposal is terrible. Turnout will be extremely low. And because RCV won't be used in the primary, the winning candidates will be able to advance to November with as little as 10-15% of the votes in that low turnout election if many candidates run.

The Chronicle complained about 42.5% voter turnout in last November's mayoral race. But this June the California Primary had 31% turnout in San Francisco. For a September primary, we can expect turnout to be even lower -- as low as 20-25%.

Supervisor Olague isn't educated on the proposal she put forth. During the Board discussion, she thought New York is the only city that uses September elections. She hasn't seen how low the turnout has been for cities using September.

Even Farrell admitted during the Board discussion that December would have a higher turnout than September for mayoral races. He claimed he wanted to maximize turnout. By his own logic, he should be supporting a December run-off over Olague's September proposal if only the mayor's race is affected.

Posted by Chris J. on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

If you listen to the BOS debates you can see that they have mostly dismissed the mass hysteria over September run-offs.

We've never had a September election so when people start quoting what the turnout will be is it pure speculation. There is nothing wrong with September as a month. The television networks bring out their new schedule in September, as does the National Football League. Getting people's attention in September is far from difficult.

The closest thing to a September election that the city has had is Oct 7, 2003. Grey Davis recall. Turnout=59.2%. Granted, it is only one data point but that is one more than the doomsayers have.

I prefer December myself, because December turnout was usually equal or higher than December for the Mayor's race. But if we have to go to September to get rid of the insult to voters called Ranked Choice Voting then I'm all for it.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 6:14 pm

The proposals are for September primaries, not for September runoffs. It would be kind of hard to have a runoff two months before a November election (or does Troll want the runoff to be ten months after the November election to allow more time for fundraising?).

In any case, there are many other places that have September primaries (New York, for example), and not just for a single municipal office. They generally have lower turnout at their September primaries than California does at its June primaries (though all are lower than in November general elections).

Posted by Dave K. on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 6:43 pm

That's absolutely ridiculous to suggest that the recall election in October 2003 will have turnout like a stand-alone city election primary that will either: 1) at best reduce the field to two; 2) be a blowout that is won in September without competition.

Most people yawn at elections where no on is going to win. This year's primaries were a much better example. Even with a binding statewide referendum that was of interest to people, turnout in San Francisco was barely 30%, and statewide was the among the lowest in history.

Oh, and what about that lopsided election where an incumbent mayor wins in September? Then the November election will have a huge decline in turnout too.

Those supervisors supporting this are being flat-out irresponsible

Posted by Election Wonk on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 4:29 am

IRV was the poorly made proposal.

It has contributed to the demise of progressives from a popular movement to a professional failure by eliminating organizing opportunities for us to come together and bury the hatchets, where average San Franciscans and professional political workers worked together. Now, all that we've got is the professionals and due to loss of political power, their days are numbered.

It is Steven Hill who is out on a limb these days, promoting the ECB imposition of austerity in Europe under the argument that if rich US states like CA support poor US states like Alabama then rich EU nations like Germany should support poor EU nations like Greece because lashing liberal states to reactionary states is is working out so well for California in so many ways.

Hill recently downplayed the notion of youth unemployment in the UK Business publication "Financial Times," claiming that one EU measurement pegged it lower than one another, essentially arguing that there is nothing to see here.

I question Hill's political science bona fides as relates to progressive policies based on his record over the past few years. For us, there is nothing to see here.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 2:11 pm

A low turnout primary in September using top-two would do nothing to advance voter interests or better represent the people.

California tried its top-two system for the first time this past June for state elections. It's the same system that Farrell and Elsbernd are putting forth -- except in June instead of September. The results in some cases were bizarre. In other cases, the system clearly hurt the progressives that you care about.

For example, in California's US House District 2, progressive Norman Solomon missed second place by 0.3% -- 14.7% to 15.0%. With ranked choice voting in the first round, he likely would have advanced to the high turnout November election. Instead, he got knocked out in a low turnout June election because of vote-splitting dynamics.

In California's US House District 31, a Democrat-leaning district that is 30% white and close to a majority Latino, two white Republicans are advancing to the high-turnout November election. The third-place candidate, a Latino Democrat, missed second place by 2% (23% to 25%) because four Democrats split the vote.

