NPV is an attempt to repair the electoral college, by getting states that represent a majority of electoral college votes to agree to dedicate those votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.
Ranked choice voting is a change from the simple, winner-take-all systems we have in most states. With RCV, you rank all the choices in order. If no one gets a majority of first-choice votes that way, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Every vote dropped is redirected to the voter's second choice candidate. That keeps happening until there are however many winners are wanted. Usually that's one winner, not always.
In Alaska, there will be an open primary for all parties. The top four go to the general election. It's a great idea, because it benefits candidates with popular support rather than those with extremist support within one party.
Thank you, Joan. This is what I was looking for. My research did not produce the clarity about the NPV as you do here. Would a nation of RCVers eliminate the need for state legislature types who could possibly overturn voters' ballots?
What is the difference, if there is one, between Ranked Choice Voting and the National Popular Vote?
My understanding is RCV, by allowing voters to rank their choices, tends to end up with voters feeling more empowered by their votes. This might be helpful, too. https://today.law.harvard.edu/ranked-choice-voting-explained/
Thanks, Mary Beth. I appreciate you took the time to answer!
They are very different.
NPV is an attempt to repair the electoral college, by getting states that represent a majority of electoral college votes to agree to dedicate those votes to whoever wins the national popular vote.
Ranked choice voting is a change from the simple, winner-take-all systems we have in most states. With RCV, you rank all the choices in order. If no one gets a majority of first-choice votes that way, the candidate with the least votes is eliminated. Every vote dropped is redirected to the voter's second choice candidate. That keeps happening until there are however many winners are wanted. Usually that's one winner, not always.
In Alaska, there will be an open primary for all parties. The top four go to the general election. It's a great idea, because it benefits candidates with popular support rather than those with extremist support within one party.
Thank you, Joan. This is what I was looking for. My research did not produce the clarity about the NPV as you do here. Would a nation of RCVers eliminate the need for state legislature types who could possibly overturn voters' ballots?