I'm not a big fan of ranked choice voting. In a highly polarized political climate, it can make it impossible for the people to get who they really want. In the first round, extreme partisans will vote for their preferred extreme candidate and knock out more moderate candidates--whom the people may well have chosen in a non-ranked contest.
That actually happened in Alaska, where Begich was knocked out in the first round. Post-election analysis revealed that Begich would have beaten Peltola by about 8K votes and Palin by tens of thousands of votes in a head-to-head contest.
There are ways to fix this, but they involve statistical manipulation of the votes by giving points for this or that move in the voting totals. This may be statistically accurate, but the people will never accept it--it will seem to them like meddling.
And in the current climate, when the fetid remnants of one of the two major parties is actively working to destroy democracy (the Heritage Foundation is preparing a "wrecking ball" slate of appointments for the next Trump administration that will tear the federal government to shreds), it is too dangerous to do anything that might give Republicans an edge anywhere in the country. In the case of Alaska, it worked out all right because Palin was so detested. But ranked-choice could just as easily give the edge to Republicans--and we can't afford another Republican administration ever again, since they no longer accept the fundamental tenets of democratic government.
Thank you, Scott. Really appreciate the depth and thoroughness of your perspectives in this Substack. They are a balm for the hurts I've felt from callous conservatives. You vision for our future seem more and more credible as the seasons progress. I fear, however, that disempowering Republicans might merely exacerbate schisms. I'd love to read your opinions on ranked choice voting to foster moderation. Aren't political parties, period, a substantial part of the problem?
Hi, David. Thanks for your support!
I'm not a big fan of ranked choice voting. In a highly polarized political climate, it can make it impossible for the people to get who they really want. In the first round, extreme partisans will vote for their preferred extreme candidate and knock out more moderate candidates--whom the people may well have chosen in a non-ranked contest.
That actually happened in Alaska, where Begich was knocked out in the first round. Post-election analysis revealed that Begich would have beaten Peltola by about 8K votes and Palin by tens of thousands of votes in a head-to-head contest.
There are ways to fix this, but they involve statistical manipulation of the votes by giving points for this or that move in the voting totals. This may be statistically accurate, but the people will never accept it--it will seem to them like meddling.
And in the current climate, when the fetid remnants of one of the two major parties is actively working to destroy democracy (the Heritage Foundation is preparing a "wrecking ball" slate of appointments for the next Trump administration that will tear the federal government to shreds), it is too dangerous to do anything that might give Republicans an edge anywhere in the country. In the case of Alaska, it worked out all right because Palin was so detested. But ranked-choice could just as easily give the edge to Republicans--and we can't afford another Republican administration ever again, since they no longer accept the fundamental tenets of democratic government.
Thanks again!
Thank you, Scott. Really appreciate the depth and thoroughness of your perspectives in this Substack. They are a balm for the hurts I've felt from callous conservatives. You vision for our future seem more and more credible as the seasons progress. I fear, however, that disempowering Republicans might merely exacerbate schisms. I'd love to read your opinions on ranked choice voting to foster moderation. Aren't political parties, period, a substantial part of the problem?