Ranked choice voting

Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"In October 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed more California cities, counties and school districts to adopt RCV. “I am concerned that it has often led to voter confusion,” he said,
“and that the promise that ranked-choice voting leads to greater democracy is not necessarily fulfilled.” In 2016, then-Gov. Jerry Brown Jr. vetoed a RCV bill, saying the system is “overly complicated and confusing” and “deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.”

https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2020/05/27/five_facts_about_ranked-choice_voting_492804.html

Is Ranked choice (instant run-off) voting “overly complicated and confusing”?

@metal-brain said
Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"In October 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed more California cities, counties and school districts to adopt RCV. “I am concerned that it has often led to voter confusion,” he said,
“and that the promise that ranked-choice voting leads to greater democracy is not necessarily fulfilled.” In 2016, then ...[text shortened]... voting_492804.html

Is Ranked choice (instant run-off) voting “overly complicated and confusing”?

No I don’t think it’s very complicated and more democratic than your vote being discounted if you back the wrong horse.

@kevcvs57 said
No I don’t think it’s very complicated and more democratic than your vote being discounted if you back the wrong horse.

I agree. Looks like California just had a couple of very corrupt governors. Since regular ballots get tossed out I don't see how it is more confusing with IRV. No voting system is going to be perfect.

Gavin Newsom should have been asked "relative to what else"? His excuse was very lame. Voters should hate him. He is corrupt as hell.

@metal-brain said
Here is an excerpt from the link below:

"In October 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed a bill that would have allowed more California cities, counties and school districts to adopt RCV. “I am concerned that it has often led to voter confusion,” he said,
“and that the promise that ranked-choice voting leads to greater democracy is not necessarily fulfilled.” In 2016, then ...[text shortened]... voting_492804.html

Is Ranked choice (instant run-off) voting “overly complicated and confusing”?

Can it be explained to someone with an IQ of 70? In the UK we have what is called "first past the post" which is easy to understand. With the various transferable voting systems one problem is that some people will be confused as to whether they should number their preferences 1 to 5 (or whatever the number of candidates) or 5 to 1. This will tend to randomize the result somewhat.

@deepthought said
Can it be explained to someone with an IQ of 70? In the UK we have what is called "first past the post" which is easy to understand. With the various transferable voting systems one problem is that some people will be confused as to whether they should number their preferences 1 to 5 (or whatever the number of candidates) or 5 to 1. This will tend to randomize the result somewhat.

So some people cannot follow simple directions. We already know that because of tossed ballots today. Nobody is suggesting getting rid of our present voting system though.

Vetoing a better system because some people get confused makes no sense if people are going to be confused regardless of the voting system. They are just making excuses to keep an inferior voting system in place that is convenient for manipulating people into voting according to poll numbers and suppressing the 3rd party candidates.

@metal-brain said
So some people cannot follow simple directions. We already know that because of tossed ballots today. Nobody is suggesting getting rid of our present voting system though.

Vetoing a better system because some people get confused makes no sense if people are going to be confused regardless of the voting system. They are just making excuses to keep an inferior voting sys ...[text shortened]... manipulating people into voting according to poll numbers and suppressing the 3rd party candidates.

It is a problem if there is an increase in the number of people confused by the ballot system. It should be as accessible as possible.

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument that PR systems are better. I've heard a ton of unconvincing ones.

Why do you think the least popular candidate ought to be given the best chance?

@deepthought said
It is a problem if there is an increase in the number of people confused by the ballot system. It should be as accessible as possible.

I'm yet to hear a convincing argument that PR systems are better. I've heard a ton of unconvincing ones.

Why do you think the least popular candidate ought to be given the best chance?

Best chance? How do you figure?

@deepthought said
Can it be explained to someone with an IQ of 70? In the UK we have what is called "first past the post" which is easy to understand. With the various transferable voting systems one problem is that some people will be confused as to whether they should number their preferences 1 to 5 (or whatever the number of candidates) or 5 to 1. This will tend to randomize the result somewhat.

Unfortunately it results in less than 50% of the popular vote obtaining a massive majority in parliament for one party or another whilst the rest of the voters are discounted.
Do you think that idiocy would result in a less democratic result under the PR system? What proportion of the electorate do you imagine vote for the individual constiuncy candidate rather than the colour of the rosette that they are wearing?