Jim Hartman: Ranked-choice voting on ballots in six states

On Nov. 5, voters in Colorado, Idaho, Arizona, Oregon and Nevada will have ballot referendums to implement some version of ranked-choice voting, or RCV.

Alaska voters narrowly approved RCV in 2020 (50.5%-49.5%). Alaskans will vote Tuesday on whether to repeal it after widespread voter complaints that RCV failed to work as advertised.

Massachusetts voters decisively rejected RCV in 2020 (54.8%-45.2%), with GOP Gov. Charlie Baker making a convincing argument that it was too confusing and complicated for voters.

California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is another strong opponent of RCV in California.

Maine and Alaska are the only states to have adopted the RCV experiment to date.

The details differ, but Colorado, Idaho, Arizona and Nevada would make fundamental changes in their state’s election system.

First, they would end party primaries in favor of California-style “jungle primaries” with all the candidates appearing on the same primary ballot.

The top-four vote-getters would move on to the general election under the Alaska, Colorado and Idaho plans. Even more extreme, Nevada’s Question 3 requires a “top five” primary.

Arizona’s proposal would allow the state legislature to decide how many candidates go to the general election, between two and five.

Oregon’s measure would bring RCV without abolishing party primaries.

Second, voters at the general election would be asked to rank their preferred candidates in order – one to five in the case of Nevada’s Question 3. If the tally of the first choice doesn’t produce a majority winner, the bottom candidates are eliminated one by one, and their votes reshuffled.

While the objective of having an “open primary” is a worthy goal, it can be accomplished through an initiative to do just that.

Question 3’s fatal flaw is to lock an additional confusing, complicated and untested general election “top five” RCV system into the Nevada Constitution. It’s a “bridge too far.”

If RCV is found undesirable returning to the “one person one vote” status quo would require a prolonged constitutional process to abolish it.

It’s the second time Question 3 will be on the ballot after narrowly passing in the 2022 general election with 53% approval. As a Nevada constitutional amendment, it requires approval at two consecutive general elections.

Nationally, proponents of RCV efforts in various states have been lavishly financed by wealthy donors, far outspending opponents.

Almost all the money supporting Nevada’s Question 3 comes from five out-of-state billionaires, residents of Illinois, Florida, Texas, New York and California.

Opponents of Question 3 include both the Nevada Democratic Party and the Nevada State GOP.

Nevada’s two Democratic senators – Catherine Cortez Masto and Jacky Rosen – are sharp critics of Question 3 as confusing for voters, warning the process could lead to votes being thrown out.

Republican U.S. Rep. Mark Amodei and GOP leaders Adam Laxalt and Sam Brown join in opposition to this complicated new voting scheme that would eliminate political parties from the nominating process.

RCV is coercive, forcing voters to play its complex game or risk their votes not being counted.

The conservative Nevada Policy Research Institute argues that RCV leads to long delays in ballot tabulation resulting in distrust of the outcome.

The liberal Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada denounces Question 3 as discriminatory against minorities.

Election administrators acknowledge RCV is more prone to tabulation errors and computer programming mistakes with physically longer and more complicated ballots.

In an Oakland school board race in 2022, an RCV goof meant the wrong winner was seated before the mistake was discovered months later.

Notably, Douglas County’s chief elections official, Clerk-Treasurer Amy Burgans, has taken the unusual step of publicly urging voters to reject Nevada’s Question 3.

While our current “one person one vote” system is flawed, voters should be skeptics of RCV. Its adoption will add more confusion and chaos to elections.

E-mail Jim Hartman at lawdocman1@aol.com.