Also, back in 2003 in the year of the Newsom-Gonzalez race, it's not even clear that Gonzalez would have made the November election under Farrell's proposal. That year, Gonzalez qualified for the December runoff by only 3.5% (19.5% to 16%). And that was in November. In a low turnout September election, he wouldn't have fared as well and may well not even have advanced.

President Chiu's proposal at least wouldn't suffer from these defects.

Posted by Chris J. on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

To lead with "IRV was poorly made" just seems to much of a surrender. In fact, though IRV can and should -- dare I say will? -- be improved, it *is* better than anything else on the table.

I think you are wrong that IRV has eliminated any "burying the hatchet" impulse among Progressives, though I say that just as a voter who perceives IRV's encouragement for like-minded candidates to emphasize their similarities rather than differences.

Just my two cents.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 10:55 pm

I was correct 11 years ago when I opposed Prop A and I'm correct now. Progressives play nice with each other and are forced through IRV to play nice with their opponents.

The supercharged organizing opportunities in '99, '00 and '03 and the power brought forth afterwards represent increased capacity each and every time.

That capacity has since been squandered as IRV does not allow for that focused organizing in runoffs.

This is the worst of cootie based political calculus, my opponent supports it therefore I oppose it.

There are multiple reasons for progressive collapse, a major contributor is IRV.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 6:30 am

SHill's unwavering support is understandable - RCV is his baby, and they are calling it ugly.

Like the pet rock, RCV is a fad whose time has come. San Francisco is the last holdout - all the major cities that tried it more than once have repealed RCV. Time to stick a fork in it.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 4:21 pm


There you go again, with your signature "baby is ugly" and "put a fork in it" lines. For all your San Jose rose garden civic work, when it comes to politics you are an outrageous liar.

Take what you say here about the fork. Cities using RCV for mayor in a single round of voting include: the two biggest cities in Minnesota (Minneapolis and St., Paul). .... the biggest city in Maine (Portland)....the biggest city in the United Kingdom (London)... the capital city of New Zealand (Wellington). RCV ballots are used be EVERY voter in at least on governmental election (often the most important) in Australia, Ireland,; Malta, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and Scotland

The repeal cities in the US? A narrow loss in Burlington over the opposition of Bernie Sanders, Howard Dean, the League of Women Voters, but driven by lies (including yours in your videos), the work of a losing mayoral candidate who had outspent his opposition and tea party-type anger at the incumbent mayor over a scandal that emerged months after the election. A loss in Aspen (CO) after the key advisory vote lost by fewer than 10 votes and a relentless campaign against it by the losing mayoral candidate who had outspent her opposition. A loss in Pierce County (WA) after the Supreme Court restored the Top Two primary, making RCV redundant in many eyes, particularly with opposition driven by -- yes, you got it -- the losing county executive candidate who outspent his opposition.

Looking toward our future, the simple fact is that we need to figure out how to accommodate voter choice better than one-round plurality voting and two-round runoffs that have massive spoiler problems in the first round when many candidates run for a one-winner election. Whether that's going to be one-round RCV or two-round RCV along the lines of Chiu's compromise, I'll put my money on RCV being part of the long-time answer.

Posted by Election Wonk on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 4:43 am

“Progressives are pretty furious with Christina right now because she is working with conservatives and went back on her word,” Hill said.

Thank you for calling them what they are: conservatives. They hide behind the Orwellian newspeak word, "moderate" and then the BG's writers refer to them as "moderates" in their articles. Stop calling these conservatives "moderates." Just because they lie about themselves to hide and camouflage their conservative/right-wing agenda (and yes, there are right-wing gay people in case someone is confused), doesn't mean anyone else has to repeat their lies. (If enough people keep saying, people believe it).

And I'm not surprised at anything this CO has done. She's no "progressive" and I wish people would stop using the word. It doesn't mean anything anymore when most people use it in describing themselves. It's as meaningless as the word "moderate." These days, "progressive" usually just means a Dembot or Obamabot who continues to vote for and support the D Establishment status quo no matter what they do (and there's nothing progressive about that at all) while making apologies and excuses for doing so.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 5:40 pm

In San Francisco political journalism, how "progressive" you are depends solely on how closely you hew to the opinions of the Bay Guardian.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 9:25 am

If Florida had used Instant Runoff Voting in November 2000 for president, George W. Bush would not have been sworn in. Furthermore, Minneapolis (which has about the same population as Oakland) and Oakland are important cities that use IRV and which have not repealed it.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 6:36 pm

Really...the stuff about one state using RCV in one election and thereby Al Gore would have won. Maybe if Al Gore had convinced some more voters that he deserved their vote then they wouldn't have voted for Ralph Nader.

