Editor:
When I was Republican chairman of the 21st Legislative District, we held a caucus for choosing the State Representatives. The process is that each candidate is nominated, a convention is held, each nominee is allowed some time to speak, then a vote is taken (with runoff votes until a candidate gets a majority). The caucus was mostly fair but there was some unique cheating that happened. Nominees arrived at the convention to give their nomination speech, but instead resigned on stage and threw their support to another candidate. The caucus was gamed by adding bad-faith nominees who just took their time to voice support for someone else. This was a strategic operation, brokered behind doors more than likely. I favor the caucus system, but I just described a serious problem with the way this one was run.
The Edmonds Civic Roundtable put forward a terrific pro-ranked-choice voting (RCV) presentation on Monday (see story here). They held a mock RCV election with the audience for which Olympic sport should be chosen for the games. The options were:
| Skiing | Ice Hockey | Snowboarding |
The ECR presenters handed out ballots and held an election. People chose multiple sports in a ranked order (1-2-3). If none of the sports got a majority of rank-1 votes, then the sport that got the least would be exhausted and the rank-2 votes would get added instantly. The process repeats until there is a majority. RCV (also called instant-runoff voting) has a runoff scheme just like a caucus, except (unlike a caucus) a new vote isn’t taken after a candidate is dropped out. It’s all done instantly by the rank-order.
There’s a lot to like about RCV. In theory it prevents the vote-splitting effects that a third-rail candidate (e.g. Ralph Nader and Ross Perot) can have. A third candidate in a general election splits votes and hurts the candidate with a more similar platform. Ralph Nader is often blamed for splitting Al Gore’s votes. On the contrary, ranked-choice voting can have the opposite effect to the same advantage. Unlike how Nader may have weakened Gore in the general election, in a RCV election a third-fourth-and-fifth candidate can give Gore the advantage. A political party can easily cultivate more like-minded candidates; and even do so in bad faith. Ironically, coalition-building is another positive claim by RCV advocates, but rest assured this also would happen behind closed doors to the end that it advantages the most established incumbent party. I’d argue that this tactic (if crafted) could be more effective than gerrymandering.
Let’s take the example provided by the Roundtable. Imagine if downhill skiing (the most funded incumbent sport) cultivated other sport to run. The ballot would look more like this:
| Downhill Skiing | Ski Jumping |
Ice Hockey
|
|
Cross Country Skiing
|
Biathlon (also skiing)
|
Snowboarding.
|
Downhill Skiiing can simply spawn more candidates to appear on the ballot, creating a coalition. The new candidates will add an illusion of more choice, but will just end up instantly resigning and being a second choice for the main candidate. In an RCV election Al Gore would be delighted that Ralph Nader was on stage too, criticizing George Bush. Gore might even help and encourage more candidates to run, and the election would be a race to see what party can get more second-place proxies on the ballot. The coalitions will share money, voter databases, and be mostly non-adversarial to each other. Would a newer, naive candidate even know how to navigate this? Does a city councilperson also need to be good at Hunger Games in order to get elected?
Matt Richardson
Edmonds
A good description. It is educated gambling with candidates. Leaving the uneducated people to gamble with their vote. A third place candidate in the first round could be the winner in the second or third round.
Oh noes! How will people ever pick their top three favorite candidates? What if they all have the same hair color? Or, gasp, what if they are all named Karen? How will anyone tell them apart?
RCV is democratic. Small d democratic, in case anyone is confused by that word too. https://www.fairvote.org
Mr. Richardson, you presented my main concern about RCV, much better than I could ever have done. Thank you.
Really good points, Matt. Thank you.
This is a false narrative. In your second ballot example, all that would happen is that the people who would have picked “Skiing” in the first example now have the ability to split their preferences into exactly what kind of skiing they prefer. It’s still the same number of people/votes for skiing overall, but this is actually great feedback to the organizers since now they have more data about what type of skiing they should choose.
This statement: “In an RCV election Al Gore would be delighted that Ralph Nader was on stage too, criticizing George Bush. Gore might even help and encourage more candidates to run, and the election would be a race to see what party can get more second-place proxies on the ballot.” is a similar situation. If only given the choice between Gore/Bush, the Nader voter usually picks Gore. If given the choice between all three as part of RCV, the Nader voter now actually has a voice in the process without worrying about “wasting” their vote by picking a third-party candidate. If their second choice is Gore, it’s still the same overall voter sentiment but doesn’t require voters to determine whether their preferred candidate is viable.
Amanda, great feedback. A stated goal in RCV is that it increases participation. So no, the argument is not that it is the same number of people/votes. Cross Country Skiiing voters used to sit it out, disenfranchised with how Downhill Skiing gets all the attention. What will happen is that the Cross Country Skiing voters will enter the fray, vote for Cross Country first, Downhill second. Suddenly there’s more money, more voters, more candidates. I think we agree on this effect of RCV.
My thesis is that just like how plurality voting discourages additional candidates and reduces participation ultimately favoring one candidate, RCV can actually create additional candidates and increase participation -still- ultimately favoring just one candidate.
