- This topic has 11 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 3 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
It would appear to me that even if neither Cuomo nor Sliwa is prepared to drop out of the race, they should at least educate their voters on how to use New York City’s ranked-choice voting (RCV) system to ensure that one of them, rather than Mamdani, wins.
If they both truly believe that Mamdani would be a disaster for the city — and genuinely care about New York — there should be no reason not to cooperate in this way.
Here’s the basic math: Mamdani will likely win a plurality but not a majority of first-round votes. At that point, the lowest-performing candidate will be eliminated, and the second-choice votes from those ballots will be redistributed. If Cuomo’s and Sliwa’s supporters rank only those two candidates, whichever performs better in the early rounds will likely win in the final count.
Remember: you don’t need to rank every candidate — just the ones you actually want to see win, in the order you prefer.
So the question is: Do they dislike each other more than they care about the city?
There is NO ranked-choice voting in NYC general elections. The ranked-choice voting is ONLY for NYC primary elections.
There will be no ranked-choice voting in this election for mayor.
BOTTOM LINE: Most NYC voters will be CONFUSED by “Ranked Choice Voting”.
Ranked choice is in the primaries, not the general election. The Democrats are unlikely to ever agree to using it in the general election since they have many bad experience with Republicans winning, and ranked choice would make that more likely (cf: LaGuardia, Giuliani, Lindsay).
Ranked choice worked as planned (and described above), but to most Democrats, the “evil” candidates were Cuomo and Adams, and they were forced out/defeated. For us, the problem is that at least in New York City, the anti-Semitic “progressive” wing is dominant., and they want a socialist anti-business, and anti-Jew government (even if it was destroy property values and bankrupt the city)
What are you talking about? There is no ranking, and no rounds. This is first past the post. Whoever gets the most votes wins. If Cuomo and Sliwa get a majority between them, but split it so that neither of them has more votes than Mamdani, Mamdani wins, end of story.
This is why ranked choice is GOOD, and SHOULD be used for all elections. But it isn’t.
So bottom line:
Is it better to cast only one vote (probably Cuomo) or to vote also for a second-choice (probably Sliwa)?In New York City, primary elections are conducted using ranked-choice voting, while general elections use the first-past-the-post system — a plurality method in which voters select one candidate as their preferred choice, and the candidate who receives more votes than any other (even if not a majority) is elected.
No, square root, why would anyone be confused by ranked choice? It’s a completely obvious system, and if only we had it we would have a chance of avoiding the coming disaster. But we don’t. Anyone so stupid as to find it confusing shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
No, frumguy, if we HAD a second choice, then it would be obviously better to use it. We could choose honestly between Cuomo and Sliwa, and give the other one our second choice, and all would be well. There would be no need to hold our noses or to strategize. Just vote as we really think. But unfortunately we DON’T have a second choice, so our first and only choice must be for the non-Mandami candidate who we think will get more votes than the other.
I don’t know where so many people are getting this idea that there is ranked choice. When we voted on implementing it it was made very clear that it would only apply to the primary. And we all saw it work that way four years ago; how do people not remember?
A couple of years ago, chevra here discussed what will be the effect of rank voting. It seems that the partial rank-voting of NYC gets the worse result –
it encourages extremism during primary (and this election proved it), but
lack of rank voting in general effectively makes it almost impossible to out-vote the winner of D primary.[blockquote]This is why ranked choice is GOOD, and SHOULD be used for all elections.[/blockquote]
Ranked choice voting could work as intended, if the voters did their homework and researched all of the choices before voting, so that they could make intelligent choices.
My impression is that most voters don’t do that. In my experience as a poll worker, the duration that many voters take to mark their ballots indicates that they don’t even look at the choices until they get to the polling place.
Dovid > Ranked choice voting could work as intended, if the voters did their homework
this is what commies used to say (and will say again this time): communism will work except the people were not good enough.
so, in other words, as the voters do not do their homework, ranked choice does not work.
In NYC case, this seems like a rigged game – ranked choice in the primary lead to the commie Dem candidate, and lack of ranked voting in the general makes it almost impossible to unite opposition. Good thinking, NY-ers …
Overall, seems like re-running elections when nobody gets a majority is a better way.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.