Ranked choice voting is no different from runoffs

Here in Georgia, the winner has to get a majority - 50% plus one vote. In the election for Senator last Tuesday, we had three candidates - Raphael Warnock (D), Herschel Walker (R), and Chase Oliver (Libertarian). Warnock won a plurality (the most votes) but didn't hit 50%; he is at 49.4%. Walker is at 48.5%, and Oliver came in third with 2.1%. A runoff will be held on Dec. 6 between Warnock and Walker, the top two finishers.

A Libertarian voter will have three choices - vote for Warnock, vote for Walker, or don't vote at all. This is no different from their options in a ranked-choice ballot; it's just slower. With a ranked-choice ballot, last Tuesday, a Libertarian would have voted for Oliver first, either Warnock, Walker, or nobody second, and the same choices third. The "runoff" would have happened automatically on Tuesday instead of making everyone come back a month later to do what they could have done already.

If Georgia elected its Senator with a plurality, then ranked-choice voting wouldn't work because Warnock would have won on the first ballot - but we don't elect Senators that way. So since we're going to have a runoff anyway, I don't see how ranked-choice voting would be any different. It's why ranked-choice is sometimes called "instant runoff voting" - they're the same thing.

Top | Newest First | Oldest First

windinhishair · 61-69, M

The major difference between the two is that ranked choice voting makes it less likely that a deeply-flawed or unlikeable candidate wins. If you look at Alaska, for example, where the House race has a Democrat, Peltola, and two Republicans, Palin and Begich, the two Republicans split the vote, but more Republican votes were cast than Democrat votes. But Palin is so disliked that when Begich's votes are redistributed, many will go to the Democrat over Palin, so Peltola will win.

View 2 more replies »

dancingtongue · 80-89, M

@windinhishair

The major difference between the two is that ranked choice voting makes it less likely that a deeply-flawed or unlikeable candidate wins.

Not necessarily so. The city of Oakland has used ranked choice for the mayoral race for a good number of years now. The first time around, the heavily-favored candidate fell just short of a majority. He also was a polarizing figure that was heavily disliked by those who didn't vote for him, so he virtually picked up no more second or third place votes. But the winning candidate wasn't the second, or even third if I recall correctly, strongest finisher in the first round -- she was few people's first choice, or even second choice -- but they had to go so far down the ranked choices she eventually amassed the most votes from far down the ranked-choices. Everybody pretty much agrees that she wouldn't have even qualified for a run-off let alone won a run-off and turned out to be a very weak mayor. In the current mayoral election you actually had coalitions of candidates -- vote for me first, but vote for so and so as your second choice and vice versa -- which smacks a lot of old style smokey backroom politics.

windinhishair · 61-69, M

@dancingtongue That's interesting, but that's a separate issue from the one I was talking about. In your example, the polarizing/disliked figure couldn't generate a winning hand, which is what I was referring to. Dipping down further than second or third is a possiblity to find the least objectionable candidate, but I would be shocked if that happens very often.

bijouxbroussard · F

@dancingtongue That’s exactly how Jean Quan won, and nobody claimed to have voted for her. And she wasn’t re-elected.

Pitchblue

I guess an x Football Player is just as qualified for Senator in Georgia as a man who was already a Junior US Senator. A compulsive liar vs a Christian Pastor.

LeopoldBloom · M

@Pitchblue Yep. They don’t care. Walker will be a reliable vote for Mitch McConnell’s agenda.

Pitchblue

@LeopoldBloom To the Republicans he epitomizes what they see as a Dumb N. He's been told what to do since he first started football as a kid. What time to go to bed, everything. Then there's the fact that Hershal is mentally ill. The excessive lies should be all people need to know about Hershal but just because he runs on antiabortion but has paid for a few himself doesn't get that message across to Georgian voters. He's got the R.

LeopoldBloom · M

@Pitchblue Yep. Stupid, violent, a bunch of abandoned kids he doesn't know about, good at sports, and will do what he's told without complaining.

walabby · 70-79, M

All voting in Australia is Ranked Choice. Works just fine.

OggggO · 36-40, M

Which is why it's also called instant-runoff voting.

Add a comment...