Alaska's screwy 'ranked choice' election system

 Washington Examiner:

In the late hours tonight, Alaskan election officials will begin the tedious process of tabulating the results for the state's at-large congressional special election. The process will be especially tedious because this will be the first Alaskan statewide election in which ranked-choice voting is used.

Instead of party primaries followed by a general election between the various party nominees, the normal procedure in most states, Alaska will be holding a contest in which voters rank the candidates based on their preference. After one round of counting first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest will be dropped. His or her voters' second choices will then be awarded their respective votes. This process will then be repeated until someone has a majority.

Does ranked-choice voting improve turnout? There is no evidence of this. Does it improve the process? Not really. Alaskans were convinced that this was somehow better and adopted it in a 2020 referendum. Tonight's experience may cause them to think again.

"It just makes the process more complex," Jason Snead told the Washington Examiner last summer. "It does not do anything to improve voter turnout or bolster voter confidence in the elections, and it is truly an unnecessary reform."

This is absolutely true, and all on its own, it would be enough reason to oppose ranked-choice voting. But there are two further considerations. The first is the confounding delay in tabulation that ranked-choice voting inevitably brings. Vote counting in Australia, where this type of voting is common, is known to drag on interminably.

Last summer, New York City provided an illustration of the needless complexity and confounding logic involved in counting ranked-choice votes. In the Democratic primary, now-Mayor Eric Adams was the first choice of far more voters than anyone else. But over the course of two weeks and seven rounds of redistributing the votes of also-rans and write-in candidates, he won by the skin of his teeth.

The second reason is more theoretical and also perhaps more important. Ranked-choice voting actually assaults the very notion of "one person, one vote," which the Supreme Court established decades ago as the standard in elections. Under ranked-choice voting, people who choose candidates with less support effectively get a second and perhaps even a third bite at the apple during the vote count. One person's votes for fourth place can override another person's first-place votes. In New York last June, those voting for other candidates besides Adams were given second and third chances to overcome the leader.

...

They need to rethink their vote for this system for election.  Runoffs make much more sense. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

Washington Post: Some Democrats eye adding more justices to the Supreme Court to change its ideological bent The once-remote idea has gained the attention of liberals angered by the GOP push to remake the federal courts. Probably the easy way to defeat this court-packing scheme is for Trump to propose doing the same thing now.  It would lead to Democrat denunciations and claims that it would be wrong, thereby blowing up any attempt by them in the unfortunate event of Democrats winning a presidential election.
Read more

29 % of companies say they are unlikely to keep insurance after Obamacare

Conn Carroll: A new survey of 368 midsize to large companies found that 29% of them are considering terminating their active employee health care plans when Obamacare is full implemented in 2014. Only 71% of employers surveyed said they did not expect to drop their health coverage, while 20% said they did not know and 9% said they were planning to exit. The latest survey, conducted by Towers Watson, echoes an ealier survey by McKinsey & Co. finding that 30% of private-sector employers were planning to drop their employee health insurance coverage by 2014. When the Congressional Budget Office crunched Obamacare's spending numbers, they estimated that only 7% of employees currently covered by employer-sponsored plans would lose their plans. ... This means the cost of the health care fiasco will be hundreds of billions more than estimated by the CBO and Congressional Democrat. It is also clear that Obama's pledge that you could keep your health care plan if you wanted t
Read more

Bin Laden's concern about Zarqawi's remains

James Robbins: ... Bin Laden suggests that President Bush should allow Zarqawi’s body to be returned to his family in Jordan, but this is a matter that is up to the Jordanian government, which so far has not shown much interest in facilitating a homecoming. Bin Laden mocks King Abdullah II, calling him a Coalition minion, and asking “w hat scares you about Abu Musab after he’s dead? You know that his funeral, if allowed to happen, would be a huge funeral showing the extent of sympathy with the mujahedin.” A large crowd would definitely turn out, though most people would be on hand to demonstrate their anger and disgust. Last November’s hotel bombings in Amman , masterminded by Zarqawi, are still fresh in people’s memory, and mentioning them to Jordanians has the same visceral impact as memory of the 9/11 attacks does here. Jordan has adopted a zero-tolerance policy towards those who choose to mourn the country’s least favorite son, and four opposition members of parliament who paid con
Read more