| 
View
 

ranked choice voting

Page history last edited by Mike 1 month, 1 week ago

 

Ranked-choice voting is a better system for elections.

 

Reasons to Agree

  1. Ranked-choice voting ensures majority support.

    • Truth Score: High (verified by electoral studies showing it reduces the likelihood of winners with less than majority support).
    • Relevance Score: High (addresses voter disenfranchisement concerns).
    • Importance Score: High (promotes legitimacy and public trust in elections).
  2. It reduces strategic voting and allows voters to rank candidates honestly.

    • Truth Score: High (supported by case studies where voters feel free to rank preferences without “wasting” their vote).
    • Relevance Score: High (targets voter empowerment and engagement).
    • Importance Score: Medium (significant improvement for contested elections).
  3. Ranked-choice voting discourages negative campaigning.

    • Truth Score: Medium (some evidence suggests candidates appeal to a broader audience to gain second-choice votes).
    • Relevance Score: Medium (applies mainly to elections with many candidates).
    • Importance Score: Medium (focuses on improving political discourse).
  4. It allows for more diverse candidates and reduces barriers for third parties.

    • Truth Score: High (verified by research in systems with ranked-choice voting like Australia).
    • Relevance Score: High (expands voter choice).
    • Importance Score: Medium (addresses systemic representation issues).

Reasons to Disagree

  1. Ranked-choice voting can be confusing for voters.

    • Truth Score: Medium (supported by surveys showing voter misunderstanding of ranking mechanics).
    • Relevance Score: High (impacts voter participation and confidence).
    • Importance Score: High (critical for democratic legitimacy).
  2. It is more expensive and administratively complex than plurality voting.

    • Truth Score: High (supported by cost comparisons in states that adopted ranked-choice voting).
    • Relevance Score: Medium (affects practical implementation rather than the core principles).
    • Importance Score: Medium (significant for small or underfunded election systems).
  3. It may still allow for non-majority outcomes due to exhausted ballots.

    • Truth Score: Medium (depends on the frequency of voter exhaustion where ballots don’t rank all candidates).
    • Relevance Score: High (directly tied to the principle of majority support).
    • Importance Score: Medium (mitigates the primary advantage of ranked-choice voting).

B. Focus on Interests, not Positions

Interests of Those Who Agree

  1. Enhancing the legitimacy of election outcomes.
  2. Increasing voter engagement and satisfaction.
  3. Supporting diverse and independent candidates.

Shared Interests Between Both Sides

  1. Fair and transparent elections.
  2. Minimizing voter confusion or disenfranchisement.
  3. Balancing cost-effectiveness with improvements in representation.

Interests of Those Who Disagree

  1. Simplifying the voting process to ensure participation.
  2. Limiting administrative and financial burdens on election systems.
  3. Avoiding unintended consequences, like ballot exhaustion.

Best Objective Criteria for Assessing the Validity of this Belief

  1. Increase in majority-supported winners.
  2. Reduction in voter dissatisfaction or participation gaps.
  3. Long-term cost-effectiveness relative to voter trust and engagement.

Underlying Issues and Root Causes

  1. Voter distrust in existing electoral systems.
  2. Limited representation of diverse political perspectives.
  3. Inequities in current first-past-the-post elections, leading to strategic voting and “spoiler” effects.

Associated Assumptions

  1. Voters will understand and effectively use ranked-choice voting.
  2. Election systems can handle the additional administrative complexity.
  3. Ranked-choice voting will reduce polarization and improve candidate diversity.

Potential Solutions

  1. Implement voter education campaigns to minimize confusion.

    • Cost/Benefit Ratio: High benefit, medium cost.
    • Likelihood of Meeting Interests: High (directly addresses voter comprehension).
  2. Adopt ranked-choice voting incrementally in local or state elections.

    • Cost/Benefit Ratio: High benefit, medium cost.
    • Likelihood of Acceptance: Moderate (depends on political will and public support).
  3. Use hybrid systems, such as ranked-choice for primaries and plurality for general elections.

    • Cost/Benefit Ratio: Medium benefit, low cost.
    • Likelihood of Acceptance: High (eases transition and complexity concerns).

Alternative Ways of Saying the Same Thing

  1. “Ranked-choice voting empowers voters to express their true preferences.”
  2. “Majority-supported winners are essential for a legitimate democracy.”
  3. “Electoral reform is needed to promote diverse candidates and fair elections.”

Most Likely & Significant Benefits

  1. Increased voter satisfaction through better representation.
  2. Decreased polarization and improved political discourse.
  3. Greater legitimacy of election outcomes.

Most Likely & Significant Costs

  1. Initial implementation costs for election infrastructure.
  2. Potential for lower voter turnout due to confusion.
  3. Complexity in recounts and legal challenges.

Supporting Media

  • Books: Why Elections Matter by Peter J. Miller.
  • Movies: Represent (2020) – explores diverse candidates in politics.
  • Podcasts: FiveThirtyEight Politics Podcast – Ranked-Choice Voting Edition.

Key Obstacles Between Parties Preventing Resolution

  1. Resistance to change among political incumbents benefiting from first-past-the-post.
  2. Public misunderstanding or mistrust of new voting systems.
  3. Lack of resources for comprehensive implementation.

Strategies to Encourage Cost-Benefit Analysis and Conflict Resolution

  1. Use pilot programs to demonstrate the benefits and address concerns.
  2. Focus on shared interests, such as reducing voter dissatisfaction.
  3. Offer phased implementations with cost-sharing strategies to mitigate expense concerns.

Score:

  • Reasons to agree (A): 4
  • Reasons to disagree (D): 3
  • Reasons to agree with reasons to agree (AA): 3
  • Reasons to agree with reasons to disagree (AD): 1
  • Reasons to disagree with reasons to disagree (DD): 2

Total Idea Score: A−D+AA−AD+DD=4−3+3−1+2=5A - D + AA - AD + DD = 4 - 3 + 3 - 1 + 2 = 5


Price per belief stock: $1.05 per share (subject to updates as evidence and arguments evolve).

 

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.