Resolves to whichever candidate is winning the ranked choice comment vote by market close on election day. An iterative process is used, wherein the candidate with the least rank 1 votes is eliminated, everyone's rankings that included the eliminated candidate are moved up to fill the gap, then the candidate with the least new rank 1 votes is eliminated, until only one candidate remains. This allows voters to put as many obscure but potentially better candidates as they wish at higher rankings without fear of causing their preferred popular candidate to lose.
To vote, post a comment (or send me a DM if you're worried about privacy) including your ranking of candidates, with your top choice as number 1. Only your first comment that includes a ranking is counted, and only if not edited. You don't have to include all the candidates in your ranking. You may vote for write-in candidates not included in the market, as long as they are fictional characters who have been the US president in a work of fiction with a Wikipedia page. Votes after market close will not be counted.
Comments may also be used to advocate for specific candidates, joke around, ask questions etc without including a ranking.
1,000
3.00I vote for 1. Jed Bartlet
That's it
@JamesBaker3 thanks, I was starting to get worried nobody else was gonna vote 😅
Derivative market: will the winner in the final round have been ranked by a majority of voters? (It is another myth that this must always happen.)
@BrunoParga as in you think the winner might be someone who most people didn't include in their rankings at all?
@TheAllMemeingEye yes, it could be someone who a large minority, close to but not above 50%, voted for. (I'm not saying it is likely.) It happened in that terrible election in Alaska that I mentioned.
Maybe the chance is even higher when you have "incomplete" ballots, that don't rank all candidates (such as your own). Heck, it could happen that a strong majority of voters rank a majority of candidates, and at the same time no candidate is ranked by a majority of voters.
Proof: let there be 35 voters, each casting a unique ranking including 4 of 7 candidates, plus 10 voters who each rank just one candidate, no more than 2 for the same one. There are 45 voters, 77.8% of which ranked a majority of candidates, but each candidate was ranked by at most 22 voters, 48.9%.
"Summarise the political ideologies and competence level of each of these fictional characters in a few words: [list of candidates]"
chatgpt-4o-latest-20240903:
"
Certainly! Here's a brief summary of the political ideologies and competence levels of each fictional character:
Josiah "Jed" Bartlet (The West Wing)
Ideology: Progressive Democrat, idealistic, focuses on policy-driven governance.
Competence: Highly competent, intelligent, principled, values diplomacy and expert advice.Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho (Idiocracy)
Ideology: Populist, anti-intellectual, embraces spectacle and entertainment over policy.
Competence: Charismatic but extremely incompetent, reflects a dystopian, dumbed-down society.Andre Curtis (Rick and Morty)
Ideology: Not deeply explored, but seems bureaucratic and concerned with maintaining the status quo.
Competence: Incompetent, overwhelmed by the chaos of his job and the universe.Elizabeth McCord (Madam Secretary)
Ideology: Centrist with leanings toward diplomacy, pragmatism, and global cooperation.
Competence: Highly competent, detail-oriented, effective in solving complex international crises.Thomas Adam "Tom" Kirkman (Designated Survivor)
Ideology: Nonpartisan, pragmatic, focused on unity and rebuilding after a crisis.
Competence: Competent, though inexperienced at first, grows into the role with determination and integrity.Janie Orlean (Don't Look Up)
Ideology: Opportunistic, populist, and self-serving, driven by political expediency.
Competence: Incompetent, prioritizes personal and political gains over scientific facts.Lisa Simpson (The Simpsons S11 E17 "Bart to the Future")
Ideology: Progressive, environmentally conscious, and idealistic.
Competence: Competent, though portrayed as constrained by political limitations and a dysfunctional government.Francis J. "Frank" Underwood (House of Cards)
Ideology: Power-hungry, Machiavellian, devoid of a consistent ideological stance beyond self-interest.
Competence: Highly competent, ruthless, and manipulative, excels in political strategy but morally corrupt.Thomas J. Whitmore (Independence Day)
Ideology: Patriotic, unifying leader with a strong sense of duty and heroism.
Competence: Competent, inspirational in a crisis, willing to lead from the front in extraordinary circumstances.
Each character represents a different blend of political ideology and competence, ranging from idealistic and capable leaders to self-serving or ineffective ones.
"
"
Mr. Garrison (South Park):
Ideology: Highly inconsistent, often swings between extreme positions (e.g., far-right, far-left), reflects absurd satirical extremes.
Competence: Incompetent and erratic, decisions driven by personal grievances rather than policy.Selina Meyer (Veep):
Ideology: Opportunistic and self-serving, with no strong guiding principles beyond personal ambition.
Competence: Generally ineffective, frequently bungles situations, more focused on image and power than governance.
"
This allows voters to put as many obscure but potentially better candidates as they wish at higher rankings without fear of causing their preferred popular candidate to lose.
Not true, although often repeated by supporters of this method.
In the special election for US Representative for Alaska at-large in 2022, Nick Begich wasn't just "a popular candidate" - he was the one who would have defeated the other two (Sarah Palin and Mary Peltola) in a runoff. Sadly, enough voters believed the myth and voted Palin > Begich that he lost. (Also he would have won if Peltola had gotten more votes than she actually did, hypothetically cast for her and not Palin.)
@BrunoParga interesting, I'm not sure whether there are better alternatives though, I'll have to read up on it
@TheAllMemeingEye I think Schulze is a lot better. I'm not entirely sold on the Condorcet criterion (if there is someone who beats everyone else pairwise, they should win the election) but it does feel better to fulfill it than not. And IRV being non-monotonic (get more votes and you switch from winner to loser) is a big no for me.
The shriveled hand of death flips its finger at the inferdecided voter, who has pompously inferred that the Democrats are logical choice. Instead blesses the undecided voter who, like a rabbit, has spent his summer frolicking and reproducing, oblivious to political noise.