Recently, we at the Worcester Tea Party sent our monthly newsletter riddled with misinformation about Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), otherwise understood as the Fair Vote.
Therefore, a rebuttal is prudent:
Claim #1:“The problem is people DO NOT participate!”
We do not need further turnout of voters who are ignorant of the issues and simply vote based upon the identity of the candidates. RCV DOES turn out the vote of more people, but not just any voters as implied by the prior author. RCV increases the turnout of educated people who understand the issues because now they have an opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly support as opposed to only the lesser of two evils.
So in this respect, RCV does turn out more people to vote, but unlike today, these people are activated because they now have an opportunity to cast a ballot based upon the candidate they truly want as opposed to the lesser of two evils. RCV allows people to make a logical decision without a concern they are throwing away their vote.
The idea that we simply need more people to vote with no regard for their ability to make a rational decision will only lead to more bad leadership in Massachusetts.
Claim #2: “. . . under RCV the other candidates could rank up their votes until a second place loser overtakes the original winner.”
When people rank their votes, they rank them based upon their value system. Therefore, the idea that someone would rank, say, Donald Trump first and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or any set of candidates that are complete opposites in political disposition) shows a complete lack of understanding of the very premise of RCV. Therefore, no matter how “candidates could rank up their votes,” if the people do not share in the disposition of those candidates they simply will not rank them.
Claim #3:“What is a proven fact is in elections you are choosing a winner over a loser. A vote for candidate A is a vote against candidate B. This is how elections work!”
The idea that it is better to have to choose between an actual democrat over a slightly less democrat-like republican than to be able to actually vote one’s conscious is truly silly.
To most honest voters, the choice in any election between, say, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, George Bush, or John Kerry are all bad options, and this is how the Establishment wants it to be. Why? Because no matter who loses, the Establishment wins. Ranked voting breaks this paradigm and places the power back into the hands of the voter because it is then impossible to make the options for office a choice solely between the lesser of two evils.
Simply stating the elections are about picking a winner over a loser without consideration as to whether either option really represents the will of the people is dangerous. With Rank Choice Voting, people can truly vote their conscious knowing that if their first choice is eliminated from the race their vote will still count. When such a mindset is put in place, elections become about ideas and not about money and parties, something the Establishment fear more than anything.
Dean of Information Technology
Worcester Tea Party