Fixing the Primaries?

[lpetrich]

Opinion | The Primaries Are Just Dumb - The New York Times - 2020 Feb 26

Any one of the candidates in the Democratic race would be among the most progressive leaders ever elected to the White House, so common sense suggests that a few contenders bow out, to clarify the choice and ensure that a consensus nominee can emerge. That would be welcome. But disarray has a way of keeping even the slimmest of hopes alive.

As the country learned in 2016 with Republicans, the primaries and caucuses are a mess, giving the illusion of a choice in a situation where in fact voters have just the opposite — no clear choice.

...
Single-winner elections do a poor job of winnowing a large field of candidates down to one who reflects majority agreement, and encourage the type of nastiness we’re seeing now, because it’s all-or-nothing for each candidate. And the winner of this process can be the choice of as little as 25 or 30 percent of the electorate, which is another way of saying that he or she was not the choice of up to three-quarters of voters.

This is no way to pick the person who will challenge a president — one who was himself nominated first by a minority within his party, then elected by a minority nationwide.

The author then gets into ranked-choice / instant-runoff voting. Each voter ranks the candidates by preference, and then a somewhat complicated algorithm is then used to count the ballots and find the winner. For single-winner elections, if no candidate wins a majority of top-preference votes, then the candidate with the fewest top-preference votes is removed from the count and the votes recounted with that candidate essentially deleted from the ballots. This procedure is repeated until a candidate gets a majority of the votes.


States AK, HI, KS, and WY will use a ranked-choice primary, where voters can list as many as 5 choices of candidate. But instead of a majority, the count will be stopped when all remaining candidates get more than 15% of the votes.

Polls consistently show high voter satisfaction with ranked-choice voting, and it’s no surprise. By allowing voters to express their support for more than one candidate, ranked-choice voting makes more votes count. By allowing voters to rank a personal favorite first, even if that candidate is unlikely to win, it eliminates the risk of “spoiler” candidates. And by encouraging voters to find something they like in multiple candidates, it fosters consensus.

The candidates respond in turn, by behaving more civilly and reaching out to voters beyond their own base. Running a negative, divisive campaign may pay off in a head-to-head (-to-head-to-head, etc.) election, but not in a ranked-choice one, where victory can depend on appealing not just to a core of supporters, but also to voters who might not be inclined to pick the civil candidate first.

Opinion | Rethinking the Primary System - The New York Times - "Readers react to an editorial in favor of ranked-choice voting and offer their own ideas for a better way to elect a president."

Two responders liked it and another one didn't.

 Comparison of electoral systems lists a large number of them with which criteria they satisfy or not satisfy. Like being spoiler-proof.

 

[Toni]

I think that the best way to improve primaries is to hold them all on the same day. I'm sure we all know (or may be) someone who says they really wanted X person but it was clear that they never had a chance so they're voting for Y person instead. Because of how X performed in a different state. Those who live in states with later primaries have choices removed from them because 'their' candidate didn't do well in Iowa. The way I see it, our current system is a kind of ranked choice voting, with only early states getting a full compliment of voting choices and later states getting to make the second/third/fourth round of choices with a smaller set of candidates.

Why not let/force people to make their honest best choice without regard to how other people will vote? I saw have all primaries/caucuses on the same day. Oh, and no reporting results until all the polls are closed.

Same thing with general elections: no reporting results until all polls are closed.

 

[Tigers!]

I think that the best way to improve primaries is to hold them all on the same day. I'm sure we all know (or may be) someone who says they really wanted X person but it was clear that they never had a chance so they're voting for Y person instead. Because of how X performed in a different state. Those who live in states with later primaries have choices removed from them because 'their' candidate didn't do well in Iowa. The way I see it, our current system is a kind of ranked choice voting, with only early states getting a full compliment of voting choices and later states getting to make the second/third/fourth round of choices with a smaller set of candidates.

Why not let/force people to make their honest best choice without regard to how other people will vote? I saw have all primaries/caucuses on the same day. Oh, and no reporting results until all the polls are closed.

Same thing with general elections: no reporting results until all polls are closed.

I have never understood why you Yanks allow the reporting of votes until all polling stations are closed.
In Australia the state of Western Australia is 3 hours behind the eastern coast. We enforce a strict embargo of results being released until polls close in WA at 6pm which is 9pm in the east.
This is to allow voters in WA to have a free, uninfluenced vote.
Yet you allow the votes out early which can influence voters is say, Alaska, Hawaii to not bother if they think their vote will have no value.

 

[Terrell]

I think that the best way to improve primaries is to hold them all on the same day. I'm sure we all know (or may be) someone who says they really wanted X person but it was clear that they never had a chance so they're voting for Y person instead. Because of how X performed in a different state. Those who live in states with later primaries have choices removed from them because 'their' candidate didn't do well in Iowa. The way I see it, our current system is a kind of ranked choice voting, with only early states getting a full compliment of voting choices and later states getting to make the second/third/fourth round of choices with a smaller set of candidates.

Why not let/force people to make their honest best choice without regard to how other people will vote? I saw have all primaries/caucuses on the same day. Oh, and no reporting results until all the polls are closed.

Same thing with general elections: no reporting results until all polls are closed.

I have never understood why you Yanks allow the reporting of votes until all polling stations are closed.
In Australia the state of Western Australia is 3 hours behind the eastern coast. We enforce a strict embargo of results being released until polls close in WA at 6pm which is 9pm in the east.
This is to allow voters in WA to have a free, uninfluenced vote.
Yet you allow the votes out early which can influence voters is say, Alaska, Hawaii to not bother if they think their vote will have no value.

1st Amendment. Freedom of the press. It's almost certain that if the government tried to block the reporting of results as they came in, they'd likely immediately be sued on 1st amendment grounds by every media outlet that wishes to report on it.

 

[Toni]

I think that the best way to improve primaries is to hold them all on the same day. I'm sure we all know (or may be) someone who says they really wanted X person but it was clear that they never had a chance so they're voting for Y person instead. Because of how X performed in a different state. Those who live in states with later primaries have choices removed from them because 'their' candidate didn't do well in Iowa. The way I see it, our current system is a kind of ranked choice voting, with only early states getting a full compliment of voting choices and later states getting to make the second/third/fourth round of choices with a smaller set of candidates.

Why not let/force people to make their honest best choice without regard to how other people will vote? I saw have all primaries/caucuses on the same day. Oh, and no reporting results until all the polls are closed.

Same thing with general elections: no reporting results until all polls are closed.

I have never understood why you Yanks allow the reporting of votes until all polling stations are closed.
In Australia the state of Western Australia is 3 hours behind the eastern coast. We enforce a strict embargo of results being released until polls close in WA at 6pm which is 9pm in the east.
This is to allow voters in WA to have a free, uninfluenced vote.
Yet you allow the votes out early which can influence voters is say, Alaska, Hawaii to not bother if they think their vote will have no value.

1st Amendment. Freedom of the press. It's almost certain that if the government tried to block the reporting of results as they came in, they'd likely immediately be sued on 1st amendment grounds by every media outlet that wishes to report on it.

But that’s silly. There is no reason that voting results must be released or even tabulated within an hour or two hours or four. It takes longer than that to tabulate votes from even a small precinct. I know this for certain because I’ve been involved in elections and vote counting (and a recount in a tight race) on a local level.

There is nothing that compels releasing totals or for people to talk to those conducting exit polls. That’s not freedom of the press.