Tag Archives: Ranked Choice Voting

Australia Election

As more states are considering moving to some form of ranked-choice voting, this weekend is a chance to look at the original home of ranked-choice voting — Australia.  There are certain differences between how ranked choice voting works in Australia and how it is likely to work in the U.S.

The big difference between the two systems is that, in elections in which Australia uses ranked-choice voting, there are only two election contests — each of which has a separate ballot.  Because there is only one race on each ballot.  There is no need for trusting computer programs to accurately read the preferences and allocate them for the House of Representatives.  (The Senate uses single transferrable vote which is more complicated and does require computer assistance.)

Second, Australia does not have party primaries.  Candidates are chosen by party committees (which can sometimes backfire when the national party forces a candidate on the local party). and it is not difficult for small parties to get on the ballot.  In most of the states using ranked choice, they either have ranked choice for party primaries or have a “top four” primary with ranked choice reserved for the general election. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , Comments Off on Australia Election

Australian Politics 2022 Style (Updated)

International Election season is fast approaching.  Today’s post is on Australia.  As of today, we do not have an exact date for the election in Australia, but we are pretty sure that it will be May 7, May 14, or May 21.  Or to be more exact, we are certain that Australia will have a Senate election on one of those three dates, and are 99% certain that there will be a House election on the same date.

As with other countries, it is not that any one thing about Australia’s elections is unique.  It’s how these features combine that make it unique.  In this case, the issue is the different rules for Senate elections and for House elections.  For Senate elections, there are some similarities between how the U.S. and Australia structure the Senate.  In both countries, each state gets the same number of Australia (twelve per state in Australia with the territories getting two seats each), the terms for Senators elected from the states are six years (with the term for territorial senators in Australia being three years), and terms are staggered.  What this means is that, every three years, Australia has a half-Senate election (six senators per state and the territorial senators).  Unlike the U.S. there is no set date for a Senate election.  Instead, it can be called for any time in the last year of the term (although the winners do not take office until the new term begins).  As the new term begins on July 1, the last possible date to hold the election (and be certain that the results will be finalized) is May 21.  And, at this point in time, even if the election were called the second that this post goes live, the earliest that the election could be held would be May 7 (but if the election is not called by Monday, that date would no longer be available).

On the other hand, while there are some similarities with the U.S. House, the Australian House is more like the Canadian House.  The House is composed of districts (Division in Australia) which are apportioned to the states based on population.  Like the U.S. House, there is a minimum number of Divisions (five) per state.  Currently, the only state which gets extra seats under this rule is Tasmania.  Unlike the U.S., which only reapportions every ten years, in Australia, this reapportionment occurs after every House election.  If a state’s total number of seats changes, or any districts (called Divisions in Australia) are too large or small (i.e. outside the permitted deviation) or seven years has passed since the last time that the lines have been redrawn, a non-partisan committee of civil servants redraws the lines for that State.  Australia’s term length for the House is three years — exactly in the middle between Canada and the U.S.  However, like in Canada, that term is only the maximum term, and the government can call an election early. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections | Also tagged , Comments Off on Australian Politics 2022 Style (Updated)

Election Night Preview — Part 7 (Referendums)

The first six posts in this series have focused mostly on federal elections with a handful of Governor’s races.  Of course, there are also state legislative races, some local (mostly county) races, and referendums.

While I am sure that somebody has a complete list of every local bond issue or city charter issue, this post will focus on the state-wide issues.  More specifically, this post will focus primarily on the changes that will make structural changes to the political system.  It’s not that votes on legalization of marijuana or changes to the criminal justice system are unimportant, it’s just that many of these referendums are the results of the failure of the elected politicians to address these issues.  and it’s the structural changes that may (or may not) make legislatures more responsive to these types of issues.

Several states are considering changes to the structure of elections  In Massachusetts, voters will have the option of following in Maine’s footsteps by adopting ranked-choice voting for most state and federal elections (except for President). Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 General Election | Also tagged , , , , , , , , , Comments Off on Election Night Preview — Part 7 (Referendums)

Delegate Math 2020 — Alaska (Updated)

With things somewhat up in the air about Wisconsin, Alaska is the next state to complete its voting.  Alaska is one of the states that moved from a caucus to a party-run primary since the last cycle.  In response to Covid-19, the Alaska Democratic Party has moved to a vote-by-mail election.  Ballots are supposed to be received by April 10, and the state party will release the results on April 11.

Alaska is using a ranked-choice ballot with candidates being eliminated (starting with the candidate with the least votes) until all of the remaining candidates are viable.  With only two candidates still running, even if some small segment of voters who voted early have another candidate as their first choice, the final count after preferences are distributed should leave only Senator Sanders and Vice-President Biden with votes on the final count.  Under the rules for the primary, because only viable candidates will be left in the final count, there is no difference between the final total votes and qualified votes.

