WTF? Why would that even exist? Unless you want to screw voters.
You just answered your own question
from:
https://www.rankedvote.co. This is what happened to us in Maine with ranked choice voting.
pros and cons of ranked choice voting"The person with the most votes can lose
This critique relies on a person’s lifelong familiarity with plurality-based voting (most votes wins) to imply that ranked-choice voting can lead to “unfair” outcomes. l.”
. (my comment: that's exactly what was intended, and what happened!)
A data point cited as proof is the 2018 Maine 2nd Congressional Election.
This critique takes one of the main advantages ( my comment: advantage for what party??). of ranked-choice voting and casts it as a negative.
The Maine election had Bruce Poliquin leading in the first round with a plurality of votes (45.6%) amongst four candidates. He was leading, true, but didn’t command a majority. ( my comment: which meNs, "He won, with the most votes."). So, ranked-choice eliminations took place. 8.1% of the total votes went to candidates that weren’t viable ( my comment,
: the votes WERE vian
ble, there just weren't enough to make that candidate the winner.) . When those candidates were eliminated and votes shifted to next ranked-choices, Poliquin ended up with 49.5% of the vote, short of the majority needed to win (Jared Golden won with 50.5%).
In this case, ranked-choice voting worked as intended ( my comment: the intention was to steal the election, and it indeed "worked as intended"). The electorate’s preference was better represented ( my comment, "better represented"??? it was FALSELY represented.. Dem candidate Golden got votes that voters cast for other candidates. WTF???). and a majority preference was found ( my comment : meaning "stolen"). It just so happened that the majority’s preference was initially split amongst the many candidates in the field. ( my comment: and that result was unaccetable to dems, and was changed).
Democracy’s legitimacy and strength derive from two key concepts: consent of the governed and majority rule ( my comment: this is redefining the premise. VERY bad thing.). Ranked-choice voting is an approach that makes it more likely that the majority’s voice is heard. ( My comment, the person with the most votes wins. If the voter thought the 2nd candidate was better, more people would've voted for him/her....they didn't). All "viable votes" were cast, and the candidate with the most votes is supposed to win; but, as Stalin said, it is not who gets the most votes. It is who COUNTS the votes.)
This is significant movement in the right direction! While not perfect (no voting system is), ranked-choice voting makes it more likely that an individual voter's preference is represented in the final count. "
----------------
My comment: Fight ranked choice voting with every bone in your body. Use "straight line voting", and spread the word.
