Yes, and switch to a ranked voting system

According to University of Chicago, “With three or more candidates, RCV is more likely to elect a candidate who has majority support relative to each other candidate,” and “because voters vote just once in RCV, RCV could cost less time and money than runoffs.” RCV not only results in political moderation, but also helps reduce wasted votes and determine the candidate with most relative support.

Our country has become increasingly and vehemently polarized over the past three decades to the detriment of all, as the two major political parties cater to the extremes within their constituencies. Moderate third party candidates would be preferable to many, yet they are not chosen for a simple reason: voting for a third party gives an advantage to either the Republican or Democrat candidates. Ranked choice voting would allow a far more significant number of voters the ability to show that they prefer alternatives to the current system while still giving them the reassurance that they can…  Read more support a major party candidate should their first choice not receive sufficient votes on a wider scale. That in itself would provide the impetus for change, as Republican and Democrat politicians would be forced to soften their positions to appeal to more voters.

The Electoral College forces a two party system with two polarized candidates that tears the country apart and leaves moderates and third party voters unrepresentative.

The Electoral College should be replaced by Ranked Choice Voting to break the endless cycle of partisan party politics. All viable candidates should have an equal chance at being elected, not just the party strongholds.

The Electoral College has previously caused too much chaos in American elections - it should be abolished.

If we were to abolish the electoral college and switch to a ranked voting system, the American people would have more say in elections. If we were to keep the electoral college, America would stay a republic and not become a true democracy

Use of the Electoral College balances the popular election results by giving citizens of smaller states a stronger voice.

The current system is an "all or nothing" based system where voters from both major parties are left with no choice but to vote for the leading candidate, even if they dont like them much. This can be seen with both Biden and Trump who are historically divisive among their own separate voting bases. In a Ranked Choice system, voters would have more flexibility to support lesser known candidates without the fear that their vote would wasted. It would also leave the field of candidates more open, and less prone to hand-picking by the DNC and RNC.

A ranked choice voting system would allow a better representation of political beliefs in the country. Choosing just one candidate incentivized polarization because the only alternative is someone from another party.

Ranked choice voting benefits third parties and that puts pressure on the larger parties to be stronger

2 party systems suck, hence ranked choice voting prevents people from just voting for a candidate because someone else hates the candidate. The way ranked choice voting works is even if you vote for an unpopular candidate, the next person in your ranking would get your vote. So voters can vote for whoever they want without having to worry about allowing a candidate they do not like to garner power.

The ranked system would give third party candidates a better chance while also eliminating the forced choice of “I don’t like either major candidate so I’ll vote for the one I think will cause the least harm”.

I think a ranked voting system would be better at promoting costructive compromose and avoiding the current trend toward extremism. Our current 2 party system coupled with the trend in social media toward programming input tailored to what each person "LIKES" has driven us toward more and more radical extremes. People no longer see relevant counter arguements, only derogatory items intended to denigtate any viewpoint but their own. It has resulted in a system that not only cannot compromise in order to act effectively, we are approaching war with ourselves rather than accomplishing our goals and needs. A ranked voying system would tend to promote more moderate candidates needed to moderate this trend.

ranked choice allows for minority parties to have a chance, because right now many people who would vote for minority parties don't because it is impossible for them to win. ranked choice allows a persons vote to at least partially matter no matter what.

Simply put, voting is the process of revealing what the majority of the population believe in and deciding who or what best represents those beliefs. For most of America to vote for a candidate and for that to still not be enough to decide an election, is an affront to the democratic process.

This system can be rigged with gerrymandering. Ranked voting has its issues, but it would be more inline with the populist vote.

It gives 3rd parties a chance to say in the government and not just have the same 2 parties dominate every election

In the event that no one wins the electoral college, then Congress gets to decide who wins. This is much less democratic, and a ranked choice voting system would also encourage third party participation.

Ranked choice would allow for a better candidate pool, where instead of selecting a lesser of two evils as many complain about, allowing for smaller parties to get onto the scene.

Replacing the Electoral College with a direct popular vote and adopting a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) system ensures a fairer and more democratic electoral process. The Electoral College disproportionately amplifies the votes of smaller states, as shown by Wyoming’s votes carrying nearly four times the weight of California’s. Additionally, five U.S. presidents, including in 2016, won despite losing the popular vote, undermining public trust in democracy. Ranked Choice Voting, already successfully implemented in places like Maine, ensures majority rule by allowing voters to rank can…  Read moredidates and redistributing votes until one candidate secures over 50%. This system reduces the spoiler effect, seen in elections like 2000, encourages candidates to appeal to a broader electorate, and fosters more civil, inclusive campaigns. A direct popular vote with RCV would ensure every vote carries equal weight, promoting fairness, reducing polarization, and restoring trust in the democratic process.

Ranked choice voting (or proportional representation) is the only way to ensure that third-party and independent voters are not effectively disenfranchised.

This gives the top 4 candidates a place in the race and would balance the scales away from “who can spend the most money”.

