Supporters of ranked-choice voting have revealed two
important facts about the proposal.
First, they believe that using it will change voter behavior
and make us get along better politically with one another.
Second, they implicitly acknowledge it is complicated and
unprecedented by running a series of mock elections to select people’s favorite
beer.
But they have missed two important facts. Ranked-choice voting is more expensive than
either the current election system or any accepted alternative to plurality elections
in which the candidate with the most votes wins.
And the proposed system is undemocratic and far more
vulnerable to tampering than the current system.
Let's take a closer look.
In order to win a ranked-choice election, a candidate might
need the second- and third-place votes from supporters of other
candidates. Supporters think that
candidates will go easy on one another to pick up those votes. That would bring a change in the political
atmosphere, they say.
But today’s deep partisan divisions are not likely so easily
to give way to political peace. It may
prove difficult for ideological candidates to gain back-up support. Portland’s non-partisan mayoral race is a poor
predictor of party politics.
In fact, if candidates line up deeply divided on the issues,
it is far from sure that in critical elections voters will even cast
second-choice votes.
The state needs a system that will produce compromises, but
that won't happen because of what is essentially a vote-counting gimmick. Forging compromises is a question of
leadership.
The complexity of ranked-choice voting is obvious. Instead of simply voting for the candidate
you prefer, each voter must have an election strategy. They have to guess at what will happen to
their back-up votes.
For example, in a four-way race, a voter who had supported
only the first two candidates eliminated would then be stripped of any role in
the ultimate election. To have their
votes count in the last round, they would have had to vote for their first- and
third-favorite choices, skipping the second.
Confusing? Absolutely.
Proponents forecast a change in human behavior because of
their system. But using such forecasts as
the main argument in favor of a proposal is risky.
Then, there's the higher cost of ranked-choice voting. According to the Maine Secretary of State,
the cost to the state of such an election would be about $910,000, compared
with $248,000 under the current system.
If Maine allowed a run-off election between the two highest
vote getters, the cost would be only twice the current amount.
Another solution would be to have all candidates run in a
single primary with the top two running in the general election. Used in California, that system would cost a
bit less than today.
Though the focus is on the governor’s race, at any one
election there could be as many as 190 ranked-choice races to count: the governor, a U.S. senator, two U.S. House
members, and 186 members of the Maine Legislature. Any single voter could face a ballot with
five ranked-choice votes.
One of the reasons for the higher cost of ranked-choice
elections is the need to transport all ballots to a single counting
location. They would then be run through
a computer. Contrast that with more than
450 voting locations today, where the votes can be checked by direct viewing
and the results easily totaled.
A single computer would be far more vulnerable to tampering. And any foul play would be invisible and
might not be discovered for months or years after the election.
Finally, there’s the matter of democracy itself. In the current system, a run-off or a top-two
primary, voters can understand the consequences of their choices. In ranked-choice voting, voters cannot foresee
the effect of their second- and third-choice votes.
Ranked-choice voting is not used in any federal or state
election. Plurality voting, as in Maine,
is used in 39 states. The rest use some
form of run-off.
The reason is simple.
In any currently used system, voters know the consequences of their
votes. By contrast, ranked-choice voting
is a costly shot on the dark.
(Column in Portland Press-Herald 9/30/16)
No comments:
Post a Comment