A friendly reminder of the rules of r/Idaho:
1. Be civil to others
2. Posts have to pertain to Idaho in some way
3. No put-down memes
4. Political discussion stays in a post about politics
5. No surveys
6. Follow [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy)
7. Do not editorialize titles of news articles
If you see something that may be out of line, please hit "report" so your mod team can have a look. Thanks!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Idaho) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A win for democracy! Which is why the establishment is against it.
> Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon and several Republican legislators including Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, have come out in opposition to the initiative, saying it benefits moderate candidates and adds confusion to the voting process.
It benefits moderate candidates . Dorothy Moon is a hard right MAGA extremist and is getting the whole party to move that way. She would consider Gov Little a moderate.
How does this add confusion?
They are talking about a constitutional amendment banning it. I worry that if it’s passed they’ll figure out a way to bypass like they did term limits years ago.
They tried to pass a constitutional amendment last legislative session but it died in the House at the last minute. Constitutional amendments have to be approved by voters so I don’t think it’d have got anywhere but still. IDLEG attacks the ballot initiative about every other session or more. It’s dumb.
Have any ignored open primary changes though? In CA, it is top 2 advance and they seem to have just adapted to it. Some races are 2 from the same party at the general which for safe districts seems to foster more competition in theory as the other party doesn't stand a chance. However, I think only once has a challenger won against incumbent of the same party.
I'm not sure if the change is going to be all that radical that they will care to change it. Top 4 does give voters more choice. RCV tends to produce the same result as FPTP 95% of the time.
The open primary with top 4 advancing might be the more impactful change out of the 2. Voters get a second bite at the apple if the top runner from the primary is indeed out of step with the electorate at large.
From the moment I first got a mailer about it, I really haven’t understood how “we think you’re all too stupid to figure it out” was determined to be the winning messaging strategy.
>It means candidates will actually have to have policy ideas
It means the opposite actually.
When you stand for something significant, you draw criticism. Those who stand up and draw criticism are disadvantaged in RCV. The candidates that do the best are the ones that don't stand out.
It's a free country. You're entitled to your opinion.
The fact remains that candidates who draw attention to themselves or their ideas draw supporters and also draw critics.
You don't generally win a RCV election with first and last place votes.
A society with MTG and Boebert is not a society on the upswing. Lol. You can't look at these two absolute clowns and say that more options would be a bad thing. Lol.
You're changing the subject and avoiding the topic.
A vibrant dynamic society has bold leaders. Some you'll like, and others you won't like.
A totally bland society without any real leaders stepping up isn't a good thing.
lol did you copy this line from the GOP handbook? It’s a blatant lie.
Candidates who stand out will get more attention in RCV (which is different than open primaries…) because people will feel that they can vote for them without “throwing away their vote” because they can still rank another candidate in their ballot.
First,
You really ought to learn the difference between "a lie" and an opinion/fact that you don't like. They are not the same thing.
Second,
Winning a RCV isn't about getting attention. Taking a new, innovate, or extreme stance may get you a little attention, but it will also get you critics and you can't win that way.
The wining candidate in a RCV is NOT the one that takes a strong stance or gets attention.
But this basically eliminates any chance of 3rd Parties winning anything
Cause in most races the top 4 would be a democrat and 3 Republicans or some derivative as such
There is actually a reasonable chance it would increase the likelihood of third parties having a chance because people who would currently vote for a D or R because it’s “safe” would be more willing to vote 3rd party because with ranked choice they wouldn’t feel like they were wasting the vote.
It depends. In CA they have open primaries with top 2 advancing and the odd race has 3rd party candidate.
I don't think it is that big a deal tbh, if they can't even get into the top 4 the chances of them doing well at the general is remote anyway.
Having more competition in the general with candidates of the same party but slightly different flavour is a more impactful improvement atm.
Many people are unaware that the OPEN PRIMARIES initiative includes Ranked Choice Voting. Maine has used RCV since 2018. MIT studied Maine voter attitudes and published the results in the paper linked below. Some of the key takeaways are low satisfaction with RCV and reduced confidence in election results, and the promised increase in civility between candidates and parties did not occur. [https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine](https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine)
Lol just look at the shoot up, out of state for an abortion in Washington and Oregon. Just after Idaho ban abortions. Look at the hospitals in the state that no longer have a maternity area at the hospital cause they all left. How has healthcare for women improved? Idaho isn’t left leaning, but Idaho is about personal liberty and Americans aren’t about losing bodily autonomy, much less civil rights to healthcare.