This is the exact effect that the Republican Party has on Libertarians. Most of [us] Libertarians sit it out, feeling as though it’s better not to vote than to compromise on [say] John McCain. This is a dilemma that really happened to my caucus in 2016. With RCV we would have been more inclined to vote because we could vote for Ron Paul, but practically none of us would have marked second votes for Hillary Clinton. This would have given only one candidate the advantage. The Republicans actively stamped out the Ron Paul ticket, not wanting the vote split. With RCV they would have wrote us a check.
This question is directly to you: What would prevent one of the major two parties from actually stacking the ballot with similar-leaning candidates? The Status Quo could just as easily overwater the Grassroots instead of stamping them out. It will come down to whatever party can pay for the most participation. Maybe this is still better than what we have now, but I am doubting it.
I guess I don’t see a negative in increasing voter participation; isn’t voting both a right and a duty for Americans? I seem to remember that being an answer the last time I helped a friend study for their citizenship test. Do you think that including people who were previously disenfranchised by the design of the voting system is a bad thing?
Sure, a party can stack the ballot with similar candidates, and there’s nothing to prevent it but money/effort, but there’s still a finite number of potential voters that lean toward that side of the aisle. As you say, a Ron Paul voter would be unlikely to ever vote for Hillary Clinton, just as a Bernie Sanders voter would be unlikely to vote for, as an example, Ron DeSantis.
I see a value in at least having the number of Ron Paul voters be visible, even if they do eventually end up lumped together with whoever the emerging right-leaning candidate is. If the GOP notices a growth in the Libertarian voter bloc over time, wouldn’t it make sense for them to incorporate some of the Libertarian views into their platform to court those voters? Or vice versa. To me, this gives people a reason to explore outside of the status quo of our existing two major parties. I think we can all agree that whichever party we feel more aligned with is never a perfect fit of our values and views, and I personally like having more options while not removing support from the major party candidate who is closest to me.
RCV isn’t perfect by any means; there’s still a potential for a centrist candidate to win while initially having fewer votes than candidates to either side. That said, our current system does disenfranchise those who aren’t willing to settle or compromise on a candidate that is considered viable under existing processes. Pick your poison, I guess?
You’re really thinking deep about this too. I don’t feel either of us feel like the plurality system we have today is good. I personally like the electoral/caucus system. The city council could divide up into districts, each district electing a representative. The instant runoff part is also a missed opportunity. Between rounds a caucus offers the ability to debate with the group, renegotiate after a nominee is dropped. Why not have a council that represents districts? Hunger Games got that part right.
Matt’s example that was used during the session is not quite correct. He was on zoom so may have missed the full details. Total votes were 22 so 12 was needed to get a majority. The votes were:
Skiing 9
Figure Skating 9
Hockey 3
Snow boarding 1
Because none got 12 the single person voting for SB go to have their 2 place vote count. That made the vote:
Skiing 10
Figure Skating 9
Hockey 3
Still no majority But only one person got their 2nd place vote to count. The others were not allowed to change their vote based on what they had learned during the first round.
Now the Hockey folks got to count their 2nd place vote and in this case they all cast their 2nd place vote for Skiing. That made the vote 13 for Skiing and 9 for Figure Skating.
In this case 4 voters got to swing the election while the original Skiing and Figure Skating voters had to stay with their original vote. What if all the Ski or Figure Skating votes All wanted Hockey, that vote would have then been 21 for Hockey and 1 for Snowboarding. What happen in the actual case is 4 people got 2 votes and 18 had to stand pat.
In the past when council selected a new member, they voted multiply times. In one recient past appoint it took 59 ballots before a candidate got a majority. In the most recent appointment, I think it took 24 ballots (I have the data but not at my fingertips). But based on my recollection the ultimate winner would have been different had the method discussed been used. I think council can make its own rules on how they select replacements, it would be interesting to see if council would be willing to use RCV for it’s next replacement vote???
Help me here, please. We can’t do this without a state law, correct? Do we have the cart before the horse? Unless I missed it somewhere, we are debating something we may never have/need. No offense intended to any us (including myself), I’ve got more urgent matters to handle than research something that may never even be an option. I’ll do my fact-finding & analysis when there’s actually something to delve into. I know you will correct me if this should be an open topic right now, I.e. we are allowed by law to pursue a possible change right now. (Said as a compliment to we who try to stay informed).
Denmark was touted by ECR as using RCV during their presentation. Today Demark announced they are lifting all COVID-19 restrictions. It is interesting sometimes how Scandinavia is touted for all things progressive. Norway is an oil company.
Ms Hetherly
It was clear from the ECR presentation that there are groups, such as FairVote Washington, who are lobbying for RCV. It is better to be in front of this issue rather than behind it when it may be too late to do anything about it.
An example would be the proposed development at 6th and Main which apparently meets current code. Where were the Citizens when this code was established?
It’s easier to prevent something than to change it.