Comments by "retnavybrat" (@retnavybrat) on "Can Ranked-Choice Voting Change U.S. Elections?" video.

  1. This way of voting could still work with the Electoral College. Right now, the candidate who wins a plurality of votes statewide (except in Nebraska and Maine) gets all the electoral votes for that state. The only difference I can see with ranked-choice voting is that the winning candidate for a state would have a majority of votes (50% + 1) as opposed to a plurality.
    2
  2. I call baloney sauce on Mr. Zimmerman's assertion that third party/independent candidates are "spoilers". The goal of any candidate, regardless of party affiliation (or lack thereof), is to try and convince the most number of people to vote for him/her. If she/he can't accomplish that, the fault lies with the candidate, not his/her competitors.
    1
  3. I wouldn't mind trying this type of voting, but I don't think it's the cure all for breaking up the Democrat-Republican duopoly. In my opinion, the major factor in third party and independent candidates not gathering enough momentum to have a realistic shot is lack of publicity. Although I don't believe in mandating media coverage, I think something should be done to persuade the cable news outlets, broadcast networks, etc..., to give as much coverage to third party/independent candidates as they do the candidates of the major parties.
    1
  4. I'm not opposed to making that law, but until that happens, we already have the ability to put term limits on any elected official. It's called voting.
    1