Thanks again to the American Thinker for running this piece. You can visit the website at: https://www.americanthinker.com/
Ranked choice voting is the answer to a question only a bureaucrat would even think to ask.
To simplify, RCV is a way to vote – the most notable recent example being the 2022 Alaskan congressional election which Sarah Palin notoriously lost – that in theory blurps out a winner that is actually (really really trust us on this) the most representative of the wishes of the electorate.
This magic trick is accomplished by people voting for their first choice, second, etc. and then the numbers are added up and moved about and cut and pasted and then the registrar of voters announces a winner a few weeks after Election Day (here is a more technical and, admittedly, far more accurate description of the process from a DC-based group that supports the idea - https://fairvote.org/our-reforms/ranked-choice-voting/ )
The specifics of the process are not exactly complicated but they are intensely obtuse., leading to one of the major criticisms of RCV: trust in election systems is the foundational bedrock of a democratic republic and if that system is turned into a complicated black box then that trust is damaged, harming the nation as a whole.
As noted previously in this piece - https://thomas699.substack.com/p/florida-man-knows-how-to-vote-and - “The crux, sadly, is that gray begets gray and gray areas can be very useful places – for some – to be when it comes to counting votes. Systems – any systems, not just voting ones – that are more complicated and obtuse are more prone to manipulation. They also, because they’re more complicated, necessitate more people to operate and are therefore good for bureaucratic empire builders. adding “grey areas” into any system - voting or not - makes it far easier to improperly manipulate.”
But the overly complicated specifics of the system may, in fact, be the least of its problems.
In reviewing articles and editorials and thinky papers that take a pro-RCV stand, one thing becomes very clear: political insiders, especially of the “progressive” stripe, love it.
It is popular in that milieu in part because of its complexity – it needs more government workers to count and explain than regular voting.
And if the descriptive words used when discussing RCV are anything to go by, it’s also popular because it favors a certain type of candidate and a certain type of campaign, to whit “moderate” and “nice.”
In an RCV election, the candidate wants to get the most number of votes possible while infuriating the least number of voters; in other words, campaigns become more personality driven, more milquetoast, more sound bitey, less aggressive, less issue-oriented (taking a definitive stance on a specific issue could alienate folks who might otherwise pick you as their second vote, etc.)
In head-to-head elections, none of those concerns apply, allowing (admittedly this is currently theoretical) voters to see a far more complete picture of the candidates.
It is also true that in a regular election the winner (putting aside the on-going nightmare that is American election security for the moment) is really undoubtedly the winner and did not fluke in to office by being everyone’s second favorite. This “bridesmaid effect” has led to a number of first round “winners” eventually losing to candidates who racked up more impressive second and third choice votes (if everything is counted right, which is not exactly a guarantee - https://abc7news.com/alameda-county-election-error-ranked-choice-voting-oakland-school-board/12629305/ .
The certainty of victory – no matter the platform or party – created by the one-on-one duel allows the winner to approach their new job from a position of confidence, which is crucial when dealing with the unelected bureaucrats all electeds must deal with every day (note – I know this from personal experience.)
Therefore, anyone elected by RCV will be in an inherently weaker position that they would normally be vis-à-vis the permanent government and therefore far less likely to be able to reform said government.
And they will be less likely to be the type of person – again, no matter the political stripe – who is inclined towards rocking the boat.
That’s why bureaucrats love it.
The other major issue with RCV isn’t the what, but the why and who. As the Heritage Foundation noted- https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice :
We have detected a pattern. Most of the time, when fundamental transformations to elections are proposed, the people proposing them have two characteristics. First, they think it will help their side win. Second, their ideological perspectives are usually rooted in a transformational extreme: They want to change the rules to manipulate elections outcomes in order to force the public into their distorted vision of a supposedly utopian society.
The promotional positive press around the issue uses buzzwords that most of the public should, by now, know are red flags: RCV is praised because it increases diversity, allows more disenfranchised people to run for office, and favors more moderate candidates in this “time of polarization.”
Fairvote, the “non-partisan” DC-metro based activist group, see this dilutional aspect as a positive:
In non-RCV elections, candidates benefit from mudslinging and attacking opponents instead of sharing their positive vision with voters. This drives increasingly toxic and polarizing campaigns.
With RCV, candidates compete for second-choice votes from their opponents’ supporters, which lessens the incentive to run negative campaigns. In RCV contests, candidates do best when they reach out positively to as many voters as possible, including those who support their opponents.
In other words, RCV is being supported by the very same forces that are intent on preserving the wokeing class in perpetuity and see RCV as a way to muddy the waters, confuse the public, and in fact tamp down direct participation in our governance.
