Posted on 09/11/2022 8:34:45 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
A few weeks ago, Alaska held a special election using ranked choice voting. This was Alaska’s first general election using ranked choice voting, and it also made the state one of the first major jurisdictions in the United States to employ the new voting system. For years many, election experts have pushed ranked choice as a way to fix the problems in America’s elections. In their view, this new system would create more excitement and give more people a voice by offering marginalized candidates a fighting chance. Over the last few years, three major jurisdictions have held ranked choice voting elections, and they have consistently created issues that could lead to more problems in elections.
Maine first held an election using ranked choice voting in 2018. That cycle had a competitive congressional race where the Republican incumbent, Bruce Poliquin, initially finished ahead, but over a week later, the Democratic challenger ultimately won the election. The race led to costly litigation and heated rhetoric.
Two years later, Maine had a competitive senate race and the media did call the election by the morning after. But this speed only came because Republican incumbent Susan Collins won in a landslide with over 50% of the vote, and by close to double digits. If Maine had had a closer race that cycle, it might have taken weeks to get the results and led to the same controversial rhetoric the rest of the nation saw. The only way to avoid a long convoluted count with ranked choice voting is for someone to win by a large margin. So in close elections, ranked choice voting will undermine confidence in the results.
About seven months after Collins’ victory in Maine, New York City used ranked choice voting for their mayoral primary. This election faced a lot of scrutiny. In the month leading up to the election, experts noted that the race could face major delays in the count. Despite this notice, the election still experienced so many delays that it took over two weeks to declare results. The public and media faced confusion over the election results. Then-mayoral candidate Eric Adams accused two of his opponents of racist actions by trying to strategically ally using ranked choice voting.
Vox claimed that the issues in counting the ballots did not occur due to ranked choice voting, but instead were the result of problematic policies and personnel in the New York City government. This theory may have some truth as it did take a lot of time in 2020 to count votes in New York City without ranked choice voting.
But even if Vox’s claim is true, it still further demonstrates why ranked choice voting is a bad idea right now. Many jurisdictions currently have a lot of problems counting votes in a timely manner. The influx of mail-in voting has already complicated things, so adding ranked choice voting to these jurisdictions would put stress on an unsound structure.
Alaska has faced similar problems. Like New York, Alaska has long had delays in counting votes, especially lately with the large amount of mail-in ballots. But ranked choice voting has still created further confusion and chaos. It took two weeks to count the initial ballots, and then after that, Alaska took another day to sort through ranked choice voting.
A Democrat ultimately won the seat, but the Republican candidates combined had initially received roughly 59% of the vote. The results have created raucous debate over whether the outcome spells good news for Democrats, despite the fact that the Democrat only initially received about 40% of the vote.
On top of these issues, ranked choice voting has failed to deliver on its signature promise: increased representation of third parties. Advocates for ranked choice voting have claimed that it would make voters more open to third-party candidates. But nothing has materialized. Before ranked choice voting, Maine came close to electing an independent governor in 2010, and they elected an independent senator in 2012. Yet in 2018 and 2020, the independent candidates for governor and senate had lackluster showings. In Alaska, an independent candidate who previously had a lot of support even dropped out, claiming an independent candidate could not win.
Federalism allows for America’s states to conduct their votes in different ways. These differences allow the country to see what systems work best. It is clear from seeing ranked choice voting in action in different jurisdictions, that ranked choice voting will make elections worse in the U.S.
Todd Carney is a lawyer and frequent contributor to RealClearPolitics. He earned his juris doctorate from Harvard Law School.
Independents have a better chance in a system that allows runoff elections, not one that allows Rigged Choice Voting.
It’s not one person one vote. It’s one person, multiple votes, unless you vote for the winner in which case it’s only one vote, but the winner could lose because all the second or third votes other people get could then beat the original winner.
One person one vote for some, one person two or more votes for others.
somebody explain to me how it doesn’t violate one man one vote...
Exactly. This process is unconstitutional and needs to be challenged in court ASAP.
There is a reason they are marginalized. Everyone doesn't deserve a gold star.
If by “independents” you mean true outsiders, that may or may not be true. If by “independents” you mean Lisa Murkowski in Alaska and Angus King in Maine, both of whom ran as independents, ranked choice voting was designed (I think) to help them and freeze out the Republicans. The Democrat’s and the Independent candidate’s voters each make each other’s candidate their second choice, freezing out the Republican, who would otherwise benefit from the liberal candidates splitting the vote.
Show me in any constitution (even state constitutions) where you are guaranteed the one-man-one-vote landscape.
I do agree....it’s screwed up and you could easily end up with some Nazi-Party existing, and their candidate somehow slipping through to win a seat.
I was introduced a decade ago to this ranking business as the organizational hiring authority directed us to interview and the four of us on the interview process had to perform ranking on the hiree. We didn’t get the best candidate in the end (my view) and it was a negative experience in the end.
Bear in mind that the 4th person that was supposed to be on the ballot was Dr. Al Gross, an “independent” (BS, pure left-wing lunatic) dropped out of the race. Thereby ensuring there was only 1 left-winger on the ballot against 2 republicans. So no vote splitting at all on that side.
It turns politics into even more of a game and the will of the people will not be served.
The Washington Post wrote a column that stated that Sarah Palin cost the GOP the seat. That is not right. The 50% or so of those people who voted for Begich cost the GOP the seat, as about one-half of them voted for the ‘Rat, and the other one-half failed to make a second choice vote. Only 50% of those who voted for Begich made a second choice vote for Palin.
Lisa Murkowski’s crew was behind this, as they hate Sarah’s guts. If Begich had any decency, he’d quit the race and endorse Sarah. Sadly, unless some of the Begich “sore losers” come to their senses, this will replay itself in November.
How is ranked-choice voting Constitutional? Has anyone challenged this?
I vote for republican John Smith and someone then changes my vote to a democrat.
That is illegal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.