Ranked choice voting is complex and ultimately ensures that your vote may not count. When it was first used in Oakland, I told my boss that we should support the person polling in 2nd place, not the experienced assemblymember polling number 1. My gut told me that no matter how popular #1 was, he wouldn’t get enough votes to win on the first ballot, so the ranked choices would be considered. #2 did end up winning. Voting should be made easier and simpler, not more complex. Ranked Choice Voting is a joke. Multi-member districts? Really? Our state government should be a part-time legislature. They viewed 2-3000 bills last year. That’s ridiculous. The state legislature should meet, pass important legislature and the budget and then get real jobs.
Citizens United has to go
This wretched decision has silenced the voices of all but the stupidly rich and greedy donors....
What does it mean to “support” the person polling in second place? Do you mean contribute to their campaign? Is this about financially influencing politicians before they’re elected?
Is this meant to be an example of Rank Choice Voting works to improve elections?
Rank Choice Voting would make VOTING simpler because voters can vote for the candidates they want without having to worry about “wasting” their vote. It’s not supposed to make bribing– er, “supporting”– candidates easier.
For those seeking a perfect system…I wish you good luck. The challenge with any system is the unintended consequences. So I propose to rank these ideas on the basis of the “least imperfect system.” The least imperfect system will best survive gerrymandering (which will never go away). The least imperfect system will better challenge incumbents and elevate other voices. No system will do these things well, therefore, let’s look for the least imperfection.
First, there is the system we have today. Not a leap to say it is imperfect. The current system is bicameral, and it has been proposed in these comments that unicameral would be more efficient. (Nebraska seems to be happy with it.) Unfortunately, that’s not on the table for discussion. But put a pin on that idea if the CSP is looking for a platform. On to the other proposals.
Second, there is the proposal for multimember districts. It was clarified that the districts would be 3x the size rather than causing 3x the legislators. The winners will be those with the best funding, which will likely lead to all 3 candidates coming from the largest community in the super-sized district. That leaves other voices – and other voters – in the dust. Maybe I’m missing something.
Third, there is ranked choice voting (RCV), which (from other comments) appears to be capable of giving incumbents a real challenge. A positive – which equally could be a challenge – is that it works best when voters take the time to learn about each candidate. That requires the candidates to focus their messages – and that could lead to moderation.
In all cases, funding drives popularity and message drives funding. The question is how to best steer towards moderation. Of the three choices, my vote is for RCV.
I’m afraid it is you who has complicated voting in your own head. You just rank your choices! It’s what we naturally do. It gets rid of strategic voting and the spoiler effect. And moreover, it improves the character of politics because politicians need to win 2nd and 3rd choices as well as 1st.
And multimember districts would not change the number of representatives or their full/part time status: the districts would get larger but the number of reps would remain the same.
Multimember districts also eliminates gerrymandering and ends the two party duopoly because nonpartisans and third parties can finally win races.