Ranked-choice voting complicates elections and undermines voter participation

Ranked-Choice Voting: A Recipe for Chaos and Disenfranchisement

A newly released video has exposed the detrimental effects of ranked-choice voting⁣ (RCV), revealing how it leads ‍to confused voters and discarded⁤ ballots. Under RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference, but ‌if no candidate receives more than ⁣50 percent​ of ‍first-choice votes, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated to the voter’s second-choice candidate. This​ process continues until ‍one candidate ⁢secures a majority.

The Foundation for Government Accountability (FGA) has published a two-minute-long explainer video ​that vividly demonstrates the ‍problems caused by ​RCV.‍ The video highlights the issue of “ballot exhaustion,” where voters who select only one candidate on their ballot have their ‍votes tossed⁣ if their first choice doesn’t win a majority in the ⁢first round.

A study conducted by FGA last year uncovered thousands of “exhausted” ballots discarded in states and localities that have implemented RCV. For instance, in Alaska’s⁣ 2022 special congressional election, over 11,000 out of nearly 15,000 “exhausted” ballots were thrown out because voters had chosen only one Republican candidate. Similarly, in ​a 2018 Maine⁣ congressional race, more than​ 8,000 ballots were deemed “exhausted” and discarded. These instances result in a smaller pool of voters​ ultimately deciding the​ election, excluding thousands of others.

The video also⁣ reveals how RCV often leads to electoral victories‍ for⁤ Democrats. In Alaska’s at-large congressional seat election in⁣ 2022, Democrat Mary Peltola emerged as the winner despite nearly⁣ 60 percent of​ voters casting their ballots for a Republican. RCV also played a major role in helping⁣ Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski secure reelection during the 2022 midterms. Efforts ​are currently underway in Alaska to repeal ⁤RCV​ through a measure on the 2024 general election ballot.

A similar scenario unfolded ‍in ⁤the 2018 Maine congressional race, where incumbent GOP Rep. Bruce Poliquin‍ lost to‌ Democrat Jared Golden, despite Poliquin‌ receiving the most votes in the first round of voting.

According to FGA Marketing Director Victoria Eardley, ⁤”ranked-choice voting undermines voters’ confidence in the integrity and accuracy of elections.” Trust is hard to gain and easy to lose, and the track record of ranked-choice voting shows it‌ erodes trust rapidly.

RCV proponents ​employ misleading talking points about “fairness” to divert attention from the system’s negative impact on voter confidence ⁢and election efficiency. ⁣A polling memo obtained by The Federalist revealed that RCV supporters are searching for ways to deceive voters into embracing the system by⁣ analyzing which pro-RCV talking points are‍ most effective.

Democracy ‍Found, an RCV advocacy group, attempted to mislead voters and⁤ Wisconsin legislators about the workings of a top-five ranked-choice ‌voting⁢ system ahead of a state Senate Committee​ hearing on a pro-RCV bill in December.

Shawn Fleetwood, ‍a staff writer​ for The Federalist and a ‌graduate of the University of Mary​ Washington, has previously served as a state content writer ⁣for Convention of States Action. His work ‍has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review.⁢ Follow him on Twitter⁢ @ShawnFleetwood.

What are some arguments made by advocates of ranked-choice voting, and how do they overlook the flaws‍ and challenges associated ‍with this voting method

Furthermore,‌ the video underscores the confusion​ that arises from RCV.‌ It demonstrates how voters can unintentionally harm their preferred candidate by ranking other candidates higher on‌ their ballot. This confusion can lead to unintended outcomes, such as the election of candidates who are not preferred by the majority‍ of voters.

RCV also presents logistical challenges. Counting and re-allocating votes in multiple rounds is a​ time-consuming and costly process. ⁢It requires sophisticated technology and extensive training for election ‌officials. The⁤ implementation of RCV could strain the already overburdened resources of election offices, potentially leading to delays and ⁣errors during the counting process.

Advocates⁤ of RCV argue that it promotes fairness and eliminates ⁢the need for runoff elections.⁣ They claim that it allows voters to express their preferences more accurately and reduces the negative impact of strategic voting. However, these arguments overlook the inherent flaws and practical challenges associated with RCV.

Instead ⁣of promoting ⁣fairness, RCV can ⁣actually amplify the ⁣flaws in the electoral system. It shifts power to a minority ⁢of voters who have ranked their preferred candidate higher ‍in subsequent rounds. This concentrates influence in the⁣ hands of a few, undermining the principle of “one person, one vote.”

Moreover, RCV does not guarantee that the⁣ winner has a broad-based mandate. In some cases, the‍ final winner may have⁣ received a majority through the‌ reallocation of votes, but their initial first-choice support may have been ⁤relatively low. This undermines the legitimacy of the‍ elected candidate and erodes the public’s trust in the electoral process.

RCV may also ⁤have unintended consequences for political parties‌ and minority communities. The elimination of candidates in ‍successive rounds disproportionately affects candidates with less name recognition or​ support from established political parties. This can disadvantage candidates from underrepresented ​communities and hinder their ability to compete on a level ⁢playing field.

In ‍conclusion, ranked-choice voting presents a recipe for chaos and disenfranchisement. The video released by the Foundation for Government Accountability demonstrates the problems of ballot exhaustion​ and confusion caused by RCV. The discarded ballots in previous​ elections highlight the exclusionary nature of this voting system. Additionally, the logistical challenges and the potential for unintended ⁢outcomes further undermine the case for RCV. It is crucial⁣ to critically evaluate the consequences of implementing this voting method and consider alternative solutions that ‍truly promote fairness, inclusivity, ‍and the⁤ integrity of the democratic process.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases