This scheme was not about the validity of votes cast, it assumes the same interpretation of intention on the ballot marking.

And this is only one of the ways they manipulate elections. It's ends-justifies-the-means power grabbing all the way down -- from voting to disrupting congressional hearings to violating free speech to harassment by thugs and more. This worsening, ugly trend from the radical left controlling the Democrat Party is increasingly frightening. Republicans, especially those focusing on voting strategy analysis, is well aware of the trend in manipulation, but don't know what to do. They haven't even been able to effectively counter the lefts' accusations of "voter suppression" as requirements for legal voter registration.

That was my first impression.

Like all things political it will be misused. I think the people will do the opposite and only vote R/D in the future.
Besides, who says the alternative candidates approved whom their votes went to, we might see the opposite here too. alternative candidates joining the mainstream parties.
I'd be pissed as a libertarian if my votes went to a demoncrap because they were the second choice of the voters.

The convoluted part is the “reallocation”. The proper way to do this is to do a runoff among the top, say, three choices. Removing candidates would, by definition, alter how people would rank among the choices they have. Removing candidates from consideration is essentially a different ballot. To do anything short of returning said new ballot to the voters is manipulating the ballots.

Consider a functional alternative: a majority requirement but if nobody gets a majority you merge “libertarian” candidate votes into Republican candidate, and Green to Democrat. People would rightly and loudly howl about this. Yet it is what they are doing when they “reallocate” votes. There is no way to definitely just remove a candidate and shift votes upward. While it may sound far fetched the reality is that people can and do choose a different rank order when you remove a higher ranked candidate. Hell, we do it when lower ranked choices are removed.

If you really wanted to avoid a runoff under the describe system the less-bad option is to assign points to all ranks and tally points rather than votes. Still worse than a simple runoff.

Oh and NOTA should always be an option. If NOTA wins, hold a new election and those on the ballot that NOTA won on are ineligible.

The system was initiated by progressives who did not want their votes split, allowing their opposition to win with the most votes. If someone does not want to waste his vote on a fringe candidate who cannot win then he shouldn't waste his vote that way. Voting is for selecting who will be in office, not making a vague "statement", and not for having it both ways.

The progressives want various radical candidates so badly that they have traditionally cast their votes that way; now they want an automatic do-over to keep coming back for the most progressive candidate they can get after they lose. These are the same collectivist activists who become hysterical over voter id laws ensuring legitimate voting, which they call "voter suppression" (of the dishonest mob). The rights of the individual are not supposed to be up for grabs in any election, let alone made even more vulnerable to rigged elections schemes on behalf of collectivists.

The Maine 'ranked choice voting' was declared unconstitutional by the state supreme court for in-state elections because the constitution specifies the winner as the plurality of votes. But the court allowed the voting of Federal representatives to stand as 'ranked choice', as if the constitution was intended to make a distinction and to allow a voting maneuver that no one had ever heard of at the time the constitution was written.

The claim by the left that this 'system' of rubber choice voting is somehow superior because it requires a majority rather than a plurality for three or more candidates is propaganda by democrat socialists appealing to their premise of mob rule. Over half the people typically don't vote at all, and majority votes are still not a majority of the citizens. Nor does "ranked choice" allow voters to know what the alternatives are that they choosing between in 2nd choices. Nor is the mob "majority" the proper standard at all. Again, our rights are not supposed to be for grabs by some mob in every election, and this rubber choice voting scheme was cynically implemented for that purpose.

The irony (and the proof of intended corruption) in the theft of Polequin's win in Maine is that his Democrat opponent still did not receive a majority of the votes cast even under the new gimmick. The system takes into account that many do not select 2nd or 3rd choices by eliminating them from the altered counting in order to ensure an artificial 'majority'. http://www.themainewire.com/2018/11/j...

Polequin has sued in Federal court. The judge refused to issue an injunction against proceeding with the altered counting, but the case is still active.

Yes!

The more we have, the more we want. That’s just human nature. We have to live with others understanding that. Others attempt to scramble human nature for all humans.

Like getting your credit card to work in a store instead of handing the clerk an uninflated quarter. But computers have made much more complex activity possible and practical that could not be otherwise done all.

But this voting scheme is not from computers; in principle it could be imposed with any method of counting, including flying chads. It requires counting more than once, with different votes selected for the 2nd and subsequent passes. In Maine, small rural downs did count the votes manually.

I prefer a No Party system...debates to eliminate all but two candidates, ALL of which that have extensive knowledge of the constitution and the bill of rights...then we choose.

Oh, I must have been writing in my sleep...sorry, I am awake now...it was just a dream.

Even if a plurality is considered to be too small, it does not follow that this "ranked choice" reflects who voters would support if they knew who the choices were.

That was kind of my thinking as well.

At least for run-off elctions, where they are required, the voters know who is on the ballot they are choosing among in the run-off election.

There are no run-off elections in Maine because the state constitution requires a plurality to win. The rubber choice "preferences" are still prohibited for in-state elections; that they were permitted for Federal elections is an aberration even within Maine. https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...