PR Op Peddles Ranked-Choice Voting Methods To Conservatives

A public affairs firm retained by one of the main groups behind the left’s push to popularize ranked-choice voting methods is trying to market the scheme to conservatives by painting it as a fix to the “ideological gap” between GOP voters and their representatives, an invitation to a briefing on the issue suggests.

The Institute for Political Innovation (IPI) pushes “final five voting,” a kind of ranked-choice voting “pioneered” by IPI Founder Katherine Gehl that pits the top five candidates from an open primary against each other in a ranked general election. IPI’s other priorities include plans to eliminate party primaries and replace Congress with a dystopian-sounding “modern, model legislature.”

Both of Gehl’s groups, IPI and the Final Five Fund, appear to be headquartered in the same Chicago building as the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL), which used more than $300 million from Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg to influence election administration during the 2020 election. Many states have since banned private election funding.

“Baron is proud to work with Katherine Gehl and the Institute for Political Innovation on final five voting,” wrote Jonathan Baron, founder of the government and public relations firm that often covers center-right issues, in an email to The Federalist.

“IPI retains our firm as consultants in support of Final Five Voting. It’s a terrific organization and an important initiative,” he said in a follow-up email.

[READNEXT:[READNEXT:Ranked-Choice Voting Is The Monster Under The Bed Of American Elections]

Baron Public Affairs planned a “private briefing” last week on “Bridging the Ideological Divide: Congress and the People,” according to an event invitation. The firm “partnered” with Echelon Insights, founded in part by Republican pollster Kristen Soltis Anderson, to conduct a study on the “significant ideological gap” between Republican voters and Republicans in Congress. The briefing was planned to focus on the results of this study, according to the invitation, and to “discuss” how “electoral reform” can “align elected officials with their Republican electorate.”

“Baron advises the Institute for Political Innovation, the leading organization advancing Final Five Voting,” the invitation reads.

Baron Public Affairs recently released an analysis of the study called “Congressional Republicans Do Not Represent Republican Voters.” The group admitted here that IPI “sponsored” its joint research with Echelon. To no surprise, the report recommended final five voting to help Republicans “integrate populists,” claiming the method “promises to close the ideological distance between Republican voters and their elected Congressmen.”

IPI insists final five voting is not the same as RCV, because its model combines a top-five primary that doesn’t use RCV with a general election that does.

But Capital Research Center President Scott Walter told The Federalist “final five voting” is just one of many nuanced terms for ranked choice voting systems.

“That’s part of the scam. Having numerous names of things like ‘top-four’ primary, ‘final five,’ ‘jungle primary,’ ‘open primary,’ ‘ranked choice voting,’ ‘instant runoff,’” Walter said. “This confuses people and makes it easier to get your way.”

Baron published another, more lengthy report this spring called “Visions for Victory: Conservative Perspectives on Final Five Voting.” In email correspondence with the Federalist, Jonathan Baron said final five voting “has the potential to significantly strengthen the conservative movement and its ability to secure policy outcomes.”

Selling Ideas

Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, called the suggestion that final five voting would help conservatives an “alarming” push to “mislead the public.”

“Deep-pocketed liberal donors are going to great lengths to recruit conservative and Republican spokespeople for their ideas,” Snead said. “The effort is very clearly designed to create a perception that ranked-choice voting is bipartisan, when in fact, it is an idea that is intended to push politics to the left.”

The broader RCV method, Snead added, is “designed to give those very liberal mega-donors even more sway over American politics than they have right now.”

Trent England, executive director of Save Our States, said he thinks Baron’s “Visions for Victory” report is “just the beginning” of a larger effort to push final five voting across the country before and after the November elections.

“I’m sure we’re going to see a lot more of this, because producing the report is just sort of creating the tools to then go out and lobby Republicans to support it,” England said. “This is just the beginning of a process of trying to sell this to Republican officials and activists.”

While Baron’s “Visions for Victory” report makes it seem like “it’s the sturdy Republicans who will win” with final five voting, Walter said, advocates of the method say the same to every group.

“Ranked choice voting advocates are selling it as all good things to all people,” Walter said. “‘Whatever your group is — Libertarians, anti-MAGA Republicans, conservative Republicans, Green Party — that’s what it’s going to help.’”

But Democrats use RCV to “shuffle the deck” in places where it could raise their chances at victory, according to England.

When The Federalist asked Baron how many Republican and Democrat politicians the group has spoken to about final five voting, whether it is advancing final five voting on a state or federal level, and if other groups are making similar efforts, the group did not answer.

The Federalist also asked Jonathan Baron how much IPI pays the group and when their working relationship began. He refused to answer, merely saying the group’s work “has focused on research and analysis, informed in part by conversations with scholars and thought leaders.”

Spreading Influence

Efforts to implement different forms of RCV like final five voting have spread across America. 

In November, Nevada will vote on ballot Question 3, which, if passed, would implement final five voting.

Gehl and her affiliated groups funded Nevada Voters First, which aggressively promoted final five voting in 2022, according to The Nevada Independent. Gehl gave Nevada Voters First more than $6 million in 2022, while the Final Five Fund gave it close to $2.6 million, according to Ballotpedia. Meanwhile, individuals affiliated with the Final Five Fund — including Republican Kenneth Griffin — gave $4.5 million to the group, according to contribution records. 

Voters initially passed the measure in 2022, and they will consider it for the final time in November.

Nevada Voters First has since re-formed as Vote Yes on 3, Inc., which has “prebooked more than $9.4 million in ad buys” starting in September and leading up to Election Day, according to the Nevada Independent.

Other states including Colorado, Idaho, Montana, and Oregon may decide on their own versions of RCV in November or the near future.

Logan Washburn is a staff writer covering election integrity. He graduated from Hillsdale College, served as Christopher Rufo’s editorial assistant, and has bylines in The Wall Street Journal, The Tennessean, and The Daily Caller. Logan is originally from Central Oregon but now lives in rural Michigan.