It's not clear to me what the actual recommendation is here. RCV in party primaries will solve the minority winner problem in states that don't have run offs, and maybe modestly improve turnout in states that do. But with RCV there is no need for a party primary at all. Having one single election for each race would dramatically improve turnout in the determinant election.
Turnout in primaries has not improved in Maine (RCV), California (Top 2), or Washington (Top 2), to my knowledge.
But if we are to have fair choice in elections we need the same rules for ballot access and filing deadlines regardless of the party name--something that is not found in any US state at the moment (but is the norm in virtually all other democracies).
"But with RCV there is no need for a party primary at all."
In South Carolina there are nine certified political parties. Candidates gain general election ballot access via convention selection, primary election and petition signatures. Both major parties typically have multiple candidates campaigning for an office. Without primaries there could be as many as fifteen candidates on the general election ballot for most offices. The typical general election voter is unlikely to knowledgably rank five candidates for an office.
"In Ohio, for example, J.D. Vance will be the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate after winning just 32 percent of the vote in a multi-candidate race. In other words, he’s the party’s pick even though some 68 percent of Republicans preferred a different candidate."
The goal of a partisan primary should be to select the candidate with the broadest support. Such candidate will have the best chance of defeating other party's candidates. RCV accomplishes the goal.
It's not clear to me what the actual recommendation is here. RCV in party primaries will solve the minority winner problem in states that don't have run offs, and maybe modestly improve turnout in states that do. But with RCV there is no need for a party primary at all. Having one single election for each race would dramatically improve turnout in the determinant election.
Turnout in primaries has not improved in Maine (RCV), California (Top 2), or Washington (Top 2), to my knowledge.
But if we are to have fair choice in elections we need the same rules for ballot access and filing deadlines regardless of the party name--something that is not found in any US state at the moment (but is the norm in virtually all other democracies).
"But with RCV there is no need for a party primary at all."
In South Carolina there are nine certified political parties. Candidates gain general election ballot access via convention selection, primary election and petition signatures. Both major parties typically have multiple candidates campaigning for an office. Without primaries there could be as many as fifteen candidates on the general election ballot for most offices. The typical general election voter is unlikely to knowledgably rank five candidates for an office.
"In Ohio, for example, J.D. Vance will be the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate after winning just 32 percent of the vote in a multi-candidate race. In other words, he’s the party’s pick even though some 68 percent of Republicans preferred a different candidate."
The goal of a partisan primary should be to select the candidate with the broadest support. Such candidate will have the best chance of defeating other party's candidates. RCV accomplishes the goal.