Wouldn’t it be great if you didn’t have to vote for the least horrible candidate? If you could vote for who you wanted without feeling like you’re throwing your vote away?

If we had ranked choice voting, we’d have better legislators in office to start with. And if they used it in the speaker votes this could be resolved already.

  • Zoolander
    link
    English
    21 year ago

    They would be required to if the rules were changed.

    • @PunnyName
      link
      71 year ago

      You don’t have to have a ranking if you vote for one person once. You can’t “force” a person to vote.

      • Zoolander
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        Yes they can. They can 100% change the voting procedure to require a vote or an abstention. In a ranked choice vote, they can be required to rank all potential options.

    • @takeda
      link
      31 year ago

      Even changing rules to make speaker whomever gets most votes first would reduce this to single election.

      The problem is that Republicans vote this way out of protest and to force their choice on majority.

      If there was RCV they would simply do all this privately and hold vote once they got to agreement or were giving up.

      • Zoolander
        link
        English
        31 year ago

        That doesn’t make sense. They don’t even have consensus right now within their party to vote in a FPTP system. You think they’d be able to coalesce around multiple people, in the same order?

        • @takeda
          link
          -11 year ago

          The whole point of RCV is that internally it is equivalent of running multiple runoff elections, each time eliminating the lowest performer.

          Republicans right now can run as many speaker elections as they want.

          If they had a goal to conclude it then Gym Jordan would get more votes in every run.