My read is that a first-choice-only ballot will count until that candidate is excluded or wins. Since there is no second choice marked, that ballot will not be counted in any subsequent rounds after the candidate is eliminated.
IMO part of the problem created by RCV is people start gaming things out, when jnstead they should be picking their best possible choice first. With gamesmanship, it is not clear at all that the winner truly represents the majority will, as they may have won only because they showed up down the list as “not my actual choice”. This process manufactures a choice by applying an algorithm that does not necessarily correspond to the will of the people. (Wherever have we heard of algorithms going wrong?)
I can understand your point, but what is the answer to the problem people face when they won't vote for a Ron Paul because they assume (and are repeatedly told by the MSM) he can't win and they don't want to split the vote to give who they REALLY don't want to win a better chance at it?
What is the answer to the problem that Ron Paul might win if everyone who really wants him would actually vote for him?
It’s a hard enough decision when only one pick is allowed, imagine the dysfunction with multiple rounds of picks where votes get reassigned representing less and less actual desire.
I'm back to voting for a single candidate once, regardless of the format
'math reminds me a bit of the Monte Hall door question (which btw is a great example of very technically astute people becoming entrenched and not wanting to see reality)
Ranked choice voting is an abomination, and exponentially increases the opportunities to commit and hide election fraud.
The other thing I’ll say, is:
“Congresswoman, I served with Abe Lincoln. I knew Abe Lincoln. Abe Lincoln was a friend of mine. Congresswoman, you’re no Abe Lincoln.”
if forced to RCV - quick question, if you only vote for 1 will it count?
My read is that a first-choice-only ballot will count until that candidate is excluded or wins. Since there is no second choice marked, that ballot will not be counted in any subsequent rounds after the candidate is eliminated.
IMO part of the problem created by RCV is people start gaming things out, when jnstead they should be picking their best possible choice first. With gamesmanship, it is not clear at all that the winner truly represents the majority will, as they may have won only because they showed up down the list as “not my actual choice”. This process manufactures a choice by applying an algorithm that does not necessarily correspond to the will of the people. (Wherever have we heard of algorithms going wrong?)
I can understand your point, but what is the answer to the problem people face when they won't vote for a Ron Paul because they assume (and are repeatedly told by the MSM) he can't win and they don't want to split the vote to give who they REALLY don't want to win a better chance at it?
What is the answer to the problem that Ron Paul might win if everyone who really wants him would actually vote for him?
It’s a hard enough decision when only one pick is allowed, imagine the dysfunction with multiple rounds of picks where votes get reassigned representing less and less actual desire.
I'm back to voting for a single candidate once, regardless of the format
'math reminds me a bit of the Monte Hall door question (which btw is a great example of very technically astute people becoming entrenched and not wanting to see reality)