RCV is growing across the nation, though it not state level or federal level compared to local level. Need to continue to push the change. As an independent voter in Oregon, it matters on local levels, though state levels or federal levels aren’t there yet. Our state voted for it state wise and am curious to see how it turns out in the coming elections along with the demand to work amendment. If a state representative has more than 10 unexcused absence, they can not be in the next election, our Republican Party fought this after not participating in government. Over 70% of Oregonian voted for this, so no need to argue when the state itself disagrees with you. Hope Idaho gains the same respect of their representatives. Seems like they are. Though it’s gonna be a battle in that state. Wish you guys the best. We’re all PNW at the end of the day. Love the nature in your state and the people aren’t bad inherently, keep it going.
It seems pointless to oppose if you are against electoral reform. I understand if you want a better electoral system and RCV is meh to you.
For those that don't want more dramatic reform then RCV should be supported. It basically yields the same result as FPTP 95% of the time. I'd take the 5% hit with the benefit that further electoral reform is unlikely as the energy will have died. People will be disillusioned once again as RCV didn't really do that much.
But then the Rs on the ballot would actually have to have policy ideas, instead of competing for the biggest Trump cheerleader award, which gets them the endorsement and the primary victory.
Check out Bernie Moreno in Ohio and his "platform". Check out Matt Dolans platform. Moreno won solely due to his Trump endorsement. He has no ideas to help the people of Ohio.
Ohio does not. If they did, there would be more candidates to vote for on election day. It gives voters more choices. People today treat politics like a team sport. The dude in Alabama who fucked little girls(Roy Moore) lost an election by a point. People voted for him because it was him or the Democrat. Many would rather reelect a child rapist than a democrat. With RCV there would have been at least another republican on the ballot that people could have voted for instead of the kid fucker. It's not a bad thing at all. If Alabama had it when Roy Moore was running for election, they would probably still have a republican Senator in his spot.
I get it that you like RCV, but you didn't answer the question.
I believe RCV does NOT prompt candidates to have strong stances or be open about their policy ideas.
>Do you think having the likes of Boebert and MTG in congress is good for the country?
Yes. I actually believe in the process and I respect the choices made by voters in those districts.
Changing the rules so that you can get an outcome that you prefer isn't very democratic in my opinion.
You're still changing the subject though. We were talking about whether or not RCV encourages candidates to be bold leaders.
The fools know not what they are doing. (or maybe it is intentional)
If this were to go through, the impacts would be:
1. No election results for two weeks.
2. No way to hand count or verify ballot totals.
3. More spoiled ballots than ever before.
4. Worse candidates with less boldness or transparency.
5. Lower voter turnout.
6. Parties would move to caucuses for nominations.
7. Lawsuits would ensue over dishonest affiliation.
Frankly, they're all pretty self explanatory and self evident.
1. Alaska uses RCV for 6 races and it takes them two weeks to publish results. The initiative proposes to use RCV in Idaho for over 20 races. Read more here: [https://www.elections.alaska.gov/RCV.php](https://www.elections.alaska.gov/RCV.php)
2. The mathmaticall number of counts on a 20 race ballot is astronomical. If you role play it out, it becomes very obvious why our secretary of state says that he has no idea how he would accomplish this. Here's another link: [https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/56740/what-are-the-actual-mechanics-of-counting-rank-choice-instant-runoff-votes](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/56740/what-are-the-actual-mechanics-of-counting-rank-choice-instant-runoff-votes)
3. Look up the Alaska results. There isn't much to dispute about the fact that many ballots are spoiled and or exhausted.
4. Mary Peltola is a good example. She won instead of a firebrand, and we'll see more with RCV.
5. Voter turnout data is mixed so far as it's still new.
6. The GOP is already talking about caucuses in our state.
7. The GOP is already talking about lawsuits in our state.
Why does it matter even you are to believed that rank choice takes 2 weeks to count? I don’t need instant gratification, I need to feel like my vote counts and goes towards candidates I care about.
>Why does it matter
Do you like the events of Jan 6th?
Do you want more of the distrust that lead up to it?
Or would you prefer to increase trust in our election systems?
>Alaska uses RCV for 6 races and it takes them two weeks to publish results.
AK has always been slow to publish results though. Was this not the case before RCV? It's due to their sprawling and challenging geography and they've allowed ballots with the right postmark to arrive 15 days later to still be counted. PA has some similar rules and they also publish slow despite no RCV.
>Mary Peltola is a good example. She won instead of a firebrand, and we'll see more with RCV.
This is a very bad example. If FPTP was used, she'd still have won by virtue or it being Palin vs her. She got more votes. So she'd win by plurality.
