Please vote to abolish ranked choice voting. It is purposely confusing, divisive and unconstitutional. I live in the state of Maine and this policy was quietly pushed through during a non-presidential election year that was funded by Democrats.
4 Likes
Ranked choice voting is the only conceivable way to get out of the current two party system we are in.
Giving people the ability to rank their ideal candidates from first to last is a fantastic solution and precisely what I created an account to make a post for.
Only being able to vote for one candidate and “voting for non Rep/Dem is wasting your vote” is just leveraging fear to keep the status quo.
1 Like
I respect your opinion but RCV comes with a whole set of problems for voters. It makes voting more complicated, it increases costs and delays results, it opens up new voting strategies that strongly benefit only the Democrats, and finally it makes it so people lose faith in the voting process. I think to truly break out of the “two party system” it would require a quality candidate which we haven’t seen.
3 Likes
(For context, I’ve been studying election methods as a hobby for a little over a decade.)
This is a common assumption by those who have newly discovered other voting methods exist. However, it is false. There are lots of other methods out there, and all data and logic suggest RCV would do very little to break the two-party system.
Methods that are worth considering include:
- Approval voting
- STAR voting
- Various forms of Proportional Representation
- Using sortition/citizens’ assemblies
It is very common for people to learn about RCV, but never hear about the other methods of election that exist. This is because RCV has a lot of money and marketing behind it.
However, the math is not favorable to RCV. It is unnecessarily complex to tabulate. It fails to provide meaningful opportunities for third parties to grow and compete with major parties. The longer RCV is subject to scrutiny, the more it looks like “the status quo 2.0”.
What’s critical to understand is you have not been sold a real system; you have been sold a ballot that is designed to make it feel like you have a more expressive vote. It’s all about the feels, not the results.
I agree, but I’m curious to hear your explanation why. A lot of arguments for ruling RCV unconstitutional hinge on the idea that it is “allowing people to vote multiple times”, or a misunderstanding of the “one person, one vote” concept. But neither of these arguments appeal to actual constitutional language or the intent of said language. RCV does not give people multiple votes; rather, it treats voters unequally. And a further complication here is that our current system also treats voters unequally, by the exact same standards. Thus if RCV is ever ruled unconstitutional, so should the current choose-one system.
why is ranked choice bad?
I’ve answered this question before elsewhere, so I’ll direct you to those responses. There is some repetitiveness
And as of this past week (the 2024 election), there is a new argument: In all eight states where RCV was on the ballot, it lost:
Admittedly, the Missouri ban was wrapped in a package with other measures, so it wasn’t the main focus. But still, this establishes that RCV does not have the momentum its advocates claim it does. They spent over $100 million on these efforts, and only lost.
The electoral reform movement needs to recognize RCV has become a stumbling block. Even if you remain convinced it is better than the status quo (which I would contest), it is sapping resources and attention, and prompting organized efforts to stop any reform whatsoever. It is entirely possible that, because of RCV’s utter failure, no more progress can be made for the next several decades.
In short: Continuing to support RCV will likely only perpetuate the status quo. Drop it like a hot potato. Move on to other efforts, like Approval, or STAR.
I’ve conceived a voting alternative I call CounyMyNo. It adds a second column to ballot, creating a Yes column and a No column for each candidate. You still get one vote per office. You can use that vote to vote Yes for your favorite, or No against your least favorite. A No cancels a Yes 1-to-1, and whoever has the highest total wins.
It does nothing in a 2 party race. However, it lowers the bar for independent candidates to actually win in a multiparty race. IMHO, it’s elegantly simple. Would love for someone with your enthusiasm to criticize it.
1 Like