Education would be absolutely critical as voters will have a difficult time understanding the process as well as more conspiracy theories are likely to surface that need constant refuting like happens currently in Orange County with the Registrar of Voters. Voters need to understand that they must rank according to the rules or their ballot will be discarded, which of course is true but less complicated currently. In addition, they need to understand that their vote will be tossed out (aka "exhausted") if they don't completely fill out the ranked choices and the rounds go far enough to need those rankings. Without that understanding, a candidate will still win w/o 50%+1 of those who originally voted. Hand recounts are more complicated as well, needing separate piles repeatedly processed and counted vs. a straight one-time counting, fueling more conspiracy theories on how long it takes to count ballots, accusing that more ballots have to be mysteriously "found". I have no idea how to force people to be educated, though. Mostly, people will just show up or vote by mail, mostly ignoring instructions, and vote for a single person or maybe two. I can also imagine that complainers will object to a restrictive number of rankings vs. the ability to rank all candidates. It's also somewhat wishful thinking that some people believe the RCV method will coalesce votes in groups with common political party or ideology (I'm not suggesting that the poster believes this one way or another). Some will have their preferred candidate and refuse to select any more ranked candidates, with their ballot tossed out instead.
Most RCV systems don't require you to vote for a certain number of candidates, but they may have limits. So for example they would ask you to rank up to 5 candidates, but your ballot would not be thrown away if you did not rank all five. Like anything, it would be an adjustment for voters, but it doesn't mean it won't work. Other jurisdictions, including NYC, use RCV.
Agreed you don't get tossed immediately if you just choose one candidate. I may not have said this clearly, but let's say one is asked to rank 4 candidates. However, you only choose 1 candidate which is allowed. The candidate you chose then receives the least votes. If you had ranked a second candidate, then your ballot would proceed to the next round. However, if not, you get tossed at round 1 when the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. All of this assuming the top candidate doesn't get 50%+1 to begin with. In order for your vote to count to the very end of the potential rank rounds, one must have filled out all the ranking choices.
In general, I'm fine with RCV. Thanks for your insight.
Yes, that is my understanding as well. You have the option to rank more than one candidate, but you don't have to. In NYC it actually made the candidates more cooperative. Some of the candidates were teaming up and asking voters to vote for them as 1 and 2. Our "first past the post" voting system produces less than ideal outcomes and paired with jungle primaries, it makes for a lot of anxiety.
I hear you. When there is polling, the right thing to do is exit if way behind and throw support to somebody who can win. In local elections, however, when there is no polling? That is a hard call. Years ago when I ran for LBUSD Governing Board, there was a slate of popular men in town who kept telling me to drop because they "got this." I walked precincts, did every neighborhood meeting, got support from Taxpayers Association and Lincoln Club, as well as endorsements. Persisted and resisted the conventional advise. End of the day, I got the most votes in that particular election. So, sometimes absent polling--who knows?
Many candidates disagree with the statement that they should drop out if polling shows them way behind. They are indignant that someone would suggest it. Polling is also very expensive which is another blocking factor. If the race is prominent enough, some media conglomerate may commission a poll; these are the ones we call neutral. Regardless of who pays, when the polling doesn't go their way, candidates just attack who paid or ignore the poll.
It would be consistent with historical stats to believe that the poll is under journalistic embargo as it was at least partially funded by the LA Times. This restricts persons from examining the poll plus drives traffic and citations to the LA Times and their paywall. We will see when they release it. At this point, it appears that will happen after the primary.
The ego driven candidates that have NO chance of winning, but every change of making a viable blue candidate lose, need to put the greater good ahead of personal ambition. Look in the mirror and get real with yourself.
We need rank choice voting as soon as possible, just so everyone can stop freaking out about multiple democratic candidates in jungle primaries.