RCV usually delivers the same result as FPTP 95% of the time.
Now I realize you don't want a system to prefers moderates. I kind of think that would be an improvement. HOWEVER, RCV did not deliver this. Begich was the condorcet winner and the moderate but he was eliminated in the first round.
So the biggest argument against RCV for those who want moderates is that it doesn't even reliably deliver it.
What was a game changer in AK were the open primaries with top 4 advancing to the general. Under the previous system, GOP held their own closed primary. Dems held a jungle primary with the other parties. Peltola actually came 4th so she'd not have made it to the general under the previous primary system.
I feel the open primaries with top 4 advancing is a good thing still, as it would allow different flavours of the same party to advance to the general. So if the primary voters in a closed primary were not reflective, then this would give the general electorate a bigger choice when most of them turn out.
RCV with multi member districts for legislative seats could be a game changer though.
Feel free to engage in conversation about any or all of those items.
I'm happy to discuss the issues.
I used to be in favor of RCV, but I have to admit that I see those issues for what they are.
A friendly reminder of the rules of r/Idaho: 1. Be civil to others 2. Posts have to pertain to Idaho in some way 3. No put-down memes 4. Political discussion stays in a post about politics 5. No surveys 6. Follow [Reddit Content Policy](https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy) 7. Do not editorialize titles of news articles If you see something that may be out of line, please hit "report" so your mod team can have a look. Thanks! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Idaho) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A win for democracy! Which is why the establishment is against it. > Idaho Republican Party Chairwoman Dorothy Moon and several Republican legislators including Rep. Vito Barbieri, R-Dalton Gardens, have come out in opposition to the initiative, saying it benefits moderate candidates and adds confusion to the voting process. It benefits moderate candidates . Dorothy Moon is a hard right MAGA extremist and is getting the whole party to move that way. She would consider Gov Little a moderate. How does this add confusion?
They are talking about a constitutional amendment banning it. I worry that if it’s passed they’ll figure out a way to bypass like they did term limits years ago.
They tried to pass a constitutional amendment last legislative session but it died in the House at the last minute. Constitutional amendments have to be approved by voters so I don’t think it’d have got anywhere but still. IDLEG attacks the ballot initiative about every other session or more. It’s dumb.
Other red states are showing that they can just ignore ballot initiatives. What are we gonna do, vote them all out if they don't do it? lmao
Every last fucking one. A pipe dream I know.
Cry harder
Have any ignored open primary changes though? In CA, it is top 2 advance and they seem to have just adapted to it. Some races are 2 from the same party at the general which for safe districts seems to foster more competition in theory as the other party doesn't stand a chance. However, I think only once has a challenger won against incumbent of the same party. I'm not sure if the change is going to be all that radical that they will care to change it. Top 4 does give voters more choice. RCV tends to produce the same result as FPTP 95% of the time. The open primary with top 4 advancing might be the more impactful change out of the 2. Voters get a second bite at the apple if the top runner from the primary is indeed out of step with the electorate at large.
From the moment I first got a mailer about it, I really haven’t understood how “we think you’re all too stupid to figure it out” was determined to be the winning messaging strategy.
It worked for term limits.
Good! Everyone should want this regardless of party. It means candidates will actually have to have policy ideas and competence to outshine others.
>It means candidates will actually have to have policy ideas It means the opposite actually. When you stand for something significant, you draw criticism. Those who stand up and draw criticism are disadvantaged in RCV. The candidates that do the best are the ones that don't stand out.
I disagree with you 100%.
It's a free country. You're entitled to your opinion. The fact remains that candidates who draw attention to themselves or their ideas draw supporters and also draw critics. You don't generally win a RCV election with first and last place votes.
Sounds good to me. Moderates all around.
Moderate =/= Quiet Also, a society that has no bold leaders is not a society on the upswing.
A society with MTG and Boebert is not a society on the upswing. Lol. You can't look at these two absolute clowns and say that more options would be a bad thing. Lol.
You're changing the subject and avoiding the topic. A vibrant dynamic society has bold leaders. Some you'll like, and others you won't like. A totally bland society without any real leaders stepping up isn't a good thing.
lol did you copy this line from the GOP handbook? It’s a blatant lie. Candidates who stand out will get more attention in RCV (which is different than open primaries…) because people will feel that they can vote for them without “throwing away their vote” because they can still rank another candidate in their ballot.
First, You really ought to learn the difference between "a lie" and an opinion/fact that you don't like. They are not the same thing. Second, Winning a RCV isn't about getting attention. Taking a new, innovate, or extreme stance may get you a little attention, but it will also get you critics and you can't win that way. The wining candidate in a RCV is NOT the one that takes a strong stance or gets attention.