Sounds pretty rank to me.
ADDENDUM - As noted, this piece originally ran on American Thinker where it elicited more than a few comments, ideas, and questions – hence this addendum.
Emailers from Australia noted they use such a system and it has proven to useful and reliable.
John McMahon from Queensland explained it thusly:
“(The) description of RCV (ranked-choice voting) seems to fit the description of "preferential voting". It is a form of voting which has been in place successfully in both the Federal and State spheres, whether compulsory or optional, for well over a 100 years.
In a field of say seven (7) candidates A may receive 30% of the primary votes compared with candidate B receiving 35% whilst the other candidates receive various other percentages of the total vote. When voters are asked to provide their second preference, (their second choice), may be mostly allocated to candidate A rather than B.
So overall the majority of voters actually prefer A to B even though B received 35% of the primary vote, more than A at 30%; thus the most favoured candidate really is A not B ie overall A receives say 55% to 45% for B - Therefore A wins.
As I have written above it has been accepted, well received and the preferred voting system here for 100 plus years rather than first past the post system employed elsewhere.
It has worked well for us.”
But there are significant differences that allow RCV to work better there it seems.
First, voting is compulsory and while the voter does not need to show a physical ID they must provide their date of birth and address to the polling official to confirm who they are at least in part to avoid getting fined for not voting.
John continues:
Our voting system has relied upon the innate honesty of people but on the electoral rolls that the polling booth officials hold is the date of birth of the person listed on the roll. So the person who fronts up is often asked to confirm their identity by confirming their date of birth.
Of course everybody is at liberty to attend another booth elsewhere and submit a second or third vote but every time they front up the official always asks whether they have voted elsewhere.
If they are caught out they can be prosecuted for voting twice (usually are) and also prosecuted for providing a false statement to an Electoral Official.
The whole process is computerised and anybody voting twice or more is inevitably caught out. It certainly can't be done on a large scale in any case unlike the system(s) employed in the US.
And here – in my opinion - is a key aspect:
Also, when a person registers to vote their identity must be confirmed by an altogether different person who is already registered to vote; often confirmed by a person of standing in the community eg A Justice of the Peace, a police officer, a bank manager etc.
As for the differences in the tallying systems, another Aussie from Port Douglas mentioned this possible answer:
I understand RCV doesn't seem to work in America - and it takes an inordinate amount of time to count the votes.
In Australia we usually have a result the night of the election for all (most) electorates. Our Senate system is bigger and more complicated (with up to 150 candidates) - so it can take longer, a matter of weeks to finalise (mainly because no one cares - our Prime Minister comes from the House of Representatives).
Why your system takes weeks for results suggests there is more a problem with the counting and who is doing the counting rather than the Preferential System.
In theory RCV allows other parties to establish and grow - the capitalist ideal - your system has entrenched a two-party rule and that is your major problem. Your current system allows a Bill Clinton to be elected Leader of the Free world with around 30% of the vote - that means 70% of Americans didn't vote for him.
We, In Australia, also have compulsory voting. I also understand your freedom issues with that compulsion - but we don't have a pool of around 40% of votes that can be manufactured to create your 2020 result.
This is a quick and dirty outline of our system because you already know the processes. I respectfully suggest that your problem isn't the RCV system, it’s a combination of inherent corruption at the electoral management level and perhaps a lack of education of the electorate.
Moray Watson from Manitoulin Island, Ontario, Canada offered a completely different voting idea:
There is a simple fix/counter-proposal for the ranked-choice voting problem. Give every voter as many votes as there are candidates, and let them allocate their votes as they wish. Give all your votes to one candidate or one each to every candidate, or any variation that one chooses. Problem solved.
Interestingly, this is very similar to a system used when eliciting public input on a development project, etc. In the course of creating Lake Elsinore, CA’s downtown plan, we held a couple of town hall public meetings and at one of them we asked the 100 or so folks there to just spin out ideas for the neighborhood.
We received about 40 different concepts and then we gave every one ten one dollar bills - real ones, that's important to lend a sense of seriousness - and had them put them next to the idea or ideas they most liked. They could spend their 10 on one thing or put a dollar here, two dollars, there, etc. and the ideas with the most money were put in the plan.
It actually worked quite well.
Finally, Dallas attorney Robert Burnett wondered whether RCV violates the “one man (sorry, person…lol), one vote” concept. While it would certainly appear to do so, so far federal courts have upheld the practice - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_man,_one_vote - and in the fall of 2020, opponents of Maine’s RCV system failed to get Justice Breyer to issue a stay on the process - https://www.scotusblog.com/election-litigation/jones-v-secretary-of-state-of-maine/ .