The Gore-Bush Florida situation could have just as easily worked out for the conservative. Maybe next time it won't be Nader. Maybe it will be someone like Meg Whitman as the spoiler ruining things for Marco Rubio or Rick Santorum.

And, here is some advice - stay away from using Oakland as an example.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 7:13 pm

Even if there is to be a separate runoff election, RCV is needed to make sure that the right candidates make the runoff. With plurality voting used to reduce the field, you can end up with a runoff field that doesn't include the main political currents participating in the primary election.

Probably the best-known example of this is the 2002 French presidential election, where the runoff ended up being between center-right incumbent Chirac and far-right candidate Le Pen, even though over 40% of the first round vote was for candidates of left parties.

Closer to home and more recently, we have the 31st Congressional District in this June's primary. This southern California district has a majority Latino population and more registered voters who are Democrats than are Republicans, but with four Democrats and two Republicans running in the top-two primary, the November election there will just have two white Republicans.

Posted by Dave K. on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 7:03 pm

...is irrelevant to this discussion isn't it?

I'm not aware that Prop 14 affects the Mayor's race and nobody here has proposed top 2 voting for the mayor's race.

Good candidates should be able to stand out in a crowded field. If they don't capture the imagination of the voting public then maybe we shouldn't tweak the rules to get them elected anyway.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 7:36 pm

As far as I know, no one is proposing to use for SF mayoral elections the "top two" system used this year for formerly partisan offices in California. None of the proposals made to reduce or do away with RCV in SF would always have a second round of voting, even if there is a clear winner in the first round.

However, using plurality voting to reduce a crowded field is a common feature of the "top two" system used this June and November and of the two-round runoff systems Olague and Farrell have proposed. That's what makes the perverse results like those in CD 31 this year relevant to proposed changes in SF elections.

Posted by Dave K. on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 8:00 pm

It's pretty much just like Top Two. you have to win more than 65% to avoid a runoff. Any interesting race will have a runoff, making the FIRST round in September less interesting to a lot of voters, which is why turnout is low.

That makes CD-31 race directly relevant, as people of color and Democrats were far less likely to vote in this June primary than white conservatives, which led to two white conservatives advancing. Split votes finished the job.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

Whichever proposal is backed by Scott Wiener, my new supervisor since redistricting boundaries changed, is the proposal I oppose. My general litmus test standard is to be against what he is pushing at City Hall and at the DCCC and at the Alice Club and wherever else he has his fingers in the pie.

Posted by MPetrelis on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 8:42 pm

Because like so many "progressives," you care more about personalities than policy.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 9:26 am

Low turnout September elections will be a guaranteed way to skew the electorate to be more conservative than San Francisco and more conservative than the November electorate.

Expect to see more etch-a-sketch campaigns if any of that happens. Talk about confusing the voters!

A plurality election in September will be a horrible way to eliminate all but two candidates. There will be many more exhausted ballots than with RCV.

Posted by GD on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 9:05 pm

I got an e-mail from Steven Hill:

Subject: RCV under attack – contact Supervisor Christina Olague right away!

A crucial vote will happen at the Board of Supervisors on July 10 to place a charter amendment on the November ballot to repeal ranked choice voting (RCV) in citywide elections and go to low-turnout September elections. Supervisor Christina Olague is the deciding vote, and unfortunately she is weighing whether to support the conservatives at the Board of Supervisors who are leading this repeal, or the progressives who are fighting it. It’s crucial that she hear from you right away with a simple message: HANDS OFF RCV!! NO to September elections!! (see sample message below).

