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.
I think it's a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems I see with at-large Council members is that opponents have to run for a seat, basically, against 4 incumbents. My view is these should be 4 different seats instead of going to the top 4 vote getters.
Take the last election as an example. I liked Beth Daly. She came in 5 place against 4 incumbents and 1 other challenger. Not being a fan of any of the incumbents I woul d have liked to be able to have all of my 4 votes go to her. Bath Daly supports, most likely, voted for her and 3 other incumbents. That pretty much doomed her chances because, unless all of her supports picked the same 3, they were inadvertently giving votes to people she was trying to unseat.
Ranking the candidates is a way I could have given more weight to my vote and other like minded voters. Not perfect, but a step in the right direction and, I think, more beneficial to non-incumbents.
FYI - this only works in plurality districts. It is used in England.