Ranked Choice Voting allows voters to rank a first choice, second choice, for each elected office on the ballot. Proponents say it allows the majority to prevail. A winning candidate who doesn't have an actual majority of votes can be bumped in favor of a second-place finisher, who has received more second and third place votes than the winner.
Is this good or bad? There seems to be no definitive study or consensus opinion. Some say it gives a boost to third party candidates. The Cato Institute says it "actually neuters third parties." Republicans have fought it in Maine; College Republicans in Virginia just endorsed it this month. The lack of cohesive response might suggest that ranked voting is indeed fair to all, and being focused on dozens of major local issues, I'm not prepared to condemn something I haven't had time to study in great detail.
But, the skeptic - which any good journalist should be - would naturally have to ask, "Why is the Council pushing for this?" What problem is it addressing? There have been no disputed elections in Montgomery County. There have been no spoiler victories, no GOP victories, and no third-party victories.
Ranked voting might have stopped Donald Trump from gaining primary and general election victories, but Trump was crushed by Hillary Clinton in Montgomery County, and this bill only applies to County offices. We know that Montgomery County Democratic turnout was low in June 2014, but the low turnout was mainly the result of incumbents' desire to hold the Democratic primary while many voters were at the beach.
At this point, I would just like to hear ranked voting proponents answer what specific problem in Montgomery County elections this bill is solving. For example, how the outcome of County races in 2014 would have changed with ranked voting, and what benefit that change would have had. If these types of Montgomery County-specific questions cannot be answered, it would not speak well for the bill, or garner public support for Council action if it passes.
7 comments:
What about open primaries? Any progress on that? The 33% of MoCo registered voters who have no party affiliation would like to have a say in the primaries.
Did you obtain permission from Tom Hanks to use that image?
He did.
6:52: I would have thought open primaries would have been a higher priority than ranked voting. It does actually address a major complaint we've heard from independent voters over many years. I haven't heard any complaint that we needed ranked voting.
I feel like ranked voting is helpful in races with a packed ballot. By counting second and third rankings, I think you get an overall better sense of who the population prefers. FairVote has an article on it (no sources, so apply grain of salt as needed) that goes over the benefits of ranked voting: http://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits.
Some of the benefits they list can also be seen in areas that don't gerrymander. When voting districts are drawn in a fair way you tend to see more bipartisanship and fewer radical candidates - from both parties, and less mudslinging during the election season.
My personal view is that the purpose of a primary is for the party to choose their candidate. If you’re not affiliated with the party, why should you have a say in who they choose to put on the ballot? If having input is important to you — join the party!
Again, that’s just how I look at it.
MoC Council....."hey boys...lets fix some thing that is nor broken....then we all look like heros"
Post a Comment