So here's a sample message to give to Christina:

"Supervisor Olague, HANDS OFF RCV and no September elections!! Please keep ranked choice voting for all races, don't get rid of it for the mayor's election. We think RCV adds a valuable component to our democracy in San Francisco. As a voter, I like being able to rank several candidates, rather than being restricted to picking only one candidate. And it prevents spoiler candidates who knock each other off, like we just saw in the June 5 “top two” primary election where in numerous races too many Democrats ran and split the liberal vote, allowing Republicans to get into the top two. Also, remember: San Francisco recently modified our public financing system to address concerns in the mayor's race, like “zombie candidates” and too many candidates not being able to distinguish themselves. Shouldn't we wait to see how those changes affect our elections? If you feel like we need to make some change to RCV, then the best change would be to support Supervisor Chiu's amendment to have an RCV election for mayor followed by a runoff if no candidate wins a majority of first rankings. Will you support that instead of repealing RCV for the mayor's race?"

All the other progressives on the Board of Supervisors are supporting the Chiu amendment as the better alternative and a true compromise to the Farrell amendment. But of course the conservative supervisors are opposed to the Chiu amendment since their goal is to repeal RCV and institute low-turnout September elections. It is very strange that Christina is breaking from progressives on this issue and supporting the conservatives, but so far that's what she has been doing.

PLEASE CONTACT SUPERVISOR OLAGUE RIGHT AWAY and give her the message: HANDS OFF RCV!! And NO September elections!!

And please do it right away. July 4 holidays are right around the corner, and then the vote on July 10 will be upon us. So please send her an email or phone her as soon as you receive this.

Thanks, as always.


Steven Hill

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 9:38 pm

Well said!!!

Posted by Guest on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 9:46 pm

S. Hill is right! Don't vote for your own amendment! Show everyone that you are a complete mess who can be bullied by a few hundred people parrotting what Mr, Hill tells them to say

Posted by Troll on Jul. 05, 2012 @ 10:02 pm

From his recent writings, Steven Hill is not "a progressive," whatever that means now, and is simply using that term to marshal support to save his baby.

IRV was supposed to be a venue for eliminating the spoiler effect in partisan elections as Greens felt that liberals and progressives were avoiding voting Green for fear of spoiling the Democrat for the Republican.

It turns out that people did not so much fear the spoiler effect as they Greens tended to run wing nuts with no campaign organizing capacity that did not run real campaigns. There is much more to electoral politics than showing up with what you think are good ideas.

The whole IRV debate is one over winner-take-all single-member districts and the politically unrepresentative artifacts of that system. It has become an end in itself, an object of cultish veneration.

Each electoral system has its tradeoffs, pluses and minuses. IRV has more minuses for non-corporate politics in a non-partisan local election than pluses. There are no absolute statements to be made here, anyone who makes absolute statements on the benefits of IRV versus runoffs is lying.

The notion that we need to be economizing on the democratic process is a conservative argument that should be rejected by liberals, progressives and neighborhood folks.

As for Shill's politics, if he's arguing for the ECB to send Europeans into serfdom in service of UK, FR and DE bankster debt and is arguing to save money in local elections, then I think that we can conclude that his values are not coincident with those of San Franciscans who want our government to work for us instead of for big corporations, unions and nonprofits.

Posted by marcos on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 6:37 am

Here we go again; for some reason, Steve Hill, Rob Richie and others have suggested RCV is the way to go to solve all the ills of voting-oh if it were only true, but it isn't. I have stated over and over again, and I am beginning to sound like Hill and Richie ad nauseum, but RCV is not a good system to solve or manage our political problems. Hill and supporters state RCV will result in "progressive" winners-prove it? If it did this, why did communities using RCV, such as Aspen, Colorado,
Burlington, Vermont, Cary, North Caroliina and Pierce County, Wahington repealed its use after just one election and why are individuals in San Francisco and Oakland who would like to repeal RCV-because it just does not do what it is supposed to do. I will not say to San Franciscans when they should have elections, be it September, June or November, but RCV will not bring voters to the polls-it hasn't done so so far and I submit it never will. What is best system of elections? We Americans have been discussing this for 236 years and may discuss for a longer period than that-there is no perfect method and certainly not RCV-if you want a majority winner, the only way to do this is by way of run off. RCV does not result in majority winners. Good luck San Franciscans and whatever decision you make it will come from the voter. Tony Santos, former Mayor San Leandro

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 11:08 am

Tony Santos of San Leandro was a proponent of RCV until he lost his reelection bid for mayor in San Leandro's first RCV election. The Oakland RCV repeal effort (which whimpered away without gaining any traction) was led by supporters of big-money candidate Don Perata who -- surprise, surprise -- lost the mayoral election.

