Why You Should Vote NO to Ranked Choice Voting - C126
The Dangers of Ranked-Choice Voting: A Critical Analysis- C126
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has been touted as a progressive reform to improve electoral processes, but its implementation raises significant concerns. This article explores the potential pitfalls of RCV, highlighting its complexity, cost, and potential to disenfranchise voters.
Complexity and Voter Confusion
RCV requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting a single candidate. This system, while seemingly straightforward, can become overwhelmingly complex, especially in elections with numerous candidates. For instance, in a recent Alaskan election, voters had to sift through 46 candidates on a single ballot. The time-consuming nature of this process can deter voter participation and increase wait times at polling stations.
Additionally, RCV necessitates a thorough understanding of each candidate’s policies and positions, which can be a daunting task for the average voter. The complexity of learning about multiple candidates and ranking them accordingly can lead to confusion and errors, particularly in local elections where different rules might apply. High error rates have been observed; in San Francisco, nearly half of the ballots in one election were discarded due to mistakes.
Increased Costs
Implementing RCV is not cheap. The costs associated with printing longer ballots, increased postage, and hiring additional election workers to process these ballots are substantial. For example, New York City spent $15 million on RCV education efforts in a single year, while Portland, Oregon, spent nearly $1 million. Beyond education, the mechanical costs of redesigning ballots and purchasing new software and machines add to the financial burden.
Questionable Majority Support
Proponents of RCV argue that it ensures candidates have majority support. However, this claim is debatable. Historical data from Maine reveals that 60% of RCV election winners did not receive a majority of the total votes cast. Similarly, in the 2010 Australian election, the winning party secured only 38% of first-place votes while the leading opposition garnered 43%, indicating a discrepancy between voter preference and election outcomes.
Potential for Polarization and Negative Campaigns
Contrary to claims that RCV promotes positive campaigning, studies suggest it can exacerbate polarization, especially in highly partisan environments. Research by Buisseret and Prato (2022) found that RCV increases polarization when voter turnout is low or partisanship is strong. Furthermore, a study by Donovan and Tolbert (2023) revealed that the majority of voters in New York and California perceived RCV races as equally or more negative compared to traditional elections.
Voter Disenfranchisement
One of the most concerning aspects of RCV is its potential to disenfranchise voters. The process of redistributing votes from eliminated candidates can result in many votes being discarded. For example, New York City saw 140,000 ballots discarded in one election, and Maine had 8,000 ballots invalidated. High rates of spoiled ballots undermine the principle of “one person, one vote,” diminishing voter confidence and trust in the electoral system.
Slow and Inaccurate Results
RCV often leads to delayed election results, further eroding voter trust. In Alaska, it took nearly a month to finalize election outcomes. Additionally, errors in counting RCV ballots have led to incorrect election results, as seen in the 2022 Oakland School Board race and the 2021 New York City mayoral race, where thousands of test ballots were mistakenly included in the count.CV adopted jurisdictions have experienced confusing and inaccurate election outcomes. I
Nationwide Repeal Efforts
Given these issues, several states have moved to ban RCV. Montana, Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, and Idaho have prohibited its use, with Georgia considering a similar ban. The experience of jurisdictions that have adopted and later repealed RCV serves as a cautionary tale, suggesting that the system’s complexities and drawbacks outweigh its purported benefits.
In conclusion, while ranked-choice voting claims to create fairer elections, its implementation raises significant concerns about complexity, cost, voter disenfranchisement, and election integrity. As more states reconsider RCV, it is crucial to critically evaluate whether this system truly serves the democratic process or undermines it.
Read more about RCV from the Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/election-integrity/report/ranked-choice-voting-bad-choice