Education would be absolutely critical as voters will have a difficult time understanding the process as well as more conspiracy theories are likely to surface that need constant refuting like happens currently in Orange County with the Registrar of Voters. Voters need to understand that they must rank according to the rules or their ballot will be discarded, which of course is true but less complicated currently. In addition, they need to understand that their vote will be tossed out (aka "exhausted") if they don't completely fill out the ranked choices and the rounds go far enough to need those rankings. Without that understanding, a candidate will still win w/o 50%+1 of those who originally voted. Hand recounts are more complicated as well, needing separate piles repeatedly processed and counted vs. a straight one-time counting, fueling more conspiracy theories on how long it takes to count ballots, accusing that more ballots have to be mysteriously "found". I have no idea how to force people to be educated, though. Mostly, people will just show up or vote by mail, mostly ignoring instructions, and vote for a single person or maybe two. I can also imagine that complainers will object to a restrictive number of rankings vs. the ability to rank all candidates. It's also somewhat wishful thinking that some people believe the RCV method will coalesce votes in groups with common political party or ideology (I'm not suggesting that the poster believes this one way or another). Some will have their preferred candidate and refuse to select any more ranked candidates, with their ballot tossed out instead.
Most RCV systems don't require you to vote for a certain number of candidates, but they may have limits. So for example they would ask you to rank up to 5 candidates, but your ballot would not be thrown away if you did not rank all five. Like anything, it would be an adjustment for voters, but it doesn't mean it won't work. Other jurisdictions, including NYC, use RCV.
Agreed you don't get tossed immediately if you just choose one candidate. I may not have said this clearly, but let's say one is asked to rank 4 candidates. However, you only choose 1 candidate which is allowed. The candidate you chose then receives the least votes. If you had ranked a second candidate, then your ballot would proceed to the next round. However, if not, you get tossed at round 1 when the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. All of this assuming the top candidate doesn't get 50%+1 to begin with. In order for your vote to count to the very end of the potential rank rounds, one must have filled out all the ranking choices.
In general, I'm fine with RCV. Thanks for your insight.
Yes, that is my understanding as well. You have the option to rank more than one candidate, but you don't have to. In NYC it actually made the candidates more cooperative. Some of the candidates were teaming up and asking voters to vote for them as 1 and 2. Our "first past the post" voting system produces less than ideal outcomes and paired with jungle primaries, it makes for a lot of anxiety.
I hear you. When there is polling, the right thing to do is exit if way behind and throw support to somebody who can win. In local elections, however, when there is no polling? That is a hard call. Years ago when I ran for LBUSD Governing Board, there was a slate of popular men in town who kept telling me to drop because they "got this." I walked precincts, did every neighborhood meeting, got support from Taxpayers Association and Lincoln Club, as well as endorsements. Persisted and resisted the conventional advise. End of the day, I got the most votes in that particular election. So, sometimes absent polling--who knows?
Many candidates disagree with the statement that they should drop out if polling shows them way behind. They are indignant that someone would suggest it. Polling is also very expensive which is another blocking factor. If the race is prominent enough, some media conglomerate may commission a poll; these are the ones we call neutral. Regardless of who pays, when the polling doesn't go their way, candidates just attack who paid or ignore the poll.
Poll still hasn't been released by Berkeley IGS. We will see how long the apparent journalistic embargo lasts.
Current stats:
Bass: 34.97%
Pratt: 29.91%
Raman: 22.81%
Huang: 2.78%
source: https://results.lavote.gov/#year=2026&election=4338
vs. LA Times / Berkeley IGS poll (unconfirmed as the poll is still not released, apparently still under journalistic hold)
Bass: 26%
Raman: 25%
Pratt: 22%
Huang: 9%
It would be consistent with historical stats to believe that the poll is under journalistic embargo as it was at least partially funded by the LA Times. This restricts persons from examining the poll plus drives traffic and citations to the LA Times and their paywall. We will see when they release it. At this point, it appears that will happen after the primary.
The ego driven candidates that have NO chance of winning, but every change of making a viable blue candidate lose, need to put the greater good ahead of personal ambition. Look in the mirror and get real with yourself.
Here’s something to help ease the pain. Laughter is the best medicine! https://www.instagram.com/reel/DY49KJFojRF/?igsh=NTc4MTIwNjQ2YQ==
So far, I don't see that poll posted on the IGS web site, https://igs.berkeley.edu/research/berkeley-igs-poll, just quotes about it.