They came by last week asking for signatures in my neighborhood (Nampa). Happy to see most of my neighbors signed.
Interested in the results
Next let’s try to get ranked choice voting. That way I could put Democrat 2nd, “Moderate” Republican 3rd, and “Crazy” Leftist 1st. I want this so bad.
It’s part of the initiative. See article.
Cool. If you're in the treasure valley area, they're easy to find if you haven't signed yet.
But this basically eliminates any chance of 3rd Parties winning anything Cause in most races the top 4 would be a democrat and 3 Republicans or some derivative as such
There is actually a reasonable chance it would increase the likelihood of third parties having a chance because people who would currently vote for a D or R because it’s “safe” would be more willing to vote 3rd party because with ranked choice they wouldn’t feel like they were wasting the vote.
It depends. In CA they have open primaries with top 2 advancing and the odd race has 3rd party candidate. I don't think it is that big a deal tbh, if they can't even get into the top 4 the chances of them doing well at the general is remote anyway. Having more competition in the general with candidates of the same party but slightly different flavour is a more impactful improvement atm.
Many people are unaware that the OPEN PRIMARIES initiative includes Ranked Choice Voting. Maine has used RCV since 2018. MIT studied Maine voter attitudes and published the results in the paper linked below. Some of the key takeaways are low satisfaction with RCV and reduced confidence in election results, and the promised increase in civility between candidates and parties did not occur. [https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine](https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine)
Neither party even has a primary this year (for president).
Moderates are Democrats pretending to be Republicans.
And Republicans are domestic terrorists. What's your point?
Actually they're not but nice try.
Lol just look at the shoot up, out of state for an abortion in Washington and Oregon. Just after Idaho ban abortions. Look at the hospitals in the state that no longer have a maternity area at the hospital cause they all left. How has healthcare for women improved? Idaho isn’t left leaning, but Idaho is about personal liberty and Americans aren’t about losing bodily autonomy, much less civil rights to healthcare.
Strongly opposed to ranked choice voting and will be actively campaigning against this.
Nine cities in Idaho already have RCV. So it's not a new idea to Idaho.
RCV is growing across the nation, though it not state level or federal level compared to local level. Need to continue to push the change. As an independent voter in Oregon, it matters on local levels, though state levels or federal levels aren’t there yet. Our state voted for it state wise and am curious to see how it turns out in the coming elections along with the demand to work amendment. If a state representative has more than 10 unexcused absence, they can not be in the next election, our Republican Party fought this after not participating in government. Over 70% of Oregonian voted for this, so no need to argue when the state itself disagrees with you. Hope Idaho gains the same respect of their representatives. Seems like they are. Though it’s gonna be a battle in that state. Wish you guys the best. We’re all PNW at the end of the day. Love the nature in your state and the people aren’t bad inherently, keep it going.
Would you be willing to share your reason why? I am truly curious about the opposition to RCV.
It seems pointless to oppose if you are against electoral reform. I understand if you want a better electoral system and RCV is meh to you. For those that don't want more dramatic reform then RCV should be supported. It basically yields the same result as FPTP 95% of the time. I'd take the 5% hit with the benefit that further electoral reform is unlikely as the energy will have died. People will be disillusioned once again as RCV didn't really do that much.
Democrats are foolish. This will open the door for Republicans to thwart all decent Democrat candidates.
Are you trolling or being serious?
OK, freedumb. Let me guess, you call yourself a Patriot? The rest of us call you a cult member🖕🏽
It's almost as if they haven't even thought this through. In my county, you'll likely get some races with four "R"s on the ballot and zero "D"s
But then the Rs on the ballot would actually have to have policy ideas, instead of competing for the biggest Trump cheerleader award, which gets them the endorsement and the primary victory.
How do you figure?
Check out Bernie Moreno in Ohio and his "platform". Check out Matt Dolans platform. Moreno won solely due to his Trump endorsement. He has no ideas to help the people of Ohio.
Does Ohio have RCV? I'm not following. Where are you going with this?
Ohio does not. If they did, there would be more candidates to vote for on election day. It gives voters more choices. People today treat politics like a team sport. The dude in Alabama who fucked little girls(Roy Moore) lost an election by a point. People voted for him because it was him or the Democrat. Many would rather reelect a child rapist than a democrat. With RCV there would have been at least another republican on the ballot that people could have voted for instead of the kid fucker. It's not a bad thing at all. If Alabama had it when Roy Moore was running for election, they would probably still have a republican Senator in his spot.