Democracy is more complex and treasurable an institution than to have a system that is based on one choice is all you get. Technology is available to get lower-tier choices and aggregating across ballots to get the best people in the most important jobs.

One delegate from California represents 732k people, while one delegate from Wyoming represents 192k people. This is not fair in the slightest.

There has been a time in American history when a winner was declared with the minority vote. The Electoral College has a 5% failure rate of electing the president. Two of the three failures have been in the 21st century, and in the year 2000, Al Gore who won the popular vote AND the electoral college, did not become President because the Supreme Court gave the Presidency to Bush. The electoral college also has failed to protect the small states from the big states, because candidates don't even focus on the small states, only on swing states which is super detrimental to every American.…  Read more Abolishing the Electoral College, and replacing it with a Rank Choice Voting system would not only allow more representation for every American citizen, but voters from states like Kansas who are Democrats could express their vote for the first time without being overshadowed by a major Republican voter base in the State. RCV also opens the gates for more political parties, which means no more two-party system which we ALL hate.

Washington D.C. is broken and cannot agree on spending bills until the deadline has nearly passed. We need to stop governing from crisis to crisis, build coalitions, and stop negative campaigns against each other. Leaders should speak to what they're for, not against.

Ranked voting allows a person to actually select whom they prefer rather than voting strategically for the person they think may win.

I don't have studies or numbers on hand but it is my understanding that RCV allows for more political ideologies to get a seat at the table, whether they be socialist or fascist leaning candidates.

Ranked voting systems will allow more choice in elections. The reason candidates such as Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden were the Democratic nominees was because the news told us they were the "most electable" candidates. But what if we truly got to rank our choices during the Primaries? That would inspire people to actually vote for a candidate whom they believed to have limited chance to win. Stats show that voters are 17% more likely to show up to polls in ranked choice districts over non-ranked ones.
68% of voters select multiple candidates when giving ranked-choice. This helps fight the argument of "splitting the vote" in the current system we have.

Switching to a ranked-choice voting system for elections would mean that voting for a third party would be a viable option. Polls indicate that many Americans are dissatisfied with the two-party system and/or don't feel well-represented by the major parties, and a ranked-choice voting system would allow the people to vote for candidates they actually like rather than just the lesser of two evils.

It’s important we can vote for who we want to be in a role rather than vote against the other party.

This will provide the best overall group of candidates, rather than parties just nominating a candidate based on their probability to beat the assumed opposing candidate.

A Ranked voting system could eliminate the 2 party system by allowing people to vote for a party they agree with more, without the fear of the party they somewhat agree with losing.

Ranked voting is already in place in some major cities and a couple states. The results have been very positive. More people show up to vote, runoff elections are no longer necessary, candidates do not have to spend as much time attacking each other, and people that want to vote-split get their voices heard while still voting for the most pragmatic candidate if their preferred choice loses.

Switching to a ranked choice voting system would allow for more presidential candidates with new views. We could have a libertarian or green party candidate truly have a shot. Diversity in choice for president is important.

Ranked voting would allow voters to tailor their governments better to represent their own interests. This would allow more moderate and third-party candidates to enter the race without being butted out by republican and democratic candidates. It would also incentivize the two parties to broaden their appeal and compromise on more issues. It would largely dampen the increasing polarization in our country.

In a ranked-choice voting system, you can have alternative options to fall back on in the event that your favourite candidate doesn't end up winning the election.

it can help 3rd party candidates have more of a chance and therefore help our political process be less exhausting.

A ranked choice voting system would enable a truer sense of democracy, allowing voters to actually vote for their desired candidate than a lesser of two evils.

How can we ensure that mob rule will not be influenced by things like propaganda from news sources or from politicians trying to sway the masses? How can we be confident in maintaining the integrity of our voting base with these risks? Especially in a day and age where access to mis information is at its easiest point now more than ever before.

Ranked voting systems is one thing with a limited number of candidates - it is quite another if there are many candidates, because voters would be required to rank every race, they would want to know and study the positions of every candidate. Imagine a race of 12-15 candidates. Could voters adequately determine the policy positions of all of them to properly rank their choice?

Ranked choice voting gives voters more of a day and encourages candidates to not only appeal to one side and instead try to appeal to everyone

Indeed, ranked choice voting can amplify voters' voices in a unique way. However, it also brings its own set of challenges. For instance, it could potentially lead to strategic voting, where voters don't necessarily rank candidates based on their true preferences, but rather to manipulate the outcome of the election. Let's look at the 2009 mayoral election in Burlington, Vermont. The candidate who initially led in first-choice votes ended up losing after the second and third choices were taken into account. This resulted in a backlash from voters who felt the system was unfair. How do you propose we address the potential for strategic voting in a ranked choice system?

Only one vote leads to a two party system where people vote for the candidate they dislike the least instead of a candidate they actually support.

The electoral college makes casting a ballot vote irrelevant in many states. The reason we vote is to side with what the majority of the population decides on. Not whose state has more electoral votes.