What makes delegate math unusual in Alaska is the fact that it is a single-district state.  Under the rules, the allocation of delegates is calculated separately for each of the three pools, but the state-wide results are used to allocate all three pools.  The fact that the pools are calculated separately gives a different result than if all the delegates were allocated as one pool. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Delegate Count, Delegates, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , Comments Off on Delegate Math 2020 — Alaska (Updated)

Ranked Choice Voting and the Primaries

As the year comes to a close, we are approximately five weeks from the first votes of the 2020 election.  This post is to highlight one of the new features of this election — that several states will be using ranked choice voting.  (As described further below, Nevada will be using ranked-choice voting to allow early voters to participate in the caucuses.   Alaska, Hawaii, Kansas, and Wyoming will be using ranked-choice voting in a party-run primary.  Maine will be using ranked-choice voting in a state-run primary.)

In the past, we have had something similar to ranked choice voting in some of the caucus states.  Typically, many of the caucus states allow attendees to realign after the first vote if their preferred candidate does not receive enough votes to qualify for a delegate.  Of course, when this process occurs at a caucus, the attendees have some idea of where the candidates currently stand and have the ability to negotiate delegate slots in exchange for moving as a bloc.  (Even at the handful of remaining caucus, the ability to make deals will be greatly reduced.  In the past, it was possible — for example — for Richardson supporters to move to Edwards in exchange for a pledge that one of the delegate slots would go to a Richardson supporter who would be a free agent at the county convention.  Under the new rules, the national delegate allocations are locked after the precinct convention significantly reducing the value of such delegate deals.)

Ranked choice voting requires voters to decide in advance whom they would support if their candidate is not viable.  For the most part, there has not been large support for moving to ranked choice voting in general elections in this country.  For a variety of reasons, the two major parties are more dominant in the U.S. than in most other countries.  (For example, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia all held parliamentary elections last year.  In those elections, the two main parties had a combined vote total of 67-76% of the vote.  By contrast, in the 2018 house elections, the two main parties had over 98% of the vote.  Even at the low point of the 1992 election, the two main parties combined for over 80% of the vote.)  The absence of significant votes for third-party candidates means that — most of the time — the winning candidate in U.S. elections gets a majority of the vote in their district.  (Again for comparison, in the 2019 elections abroad, the winning candidate only had a plurality in about one-third of the districts in the United Kingdom, and about two-thirds of the districts in Canada and Australia.  By contrast, combining the House, the Senate, and state-wide races, the winning candidate in the 2018 elections in the U.S. only had a plurality in 28 contests — less than five percent of the races. ) Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, Primary Elections | Also tagged , , , , , Comments Off on Ranked Choice Voting and the Primaries

2020 Delegate Selection Plans

While it has taken some time to get plans from all of the states and territories, it appears that all of the delegate selection plans for 2020 have now been sent to the Rules and By-laws Committee (you may remember them from 2008) for review.  One of the key issues for this current set of plans has been how many caucus states there will be for 2020.

Caucuses have been a catch 22 for both sides of the establishment vs. activist debate.  On the one hand, the caucus system rewards organization which — at least in the past — gave an edge to the establishment.  On the other hand, in recent cycles, caucuses reward the candidates with the most enthusiastic supporters — which has tended to be the candidates supported by grass roots progressive activists.  On the third hand, the advantage for the activists come from a system that puts obstacles in the place of broad participation — so, while that system, benefits progressive activists, the basic structure is contrary to some basic principles that progressives hold.   As a result, the rules changes after the 2016 cycle were definitely designed to promote movement away from caucuses and to encourage those that remained to take steps to increase participation, and those changes have had an effect.

In 2016, thirty-seven states and two territories (D.C. and Puerto Rico) had government-run primaries.  Democrats Abroad had a party-run primary.  Finally, thirteen states and four territories held a variation on a caucus — some more open than others. Continue Reading...

Posted in 2020 Convention, 2020DNC, Delegates | Also tagged , , Comments Off on 2020 Delegate Selection Plans

Ranked Choice Voting and the Senate

Earlier today, DocJess posted the first Sunday with the Senators of this cycle.  I am posting this follow-up on the weird features of Maine election law that could determine whether there is a Democratic majority in 2020.

In Maine, for federal elections, there is ranked choice voting — both for the general election and the primary.  While we do not yet know the full list of candidates who will be running in 2020, my hunch is that ranked choice voting probably hurts Senator Collins in the primary but may help her in the general election.

My thinking behind this is that a multi-candidate primary field would make it difficult for any candidate to get more first choice votes than Senator Collins.  However, I think that most of the primary challenge to Senator Collins will be from candidates who do not think that she is loyal to the new LePage-Trump version of the Republican Party and see her as a RINO.  The voters who support these candidates are likely to rank Senator Collins last among their choices.  So if Senator Collins only got 45% or so of the first choice votes, there would be a decent chance (assuming that everybody ranked the entire field) that the strongest of her opponents would pass her once all preferences are distributed.  A primary loss by Senator Collins would move the Maine Senate race from lean Republican to likely Democrat. Continue Reading...

Posted in Elections, Primary Elections, Senate | Also tagged , , 1 Comment