The federalist

Ranked-choice voting advocates must deceive voters about the concept of “fairness” to gain their support.


States and localities ‍are discovering the disastrous consequences of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in their elections. ⁤From​ Alaska ‍to​ Virginia, the leftist-backed election⁤ system gaining popularity across the country⁢ is causing⁣ confusion among‌ voters and leading to undesirable outcomes.

Under RCV, ‍also known as “rigged-choice voting” by critics, voters rank ⁢candidates in order⁢ of preference.⁣ If ​no‌ candidate receives⁤ more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round, the⁤ last-place finisher is eliminated, and their ​votes are redistributed to the voters’ ⁤second-choice candidate.

Despite ‍the ​numerous failures⁣ associated ​with RCV, proponents are trying to ⁣deceive voters⁣ into adopting the​ system for their ‌local and​ state elections. A polling memo ​obtained by The Federalist reveals their tactics.

Produced‍ by HighGround Inc., a public ⁤affairs consulting⁢ group, the memo analyzes the most effective pro-RCV talking points to convince voters. The survey, conducted among 500 likely 2024 Arizona voters, found that misleading arguments centered around “fairness” resonate ‍with the⁢ electorate. These arguments claim that RCV empowers voters, ensures equality among​ candidates ⁣and voters,‍ and empowers independents (the largest voting⁣ bloc​ in Arizona).

HighGround’s memo emphasizes the effectiveness of the ⁤”fairness” argument, stating that it is a universally‌ appealing virtue that is difficult to argue against. The ⁣group believes that these types of arguments can ​convince Arizonans to reject a proposed​ constitutional amendment in 2024 that would ‍ban the use of RCV in the state.

In addition to analyzing pro-RCV talking points, HighGround also ‌surveyed arguments against the system to⁣ help proponents​ counter election integrity activists’ warnings. The poll found that claims of RCV causing “absolute chaos” and being ⁣a “dangerous idea” do not resonate ⁢with Arizona voters. However, arguments that RCV would bring⁣ California-style ⁤primaries to the state generate the most opposition.

Election integrity experts⁤ interviewed by The Federalist confirm‍ that ⁣the‌ memo validates their concerns about RCV. ⁢Proponents of ⁢the system must ⁤obscure ⁤its true nature and mislead voters⁢ in order to gain ⁣support.

Internal RCV Polling by⁣ The Federalist

RCV’s Dark History

Contrary to misleading claims by proponents, ‍governments that have implemented RCV in their elections have produced ⁢unfair outcomes. In Maine’s 2018​ elections, for example,⁣ the incumbent GOP‍ Rep. Bruce Poliquin lost to Democrat Jared Golden despite receiving the‍ most votes in ‌the first round. ⁢This outcome was a‌ result‌ of ​the ‍state’s ranked-choice voting​ system.

In Alaska, undesirable election ‍outcomes ‌have also occurred since​ the adoption of RCV in 2020. In the⁤ state’s 2022‍ special election for its at-large‌ congressional district, ‌Democrat Mary Peltola won despite nearly 60 percent of voters casting their ballots ​for a Republican.​ RCV also played a significant role ‍ in helping⁢ Alaska GOP Sen. ⁢Lisa ⁢Murkowski defeat conservative challenger Kelly Tshibaka in⁤ the November 2022 midterms.

[[RELATED: Ranked-Choice​ Voting⁣ Is The Monster Under The Bed Of American Elections]

Several ‍U.S. municipalities that have adopted RCV have also experienced confusing and even inaccurate election outcomes. In an Oakland school board race,‌ for instance, election officials announced two months later that they had made a counting error, leading to the‍ rightful winner suing for​ their seat. Additionally, a ⁤ Utah town that piloted RCV ​in its 2021 municipal ‍elections experienced high rates‍ of discarded or spoiled ballots.

After​ using RCV in a ⁣primary ⁢election,⁣ officials in Arlington, Virginia, decided not​ to‌ use it‌ in the​ general elections due to confusion among voters and concerns ‍about ‍outreach efforts.

However, these examples of chaos associated with ranked-choice voting have not deterred advocates from⁣ pushing for ​its adoption in ​local elections across the country. In recent off-year elections, residents in three​ Michigan cities voted to adopt RCV for their local elections pending state‌ legislation. Minnetonka, Minnesota, voters ‌also voted to keep RCV for municipal contests after first adopting⁣ it in ​2020.

