There are a number of interesting people who are proposing a “Ranked Choice Voting” system to replace the current election system.
Cato’s Walter Olson is one. He has recently been writing on the value of a Ranked Choice Voting System (RCV):
www.cato.org/commentary/why-conservatives-shouldnt-fear-ranked-choice-voting.
Former Democratic Party Presidential candidate Andrew Yang is also a big supporter.
The argument in favor of Ranked Choice Voting was largely summarized by Cato’s Josh Ferencik: “Personally, I back this idea over other reforms because in rewriting the rules on how we count votes, we will allow new and exciting political coalitions to form and re-empower the independent voter.”
I like and respect Walter Olson and Josh Ferencik, and I loved Walter Olson’s book “Schools for Misrule: Legal Academia and an Overlawyered America.”
I also have no problem with Andrew Yang.
However, I am not a fan of “Ranked Choice Voting.”
As far as I am concerned, it moves in wrong direction completely.
I will start with my own voting pattern.
I almost always vote.
When I do vote, if 10 offices are being voted on, I usually only vote for 1 or 2 candidates, and leave the others blank. Most candidates, particularly Republicans and Democrats, are not worth voting for.
“NONE OF THE ABOVE”
The only way Ranked Choice Voting would be an improvement if one of the choices was “NONE OF THE ABOVE”, and that will not happen.
Most people do not vote FOR a candidate, they vote AGAINST one. “Ranked Choice Voting” should be opposed primarily since it is an attempt to hide this fact. Refusing to vote in a rigged political system is the real ranked choice vote. Challenging the rigged system is necessary.
Ranked Choice Voting will not empower the independent voter. Widening public debate and having public debate occur on an intelligent adult level will be required to do this.
I will give a few examples, starting with the 2020 presidential election.
A. Kamala Harris got a steady 0% in the Democrat Presidential Primaries. If Ranked Choice Voting was in effect, they could have pretended somebody voted for her.
B. Nobody voted for Joe Biden. At least 99% of the votes cast ‘for’ him were people voting AGAINST TRUMP.
The Democrats could have run a lizard, a donkey or a washing machine for president and it would have gotten the same vote total.
It is unlikely that more than 15 or 20 people, all of them most likely to be immediate family, actually voted for Biden. On the other hand, all 76 million of the people who voted for Trump were actually voting for him.
C. The Democrats will not hold presidential primary debates in 2024, despite the fact, or because, RFK, Jr. was challenging Biden for the nomination. (He has since become an Independent Candidate for President.)
The refusal to debate challengers to the status quo is the typical response of the Democrats and Republicans. The most likely reason for this behavior is the fact that neither party has anything worthwhile to offer on any important issue.
D. Another particularly grievous example comes from New York. A political party was required to have its gubernatorial candidate receive 50,000 votes in order to have guaranteed ballot status for the next 4 years.
This is what happened in the 2018 New York gubernatorial election, and its aftermath. It refers to Libertarian candidate Larry Sharpe.
“On Election Day, Sharpe received 95,033 votes (1.6%) and came in fourth place behind Cuomo, Republican challenger Marc Molinaro, and Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins. Sharpe’s vote total achieved automatic ballot access for the Libertarian Party of New York for the first time in the party’s history.” (Wikipedia)
The 95,333 votes for Governor 2018 Libertarian Party Candidate Larry Sharpe received was MORE THAN 6 TIMES MORE THAN THE PARTY’S VOTE TOTAL OF 15,594 IN 2014.
The Republican Party percentage of the vote declined from 40.6% (to Democrat Andrew Cuomo’s 54%) in 2014 to 36.2% (to Democrat Cuomo’s 59.6%) in 2018, a decline of more than 4 percentage points.
The response of the New York Democrats and Republicans was to retroactively change the requirement on April 4, 2020 to 130,000 votes every two years, thereby cheating the Libertarian Party of New York of its Ballot Access.
To repeat, this was after the Libertarian Party vote total was MORE THAN 6 TIMES MORE THAN ITS TOTAL 4 YEARS BEFORE WHILE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TOTAL DECLINED BY MORE THAN 4 PERCENTAGE POINTS.
This atrocity is a typical example of Republican and Democrat behavior.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case brought to address this matter, and the only legislative solutions proposed have attracted little to no support and also fall short of addressing this atrocity. The only acceptable solution is to admit that the Libertarian Party satisfied all requirements for permanent ballot status and to restore Automatic Ballot Status for the next four years, plus any additional time the party has been cheated of Automatic Ballot Access.
Starting with April 4, 2020, that number is 3 years and counting, bringing the current total to 7+ years and counting.
Anything else is simply a stalling tactic designed to perpetually deny the Automatic Ballot Status the Libertarian Party of New York earned while paying lip service to the issue and shedding a few crocodile tears.
If New York Republicans and Democrats continue with this behavior, the response should be to call for a Boycott of All Republican and Democrat candidates in New York State unless or until this situation is rectified.
Conclusion
Ranked Choice Voting, Taxpayer-funded primaries, Publicly Funded Elections, and the Commission on Presidential Debates which has managed to exclude everyone except the Republican and Democrat Presidential candidates are all part of the same proposal.
All must be refuted, and alternatives proposed.
Offering intelligent alternatives will be a victory as long as they are introduced. The Republicans and Democrats will have to respond. If they fail to support them, but cannot refute them, there will be repercussions.
Keep in mind that the major political reform to come out of Watergate was to create Campaign Finance Restrictions in order to make sure that a Eugene McCarthy would never again be allowed to challenge the establishment candidate.
The Commission on Presidential Debates is an extension of this idea. Every presidential election since 1988, when they excluded Ron Paul, has been an ELECTION ABOUT NOTHING, which follows a long period of noise about nothing while avoiding real issues, which is one reason the National Debt is $31 trillion and rising.
This is why an alternative to the current system designed to protect the Republican/Democrat must be proposed.
See Also
“Biden’s Inexplicable Victory” by Patrick Basham, pp. 10-14, “Chronicles” Magazine, October 2021 “Election Oddities” by Edward Welsch, pp. 15-17, “Chronicles” Magazine, October 2021 and
“The Most Expensive Judicial Race in US History Is Raising Questions” By Steven Kovac Oct 21, 2023Updated:Oct 25, 2023, Epoch Times. <newsletter@epochtimes.com>
“Under the microscope are multiple small donations from voters who say they didn’t make such donations to Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Janet Protasiewicz.”