As for those other communities, read Election Wonk's answer above. Those repeal efforts were driven by -- you guessed it -- losing candidates with more money.

This is all very similar to the repeal effort in San Francisco. From the beginning the City's moneyed interests have pushed for the repeal of RCV: the Chronicle, the Chamber, etc. They were for RCV's repeal the day it passed ten years ago.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 5:12 pm

And again people are being trapped into thinking RCV (aka IRV) and two-round plurality are our only options. Yes, plurality is simpler than RCV, and yes, RCV has less of a spoiler effect than plurality, but it's not like we'd have to bite one bullet or the other. I'm amazed that Approval Voting, which has been brought up as a simple, yet superior alternative in board hearings a number of times, is not being considered as a way forward: http://www.electology.org/approval-voting-vs-irv

No need for a run-off, and no spoiler effect. Simple plurality ballots can be used.

Posted by Julian M. on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 2:02 pm

Wow. What a dumb idea. A candidate could lose even if more than half of voters liked that person as their top choice.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

This obsession with turnout is off base. 60% or so of voters get their ballots in the mail, and this is increasing each election. SF also voted in Saturday and Sunday voting which will come in the future. If people don't want to vote, no big deal. There are no barriers to casting a vote if you want to. I vote in every election. It's not that difficult. If you don't want to vote, that's your choice, I'm not going to loose sleep over it

Posted by Voter on Jul. 06, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

Seems simple to me, RCV eliminates the considerable cost of a September election that will have low turnout. Whether you are a progressive , moderate, or conservative, with RCV you won't have to decide between more than one candidate you support, instead you have 3 choices, more freedom of choice for all persuasions.
Logically, why would you want to pay for an extra election and have less choice in the voting booth? Don't repeal RCV!

Posted by Guest Jerry on Jul. 07, 2012 @ 10:11 am

I don't want to go over other things that have been well said above. I've been an RCV proponent for a long time, so needless to say I'm opposed to any kind of repeal. I think Olague is being pressured by the big moneyed special interests who agreed to back her.

What I do want to bring up, is an issue that no one touched upon so far. There is a whole industry of political consultants who get paid big bucks to basically manipulate the electorate. They DETEST RCV. The conservatives especially, but even many of the progressive political consultant types don't like it. They don't like it for two reasons.
1) They get less money for 1 election than if they had another 5 weeks to screw with us till the runoff.
2) They never have been able to wrap their heads around it. They never figured out how to game the system, because RCV is much harder to game. That's why you get "weird" results, like independent neighborhood based candidates sometimes winning over very well-funded, powerful politicians.

Left, right, and center, RCV empowers people, other than the political establishment and the paid hack industry that services them. That's why they hate it. Be careful about turning back the clock and giving the hack industry what it wants.

Posted by Greg on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

Well said. The hack industry to often finds hacks on the Board to do their hack work, unfortunately.

Will be interesting to see if Elsbernd becomes a political consultant next year, where he'd make more money without RCV.

Posted by Guest on Jul. 13, 2012 @ 12:42 pm

Approval Voting would address both sides of this issue. It's radically simpler than Instant Runoff Voting (and more resistant to tactical voting aka "gaming"), but at the same time it addresses the election reformer base, who want to solve the "spoiler" issue and feel safe voting for their favorite candidate.


Clay Shentrup
Noe Valley
Co-founder, The Center for Election Science

Posted by Clay Shentrup on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 7:44 pm

So if I really like candidate Jones but am also okay with candidate Smith do I approve them both? Because if I also approve Smith it might help him beat Jones, whom I really want to win. Don't I have to figure out if I want to go all in with Jones or hedge my bets with Smith. If so it is too much like poker for my taste.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 8:58 pm

crap shoot. and it gets further away from the broad input a voter can make with ranked choices. What we need are more ranked choices and perhaps the tallying system needs to be improved.

Posted by lillipublicans on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 9:46 pm

>"I agree with Troll, for once. Approval voting is too much of a
crap shoot. "

OK, I must have been wrong. Run with Approval.

Ranked Choice saying that 'Hey what we really need are people's 7th place choice is really embarrassing.

Posted by Troll on Jul. 08, 2012 @ 10:14 pm