They need to have enough ballots to be sure they don't prematurely eliminate candidates and tabulate ranks the the wrong people advancing. This happens with provisional results in Australia from time to time and they just shift over, but I think Americans would go apeshit if it happened here.
Meaning it is allowing postmarked ballots to be received days after the election and wanting to ensure every ballot is counted first that delays the reassigning of votes, right?
Maybe, I'm not in the weeds enough of election admin to say for sure. I again think this is broadly fine and Australian media will have multiple "seats in doubt/[X PARTY] leading" for weeks later and I think it's largely accepted except for the "sovereign citizens" in psychosis.
⬆️"The issue is just that they can’t start re-assigning votes until they’ve counted all or nearly all of the ballots once already."
Exactly! Americans are addicted to instant gratification and there is an elaborate political infrastructure devoted to figuring out ASAP when the "winner" becomes inevitable.
Just look at how quickly lopsided races get called. Abigail Spanberger was declared the winner within an hour after the polls closed in VA.
I never realized that Republicans had so much animus towards rank choice voting. Is that because, in general, that they are more interested in winning than serving their constituents? I can definitely see how cross-endorsing a rival would not sit well with a typical Republican.
I'm in NC, so have no personal experience using it, but IMO it offers a better chance of avoiding a fringe candidate winning the primary because the "normal" voters split their vote between many candidates in a wide-open standard primary leaving the fringe candidate to win the most votes.
I know many activists in NYC through a virtual postcard-writing group and prior to the NYC mayoral election last year, it seemed like conventional wisdom had Cuomo being the top pick in the first round ballot. (IOW, without RCV they thought he would have won outright had RCV not been in place). This was clearly not the case, but they spent a lot of time handing out palm cards to explain ranked choice voting and the need to not stop at just voting for the top candidate.
Republicans are against ranked choice voting because they think that it hurts them in elections. This tends to be true because RCV tends to benefit more moderate candidates.
I will vote for Warmington, but she's a bad candidate, and it's a major indictment of the NH Democratic Party leadership that they were unable to recruit anyone better. The NH Dems definitely need new leadership, especially since NH is one of the few states where Romney/Biden voters still mostly vote Republican in state-level elections. And since state Dems aren't getting the Obama/Trump voters either, we're not winning elections, since we need at least one of those groups of voters to win.
well put, as much as hassan isn't my ideal picture of a senator, it's high time the party recruit someone like her or lynch as a check on that crazy stat legislature
Do anyone know why it takes so much longer to tabulate the results from ranked choice voting?
To me it seems like a process that computers should be able to calculate immediately once all the information from individual ballots is uploaded.
I ask because the delay of knowing the result is one of the flaws stated in IL to not introduce ranked choice voting.
They need to have enough ballots to be sure they don't prematurely eliminate candidates and tabulate ranks the the wrong people advancing. This happens with provisional results in Australia from time to time and they just shift over, but I think Americans would go apeshit if it happened here.
Meaning it is allowing postmarked ballots to be received days after the election and wanting to ensure every ballot is counted first that delays the reassigning of votes, right?
Maybe, I'm not in the weeds enough of election admin to say for sure. I again think this is broadly fine and Australian media will have multiple "seats in doubt/[X PARTY] leading" for weeks later and I think it's largely accepted except for the "sovereign citizens" in psychosis.
The issue is just that they can’t start re-assigning votes until they’ve counted all or nearly all of the ballots once already.
⬆️"The issue is just that they can’t start re-assigning votes until they’ve counted all or nearly all of the ballots once already."
Exactly! Americans are addicted to instant gratification and there is an elaborate political infrastructure devoted to figuring out ASAP when the "winner" becomes inevitable.
Just look at how quickly lopsided races get called. Abigail Spanberger was declared the winner within an hour after the polls closed in VA.
I never realized that Republicans had so much animus towards rank choice voting. Is that because, in general, that they are more interested in winning than serving their constituents? I can definitely see how cross-endorsing a rival would not sit well with a typical Republican.
I'm in NC, so have no personal experience using it, but IMO it offers a better chance of avoiding a fringe candidate winning the primary because the "normal" voters split their vote between many candidates in a wide-open standard primary leaving the fringe candidate to win the most votes.
I know many activists in NYC through a virtual postcard-writing group and prior to the NYC mayoral election last year, it seemed like conventional wisdom had Cuomo being the top pick in the first round ballot. (IOW, without RCV they thought he would have won outright had RCV not been in place). This was clearly not the case, but they spent a lot of time handing out palm cards to explain ranked choice voting and the need to not stop at just voting for the top candidate.
Republicans are against ranked choice voting because they think that it hurts them in elections. This tends to be true because RCV tends to benefit more moderate candidates.
NH-Gov: Welp, congrats on another term, Kelly. That ad is brutal.
I will vote for Warmington, but she's a bad candidate, and it's a major indictment of the NH Democratic Party leadership that they were unable to recruit anyone better. The NH Dems definitely need new leadership, especially since NH is one of the few states where Romney/Biden voters still mostly vote Republican in state-level elections. And since state Dems aren't getting the Obama/Trump voters either, we're not winning elections, since we need at least one of those groups of voters to win.
well put, as much as hassan isn't my ideal picture of a senator, it's high time the party recruit someone like her or lynch as a check on that crazy stat legislature