While possibly confusing to an under-informed electorate, I see that as a communications issue, not a political/policy issue, and I think RCV is a good step to more representative and reasonable candidates. Instead of all or nothing, candidates will need to appeal to a broader audience. While I like the idea of broader representation that multimember districts could provide, I don’t like the idea – or the cost – of tripling the size of the legislature. I also don’t like the idea of being able to give all votes to a single candidate – that will only worsen our partisan situation. Combining RCV with more representation could help ease the partisan situation, but there is still the significant cost. That would have to include expanding the capitol, office space, staffs, etc. Not my highest priority for a state budget that is perpetually “challenged”.
Citizens United has to go
This wretched decision has silenced the voices of all but the stupidly rich and greedy donors....
I am a YES on RCV and a NO on STAR. I support anything that can be done to neuter the wingnuts on the left and on the right.
I agree – yes on RCV, but multi-member districts sounds too complex. I know that RCV has a reputation for complexity, and admittedly it is more so that just marking a single candidate. But we’ve seen it successfully used in places like Alaska with the result being a moderation of elected officials. The complexity seems to be more in the counting than the voting though. I don’t see our electorate having much difficulty in understanding you can vote for more than one candidate in ranked order, if you choose to do so.
Multimember districts do not necessarily increase the legislature size; combine current districts.