RANKED CHOICE VOTING

In the 1960s, the Tulsa World newspaper ran an article on voting patterns in Oklahoma. The article contained a story about the recent (1964) election which featured a presidential race among other major contests.  In a rural county, an elderly voter approached the county election official after “completing” his ballot. The old-timer told the official that he (the voter) had voted for his preferred candidate for county commissioner and he (the official) could complete the rest of the ballot because he (the voter) did not care who won the remainder of the races.

So, in addition to the modified Electoral College about which I have previously written ("Reforming the Electoral College"), I am putting forth Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as a possible reform in our electoral process to increase voter interest and to appeal to a broader range of candidates. Neither reform will require an amendment to the US Constitution, and because the Constitution grants the states the right to set their own election procedures, the states can approve both Electoral College reform and RCV in state-wide and local elections.

RCV, also known as instant runoff voting, is an electoral system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing just one. It’s designed to ensure that the winning candidate has broad support and can help reduce negative campaigning and strategic voting.  RCV is used in various places across the U.S., including cities like San Francisco and New York City, and states like Maine and Alaska for statewide elections.

Benefits of RCV include-

• Majority Support: Ensures the winner has more than 50% support.
• Reduces Spoiler Effect: Minimizes the impact of vote-splitting among similar candidates.
• Encourages Civility: Candidates are incentivized to appeal to a broader audience, including as a second or third choice.
• More Voter Expression: Voters can support their favorite candidate without fear of “wasting” their vote.
• Encourages “Third Party” Candidates: Our political system is in the grips of a two-party monopoly which often do not offer the voters the best candidates with fresh ideas. RCV could help break this system.

So, why don’t more state and local governments use RCV or at least seriously consider using it?  (Indeed, 17 states currently have total bans on RCV). Well, for me, the answer lies in the fact it appears that the states and cities currently using RCV make it so confusing and hard to understand. Consider the current general understanding on how RCV operates-

1. Voters Rank Candidates
• Instead of selecting a single candidate, voters rank them: 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, and so on.
• You can rank as many or as few candidates as you like, depending on the rules of the jurisdiction.
2. First Round of Counting
• All the first-choice votes are counted.
• If a candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, they win outright.
3. Elimination and Redistribution
• If no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated.
• Voters who chose the eliminated candidate as their first choice have their votes transferred to their next ranked candidate.
4. Repeat Until Majority

o   This process continues—eliminating the lowest-ranked candidate and redistributing votes—until one candidate has a majority.

What I am proposing is a RCV procedure that is simple and cleaner- I call it the “Heisman Method” of RCV. Annually, the Heisman Trophy is awarded to a collegiate football player who is voted the best player in the nation regardless of position (although quarterbacks and running backs are often the top candidates). The balloting works in the following way-

• Each voter ranks their top three players:
• 1st place = 3 points
• 2nd place = 2 points
• 3rd place = 1 point

The player with the most total points wins the Heisman Trophy.

The Heisman RCV can be used in both primary and general elections, The person with the highest number of votes, either with a majority or plurality, wins the election.

To those, especially my conservative friends, who automatically oppose any change, whether in the Electoral College or with RCV, I point them to Edmund Burke, the great political philosopher of the 1700s (and one of my historical heroes), who also had a love/hate relationship with change.

Burke reminded both his contemporaries and the coming generations, “We must all obey the great law of change. It is the most powerful law of nature”, an observation that change woven into the fabric of life itself.” Burke also believed that adaptation            was essential to preserving what matters most- “A State without the means of some change is without its means of conservation.”

Tony Blair, former UK prime minister, puts it more succinctly, “This is for the very matter-of-fact reason that true Leaders are change makers. And change is the hardest challenge of governing. Change is resisted. Many have often tried and failed.”  (On Leadership: Lessons for the 21^st Century, xx).

Our Federal Constitution set up our states as “laboratories” of change for our republic. May our states be bold to experiment when needed. And possess the courage to make changes when necessary.