It’s worth ‌noting that both ‍ Michigan ⁣ and Minnesota Democrats have introduced bills to authorize ‌RCV’s use in various elections.

Following their successes in 2023, RCV advocates‌ are aiming to expand the system’s use​ in other states and localities. In Nevada, a pro-RCV constitutional amendment ⁤was​ passed‍ in 2022, and if approved again in the 2024 elections, ⁢Nevada will adopt a top-five ‌RCV system. RCV supporters are also seeking to get‌ similar initiatives on the ballot in Missouri’s 2024 elections. Other states​ targeted by RCV advocates ​include Arizona, Wisconsin, Idaho, and Oregon.


rnrn

What are the alleged⁣ benefits of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in promoting ‌fairness and voter⁣ empowerment, according ​to its proponents?

Title: The Troubling Reality of Ranked-Choice Voting: A Deceptive Electoral System

Introduction:

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) ​has gained popularity in recent ‌years, with proponents emphasizing ⁢its alleged‌ benefits in promoting⁣ fairness and⁤ voter empowerment. However, several states ‌and localities are facing the⁢ disastrous ⁢consequences ‌of implementing this election ⁢system. From Alaska to Virginia, ‍the impact of RCV has caused confusion‌ among voters and⁤ led ​to ⁢undesirable outcomes. A recent polling memo obtained by The Federalist sheds light‍ on the deceptive tactics employed by⁤ RCV supporters to manipulate public opinion.

The Mechanics of ​RCV:

Under RCV, also known as “rigged-choice voting” by critics, voters​ are requested to rank candidates in order of preference. If no ‌candidate receives more than 50 percent of ⁤first-choice votes ⁢in ​the initial round, the last-place finisher is eliminated,‍ and their votes are ⁤redistributed to the⁣ voters’ second-choice candidate. This ​process continues until​ one candidate obtains‌ a majority of the votes.

The Deceptive Tactics:

Despite the numerous failures⁣ associated with RCV, proponents continue ‌to attempt to deceive voters into adopting this ​system for local ⁣and state elections. ⁣A⁢ survey conducted by HighGround Inc.,⁢ a public affairs consulting group, reveals the most effective pro-RCV⁢ talking points​ employed to convince voters. The ‍survey, involving 500 likely 2024 Arizona voters, highlighted‍ misleading arguments‍ centered​ around “fairness” as particularly resonant with the ‍electorate. These ​arguments ⁣state that RCV⁤ empowers voters,⁤ ensures equality among candidates and ⁢voters, ⁢and empowers independent⁤ voters—the largest⁣ voting‌ bloc ⁣in Arizona.

The Power of‌ the “Fairness” Argument:

HighGround’s memo emphasizes the effectiveness of the “fairness” argument and​ suggests that it⁢ is challenging ⁢to counter. The group believes that these types of arguments can convince Arizonans to reject a proposed constitutional amendment in 2024 that seeks to⁤ ban the use of RCV in⁢ the state. By exploiting ⁤the notion of fairness, proponents of RCV aim to obscure the true nature of the system and garner support.

Surveying Arguments Against RCV:

In addition to analyzing pro-RCV talking ​points, HighGround’s survey also explored arguments ⁤against⁣ the system, aiming⁣ to help proponents counter election integrity activists’ concerns. The survey found that claims of RCV causing “absolute chaos” and ⁤being a “dangerous idea” did not resonate with ‌Arizona voters. However, ‍arguments suggesting that RCV‌ would bring California-style primaries to ‍the state generated strong opposition.

Validation ‍of Concerns:

Interviews with election integrity ‌experts confirm that the polling​ memo aligns with their concerns about RCV. The memo⁤ reinforces the notion that ⁤proponents of ⁢this system must⁣ obfuscate its true nature and mislead ⁢voters in order to gain support.

Conclusion:

The‌ increasing popularity of ranked-choice voting should not overshadow its disastrous consequences. From confusing ⁢voters to yielding undesirable outcomes, the implementation of RCV has raised‍ serious concerns. The deceptive tactics⁣ employed by proponents, as highlighted by the HighGround survey, only ⁢serve to​ undermine the integrity of‌ the electoral process. It is



" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases

Related Articles

Sponsored Content
Back to top button
Available for Amazon Prime
Close

Adblock Detected

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker