[Voting systems matter. Ours needs reform. When races attract many
candidates ranked choice voting can provide a truer expression of
voters preferences than the current system. And its actually being
adopted.] [[link removed]]

MORE CANDIDATES, LESS DEMOCRACY? RANKED CHOICE VOTING AVOIDS THE
FALSE CHOICE.  
[[link removed]]


 

David Daley
September 13, 2019
Real Clear Politics
[[link removed]]


*
[[link removed].]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

_ Voting systems matter. Ours needs reform. When races attract many
candidates ranked choice voting can provide a truer expression of
voters' preferences than the current system. And it's actually being
adopted. _

, AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty

 

Imagine this is the state of the Democratic primary: The field has
been whittled down to just three candidates – former Vice President
Joe Biden and U.S. Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Biden
stands at 38% in national polling. Warren sits just behind him at
37.7%. Sanders holds the other 24.2%.

Well, that would be the situation Democrats faced today if the field
were narrowed to just the top tier of candidates, according to a new
poll conducted by FairVote and YouGov 
[[link removed]]that asked
Democrats to rank the entire field. A deadlocked convention,
frustrated voters, a party divided against itself: It’s the stuff of
bitter, blue tears, leaving no easy way out that satisfies anywhere
close to a majority of Democrats.

National conventions are supposed to _end_ lingering tensions and
produce unity, as a party coalesces behind its nominee and charges
into the final weeks of a presidential campaign with a common mission.
That’s not likely to be the case if party insiders crown a nominee
when more than 61% of primary voters favor a different candidate.

There is a solution. Ranked-choice voting (in at least some form)
would allow Democrats to identify the consensus nominee, the candidate
with the widest possible support and best chance to unify the party.
It works just like an instant runoff. The candidate at the bottom --
in this case, Sanders -- would be eliminated. The race would be down
to two. The Sanders votes would be reallocated based on each voter’s
second choice. The winner would be the candidate that the greatest
number of people could agree on. No one would have cast a spoiler or
wasted vote. And the party could head into the general election
knowing that its standard-bearer had broad support.

The FairVote/YouGov poll tells us what would happen in that case:
Warren tops Biden, 53.4% to 46.6%. (Follow this link
[[link removed]] and you can create
runoffs of your own with all of the candidates.) Maybe everyone
wouldn’t leave the convention happy. But they would leave having
been heard, and certain that the majority carried the day.

Polls are always just a snapshot. But this one suggests that in a
field of some two dozen candidates, Warren is the one that most
Democrats agree on. 

Her favorability numbers are the highest. The Massachusetts senator is
viewed as very or somewhat favorable by 74% of Democrats, compared to
69% for Biden and Sanders. Only 21% of Democrats left Warren out of
their top 10, compared to 27% who did not rank Biden and 30.5% who
passed on Sanders. Warren also wins head to head against every member
of the field, including Biden and Sanders. When examining voters’
top three choices -- rather than just one -- she also does quite well
with non-white voters and older voters more closely associated with
Biden. 

This isn’t to say that Elizabeth Warren ought to be the nominee.
It’s September 2019. No one will cast an actual vote for more than
four months. The presidential campaign is long and fluid. 

However, it is to say that our electoral system -- both voting itself
and the way we connect public opinion surveys -- has been overwhelmed
by the new reality of a massive field of candidates seeking the White
House. This may well be a permanent feature of our presidential
elections. There were 17 Republican hopefuls in 2016. It’s easy to
imagine an equally large GOP field in 2024 trying to plot the
party’s course after Donald Trump. We need a voting mechanism that
is up to this challenge, and our “single choice” system --
creating plurality winners that only exacerbate polarization -- is no
longer up to the task. Neither are polls that tell us who leads a
national horse race and not the more sophisticated feelings of voters
facing an unprecedented field.

 The good news is that a growing number of Americans have embraced
RCV. Maine already uses it in its state and federal elections, and
will add it for picking presidential electors in 2020
[[link removed]] as
well. As many as six Democratic primaries and caucuses will be
conducted with a ranked-choice ballot. New York City voters appear
likely to adopt it via a charter revision  [[link removed]]this
fall as well, joining San Francisco, Minneapolis and Oakland as cities
with RCV.

Ranked-choice voting also would have altered the trajectory of the
2016 Republican nomination contest. Donald Trump, after all,
solidified himself as the GOP front-runner despite failing to win a
state primary or caucus with more than 50% of the vote for almost the
first three months of the race. To be sure, he is the president, but
he almost certainly was not the Republican Party’s strongest, most
unifying nominee. 

Most polls done before well into the primaries 
[[link removed]]showed
him losing head-to-head against his strongest opponents. When FairVote
conducted a similar ranked-choice YouGov poll in 2016
[[link removed]],
Trump’s support revealed itself as both strong and narrow: Trump had
more first-place votes than any candidate, but also more last-place
votes. If Republicans had been able to use RCV, rather than dividing
support between Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio and Ohio Gov. John
Kasich, Trump might have lost as many as nine of the 11 Super Tuesday
battlegrounds. Polls simulating head-to-head races 
[[link removed]]showed
exactly that. The entire 2016 race might have ended quite differently.

Voting systems matter. Ours needs reform. RCV isn’t weighted toward
any candidate or either party. It simply helps avoid a plurality
winner chosen by the few from overwhelming the wishes of everyone
else. A ranked choice is a better choice.  After all, the most
memorable and galvanizing moment of the 2016 Democratic National
Convention was an unexpected one: The comedian Sarah Silverman,
heckled and drowned out by bitter supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders as
she urged unity, ultimately lecturing “Bernie-or-busters” that
“you’re being ridiculous.”

 It was good TV, but bad for healthy politics. Those divisions still
reverberate. Biden, Sanders or Warren is one choice. It’s just not
enough. Putting those three in order, an easy choice, might make the
difference between an election that brings voters together and one
that deepens divides that simply must be healed.

_David Daley is a senior fellow for FairVote, the author of
"Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn’t Count."_

*
[[link removed].]
*
[[link removed]]
*
* [[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web [[link removed]]
Submit via email
Frequently asked questions [[link removed]]
Manage subscription [[link removed]]
Visit xxxxxx.org [[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 




[link removed]

To unsubscribe, click the following link:
[link removed]