As Hill notes this could indeed be the breakout year for ranked choice voting. He gives an excellent review of the major RCV November ballot measures. Voters in Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado and D.C. are especially worth watching. Will they join Alaska and Maine in adopting variations of RCV for some or all of their federal and statewide elections? Let's hope.
As Hill mentions both major political parties generally - although not completely or everywhere - have their long knives out for RCV, as is usually the case when power and control might potentially shift from one group to another. Few groups (or individuals) willingly give up influence, and most voting reforms, certainly RCV, shift influence from the parties to the people. Of course the political parties claim their opposition to RCV has nothing to do with control or power - voter confusion, increased expenses, ballot complexities and delayed results are often trotted out (all weak on close inspection). The major reason for their opposition - loss of influence in elections - is never mentioned. Perhaps the voters in those four state (and D.C.) will rise to the occasion in November.
As one of the original founders of Better Ballot NC and a close observer of the progress of RCV in the US, I am disappointed that supporters of RCV do not understand that the inclusion of open primaries (top X) in RCV measures is self-defeating. Open primaries are an electoral ruse proposed by Democrats to nullify RCV by allowing the major parties to transfer their disenfranchising tricks from the general elections to the primaries by outspending minor party and independent competitors. The glee over RCV ballot initiatives which include open primaries as part of the legislative remedy to FPTP voting is misplaced. If open primaries become a fixture that accompanies RCV measures, it will become enshrined in the electoral system for decades, negating the promise of RCV and requiring a new, long and draining fight for fair ballots that will leave us at the mercy of the two-party system. No open primaries, no Top X results. RCV alone is what should be promoted.
Hi Wayne, thanks for your thoughts. But I don't see open primaries as a ruse by Democrats. And in Nevada, Dems are opposing it. Everyone I know who is supporting it -- in combo with RCV -- is primarily because of the increasing numbers of independent voters who are shut out of partisan primaries, where most elections are decided today due to the non-competitive nature of most "winner take all" districts and states. Personally, I can't ignore the high level of disenfranchisement of such a large group of voters (I provided some of the numbers of independent voters in my article).
I would also add that, previously I did not appreciate this Top 4-RCV hybrid, regarding it as a faddish mashup that had no future and was not much of a pathway to the Holy Grail of proportional representation. But more recently, in considering the trajectory of US politics toward a toxic and worrisome form of MAGA right-wing extremism, I have come to appreciate the efforts of those advancing this reform package as an intervention to elect more moderate Republicans. As we stand on the cusp of what is sure to be a tumultuous political year, the future of our democracy may depend on the success of such efforts to defang the Trumpists. In Idaho, Alaska, Virginia and elsewhere, RCV has become a tool for moderate Republicans to fight back against extreme MAGA by requiring majority thresholds and using ranked ballots to prevent split votes among moderate Republicans. In AK and ID, that is done in conjunction with Top 4, in VA RCV was used in party caucuses to that effect. I wrote about this more here, in case you are interested: https://democracysos.substack.com/p/top-four-primary-with-ranked-choice
I'm sympathetic to the loss of opportunity that minor parties are subjected to under an open primary, so Top 5 might be better than Top 4 since it gives minor parties a better shot at making it past the primary to Nov general. There are pros and cons to any electoral method, and no method is perfect. This is one of those classic situations in which a clash of democratic values and goals is inevitable, and the outcome will not please everyone. One of the clashes in this case is over the inclusion of all parties versus inclusion of all voters, i.e. independent voters. At this time, I lean toward the latter. Again, thanks for your thoughts.
As Hill notes this could indeed be the breakout year for ranked choice voting. He gives an excellent review of the major RCV November ballot measures. Voters in Oregon, Idaho, Nevada, Colorado and D.C. are especially worth watching. Will they join Alaska and Maine in adopting variations of RCV for some or all of their federal and statewide elections? Let's hope.
As Hill mentions both major political parties generally - although not completely or everywhere - have their long knives out for RCV, as is usually the case when power and control might potentially shift from one group to another. Few groups (or individuals) willingly give up influence, and most voting reforms, certainly RCV, shift influence from the parties to the people. Of course the political parties claim their opposition to RCV has nothing to do with control or power - voter confusion, increased expenses, ballot complexities and delayed results are often trotted out (all weak on close inspection). The major reason for their opposition - loss of influence in elections - is never mentioned. Perhaps the voters in those four state (and D.C.) will rise to the occasion in November.
Good points John. All the best.
As one of the original founders of Better Ballot NC and a close observer of the progress of RCV in the US, I am disappointed that supporters of RCV do not understand that the inclusion of open primaries (top X) in RCV measures is self-defeating. Open primaries are an electoral ruse proposed by Democrats to nullify RCV by allowing the major parties to transfer their disenfranchising tricks from the general elections to the primaries by outspending minor party and independent competitors. The glee over RCV ballot initiatives which include open primaries as part of the legislative remedy to FPTP voting is misplaced. If open primaries become a fixture that accompanies RCV measures, it will become enshrined in the electoral system for decades, negating the promise of RCV and requiring a new, long and draining fight for fair ballots that will leave us at the mercy of the two-party system. No open primaries, no Top X results. RCV alone is what should be promoted.
Hi Wayne, thanks for your thoughts. But I don't see open primaries as a ruse by Democrats. And in Nevada, Dems are opposing it. Everyone I know who is supporting it -- in combo with RCV -- is primarily because of the increasing numbers of independent voters who are shut out of partisan primaries, where most elections are decided today due to the non-competitive nature of most "winner take all" districts and states. Personally, I can't ignore the high level of disenfranchisement of such a large group of voters (I provided some of the numbers of independent voters in my article).
I would also add that, previously I did not appreciate this Top 4-RCV hybrid, regarding it as a faddish mashup that had no future and was not much of a pathway to the Holy Grail of proportional representation. But more recently, in considering the trajectory of US politics toward a toxic and worrisome form of MAGA right-wing extremism, I have come to appreciate the efforts of those advancing this reform package as an intervention to elect more moderate Republicans. As we stand on the cusp of what is sure to be a tumultuous political year, the future of our democracy may depend on the success of such efforts to defang the Trumpists. In Idaho, Alaska, Virginia and elsewhere, RCV has become a tool for moderate Republicans to fight back against extreme MAGA by requiring majority thresholds and using ranked ballots to prevent split votes among moderate Republicans. In AK and ID, that is done in conjunction with Top 4, in VA RCV was used in party caucuses to that effect. I wrote about this more here, in case you are interested: https://democracysos.substack.com/p/top-four-primary-with-ranked-choice
I'm sympathetic to the loss of opportunity that minor parties are subjected to under an open primary, so Top 5 might be better than Top 4 since it gives minor parties a better shot at making it past the primary to Nov general. There are pros and cons to any electoral method, and no method is perfect. This is one of those classic situations in which a clash of democratic values and goals is inevitable, and the outcome will not please everyone. One of the clashes in this case is over the inclusion of all parties versus inclusion of all voters, i.e. independent voters. At this time, I lean toward the latter. Again, thanks for your thoughts.