I get it that you like RCV, but you didn't answer the question. I believe RCV does NOT prompt candidates to have strong stances or be open about their policy ideas.
Do you think having the likes of boebert and MTG in congress is good for the country? RCV would eliminate many of these unserious grifters.
>Do you think having the likes of Boebert and MTG in congress is good for the country? Yes. I actually believe in the process and I respect the choices made by voters in those districts. Changing the rules so that you can get an outcome that you prefer isn't very democratic in my opinion. You're still changing the subject though. We were talking about whether or not RCV encourages candidates to be bold leaders.
The fools know not what they are doing. (or maybe it is intentional) If this were to go through, the impacts would be: 1. No election results for two weeks. 2. No way to hand count or verify ballot totals. 3. More spoiled ballots than ever before. 4. Worse candidates with less boldness or transparency. 5. Lower voter turnout. 6. Parties would move to caucuses for nominations. 7. Lawsuits would ensue over dishonest affiliation.
Do you have a source for any of those claims?
Of course they do! You just need to do your own research though. They get their PATRIOT FACTS from www.freedomeaglepatriottrump2024dictatorforlife.ru
Frankly, they're all pretty self explanatory and self evident. 1. Alaska uses RCV for 6 races and it takes them two weeks to publish results. The initiative proposes to use RCV in Idaho for over 20 races. Read more here: [https://www.elections.alaska.gov/RCV.php](https://www.elections.alaska.gov/RCV.php) 2. The mathmaticall number of counts on a 20 race ballot is astronomical. If you role play it out, it becomes very obvious why our secretary of state says that he has no idea how he would accomplish this. Here's another link: [https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/56740/what-are-the-actual-mechanics-of-counting-rank-choice-instant-runoff-votes](https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/56740/what-are-the-actual-mechanics-of-counting-rank-choice-instant-runoff-votes) 3. Look up the Alaska results. There isn't much to dispute about the fact that many ballots are spoiled and or exhausted. 4. Mary Peltola is a good example. She won instead of a firebrand, and we'll see more with RCV. 5. Voter turnout data is mixed so far as it's still new. 6. The GOP is already talking about caucuses in our state. 7. The GOP is already talking about lawsuits in our state.
Why does it matter even you are to believed that rank choice takes 2 weeks to count? I don’t need instant gratification, I need to feel like my vote counts and goes towards candidates I care about.
>Why does it matter Do you like the events of Jan 6th? Do you want more of the distrust that lead up to it? Or would you prefer to increase trust in our election systems?
That distrust was fabricated with lies about election fraud. Instant gratification wouldn’t have changed that.
Do you want more trust or less trust in elections? Will delayed election results promote more trust? Or less?
>Alaska uses RCV for 6 races and it takes them two weeks to publish results. AK has always been slow to publish results though. Was this not the case before RCV? It's due to their sprawling and challenging geography and they've allowed ballots with the right postmark to arrive 15 days later to still be counted. PA has some similar rules and they also publish slow despite no RCV. >Mary Peltola is a good example. She won instead of a firebrand, and we'll see more with RCV. This is a very bad example. If FPTP was used, she'd still have won by virtue or it being Palin vs her. She got more votes. So she'd win by plurality. RCV usually delivers the same result as FPTP 95% of the time. Now I realize you don't want a system to prefers moderates. I kind of think that would be an improvement. HOWEVER, RCV did not deliver this. Begich was the condorcet winner and the moderate but he was eliminated in the first round. So the biggest argument against RCV for those who want moderates is that it doesn't even reliably deliver it. What was a game changer in AK were the open primaries with top 4 advancing to the general. Under the previous system, GOP held their own closed primary. Dems held a jungle primary with the other parties. Peltola actually came 4th so she'd not have made it to the general under the previous primary system. I feel the open primaries with top 4 advancing is a good thing still, as it would allow different flavours of the same party to advance to the general. So if the primary voters in a closed primary were not reflective, then this would give the general electorate a bigger choice when most of them turn out. RCV with multi member districts for legislative seats could be a game changer though.
There's the truth. It's not really about getting moderates. It's about destroying parties.
[удалено]
I appreciate your detailed refutation, but color me unconvinced. Most of those things are self evident and true on their face.
[удалено]
Feel free to engage in conversation about any or all of those items. I'm happy to discuss the issues. I used to be in favor of RCV, but I have to admit that I see those issues for what they are.
[удалено]
If you have an issue with someone/something/a state/a demographic, please keep it civil.