Ranked choice voting elections have brought diverse representation to one of the nation’s most conservative states...just like it has in New York City and other places
An excellent article about the success of RCV in a large and diverse city (and state). It has been interesting to see the arguments against RCV gradually wither in recent years: RCV is too complex for voters to understand, RCV wastes ("exhausts") too many votes, RCV is too expensive, RCV involves excessive delay in counting, RCV has too much bias against this party or that, RCV results in loss of trust in electoral systems, and so on.
Alas, never voiced by those opposed to RCV is the concern - perhaps their real concern - that RCV reduces the control political parties have in elections and increases the influence of voters. Never voiced is the concern that RCV encourages too many "certain folks" to run for office and perhaps even get elected. Never voiced is the concern that too many "certain folks" might even be encouraged to vote because their vote might have more influence. Never voiced is the concern that democracy might be fine in theory but those pesky voters need to be kept under control.
In my opinion these "never voiced" concerns are the real concerns of those opposed to RCV. But in politics voiced concerns are often quite different than the unvoiced (real) concerns. Voiced concerns have to sound good on the surface (often quite enough) and play well with the public. Unvoiced (real) concerns often don't and are better left unvoiced.
RCV is inevitable. As a country we may be behind most other advanced democracies, but we are catching up. Salt Lake City is ahead of the curve, as is Utah. Who would have guessed?
Such a informative article of the advancement re: RCV!
I sent this over to democracy defender, Mary Trump.
Viviane DeLeon
An excellent article about the success of RCV in a large and diverse city (and state). It has been interesting to see the arguments against RCV gradually wither in recent years: RCV is too complex for voters to understand, RCV wastes ("exhausts") too many votes, RCV is too expensive, RCV involves excessive delay in counting, RCV has too much bias against this party or that, RCV results in loss of trust in electoral systems, and so on.
Alas, never voiced by those opposed to RCV is the concern - perhaps their real concern - that RCV reduces the control political parties have in elections and increases the influence of voters. Never voiced is the concern that RCV encourages too many "certain folks" to run for office and perhaps even get elected. Never voiced is the concern that too many "certain folks" might even be encouraged to vote because their vote might have more influence. Never voiced is the concern that democracy might be fine in theory but those pesky voters need to be kept under control.
In my opinion these "never voiced" concerns are the real concerns of those opposed to RCV. But in politics voiced concerns are often quite different than the unvoiced (real) concerns. Voiced concerns have to sound good on the surface (often quite enough) and play well with the public. Unvoiced (real) concerns often don't and are better left unvoiced.
RCV is inevitable. As a country we may be behind most other advanced democracies, but we are catching up. Salt Lake City is ahead of the curve, as is Utah. Who would have guessed?