However – considering the Court’s very affirmative past stance on the idea of “one man, one vote” in other cases it does remain possible that a full court review may address the issue.
Burnett noted:
The third place voters get to vote twice
If four candidates, the third and fourth vote twice. The third place voted a third time if no one wins that round.
The voters who vote for the initial “winner” don’t get to vote again.
Disenfranchised!
RCV assumes that people would actually vote for Who they say their second choice is listed, if they were given the opportunity to later (so let’s just write it down now)
But I doubt that’s true at all. Many might not show up to vote at all. Hard to say which candidate that favors - RCV assumes a lot. We’ve seen too many winners be losers now. Maine. Alaska twice.
Does anyone really think with 70-80% republicans vote they wanted the democrat to win that seat?!
How can we assume this when if you asked your wife what she wants for dinner when we get to the restaurant give me your top 3 choices. And then when choice 1 isn’t there are you’re really gonna pick 2 when your choices are 2 and 3 ?
Everyone will make their choice when they see the menu in front of them.
ADDITIONAL ADDENDUM - It seems I did possibly miss one situation in which RCV actually does make sense - primary elections run by the party itself. Here is an opinon from a Republican Party activist from Virginia:
(You) didn’t address the issue of the number of candidates on the ballot, which is the key issue. As a member of the Republican Party of Virginia (we don’t have official party registration, but activists join the party of their choice) I had attended a number of candidate speeches and forums, read their literature, and was comfortable that I was fully informed. There were seven candidates running for governor, six for lieutenant governor and for attorney general.
As an informed citizen, I felt very empowered with RCV. One of my top two picks won governor and lieutenant governor, but neither of my top two won attorney general. Youngkin ran as a moderate with a ton of money who soundly beat McAuliffe who outspent him substantially. Winsome Sears is a hard core conservative Trump supporter (a black woman business woman, mother and ex marine, and Jason Miyares ran as crime fighter, and had the support of most of the sheriffs and law enforcement in the Commonwealth.
The problem with a winner takes all in a primary election with multiple candidates is that you likely will end up with a radical ideologue who gets all of his or her supporters out to the polls, and wins the primary with only a small plurality of a small minority of the electorate, who then goes on to get crushed in the general. In our primary, Republican Party voters in an unassembled convention (due to Covid restrictions) on May 8, 2021 elected three candidates who went on to win in November, all against the odds and being outspent as well. Since the votes were counted by RPV (Republican Party) people, nobody questioned that the vote tally was somehow miscounted, and we had winners either the night of the election or the next day. There was no delay.
In the case of our governor’s primary, with conventional voting, hard-core Trump radical rightist State Senator Amanda Chase would have won the primary against Youngkin, would have been crushed by McAuliffe, and certainly would have brought down the other two candidates.
I think the reason that all three won their elections in November was that, in spite of being out-spent, there was a huge turnout, and I do think that Republican voters picked the winners, and we got a lot of swing voters as well as Republicans, maybe a few Dems as well.
Anyway, my take on it as a voter who experienced it.
And thanks much to everyone who emailed – very informative, very helpful, and very kind!
It was adopted in Oakland and then in my former hometown. The results seemed to favor the leftists, who were quite organized in campaigning for second choice. That's where the more radical candidates would end up...and then take home the prize.
Once upon a time, when I was young and (more) idealistic, sometime in the '70s, I came up with this idea on my own. But then realized that it eliminates the discretion of a conditional second choice.
In a run-off system, one chooses only among those who survived the first round. I might have preferred a different second choice but if that candidate is eliminated, my second vote was wasted. In a run-off, we are presented with a new election: given the choice of these finalists, whom would I choose? Everyone's second vote would count. And the ultimate winner would have received majority of the votes.
The ranked voting system assumes a multiple of candidates. The writer from Oz is certainly correct that we are hopelessly locked in a rigid two-party system. RVC would encourage more third and fourth party candidates; why should Bernie have given up in 2016 in such a system if he believed (correctly) he could probably do better than HRC as second choice? Likewise we might have had an alternate competitive Republican as well in the general election, one with a real shot at winning on the second choice ranking.
Which illustrates the other problem: party affiliation. Many if not most who enthusiastically supported Trump, for instance, would probably not have had a second choice. No Democrat or other Republican offered what he did. So, more second choice votes would have gone to one of his opponents -- and cost him the election.
Instead I would propose simplifying the primary process and treating the general election as The Primary, assuming nobody would get a majority. Then a runoff, perhaps in two stages: down to the top three (as Constitution prescribes for the House in case of no electoral winner), then the top two finalists if necessary. The reason for that is to avoid decrease the probability that the top two in a large field are from the same party, but unacceptable to a majority of voters.