Why Ranked Choice Voting is Undemocratic and a Threat to Conservative Values

The Growing Debate on Ranked Choice Voting

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is rapidly gaining traction across the United States. Cities like New York City and San Francisco have adopted the system, and entire states such as Maine and Alaska now rely on it to elect their representatives. Supporters argue that it’s a more democratic and fair system, one that gives voters more choices and eliminates the so-called “spoiler effect” caused by third-party candidates. Yet, for many Conservatives, RCV is nothing short of a veiled threat to democracy.

At first glance, the concept of allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference might seem beneficial. But dig a little deeper, and you’ll find that RCV can cause more harm than good. Rather than creating a fairer voting system, it complicates the process, disenfranchises voters, and undermines fundamental democratic principles like majority rule. What’s more, RCV tends to hurt smaller political parties, despite claims that it broadens voter choice. For Conservatives, RCV represents a clear danger to the simplicity, transparency, and integrity of American elections.

We will delve into the flaws of Ranked Choice Voting, explain why it fails to align with Conservative principles, and explore how it has caused real-world problems in practice. We will also issue a call to action for our fellow Conservatives to stand up against RCV before it becomes the national norm, distorting our democracy beyond recognition.

What is Ranked Choice Voting?

Ranked Choice Voting is a system where voters rank candidates in order of preference, from their first choice to as many as five or six additional choices, depending on the jurisdiction. Once the ballots are in, a series of elimination rounds take place. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes in the first round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice have their votes redistributed to their next preference. This process continues until one candidate accumulates more than 50% of the votes and is declared the winner.

Supporters of RCV often claim that it reduces the likelihood of extreme candidates winning, ensures that elected officials have broader support, and eliminates the need for costly runoff elections. Proponents also argue that RCV empowers voters by allowing them to express their preferences more fully, as opposed to choosing a single candidate in the traditional “first-past-the-post” system.

However, the reality of how RCV plays out in practice is far less rosy. Though it may give the illusion of more voter power, the truth is that many voters find the system confusing. A significant portion of ballots in RCV elections are spoiled due to errors, and many voters simply don’t understand how to rank candidates properly, leading to unintended consequences. The initial appeal of RCV quickly fades once its complexity becomes apparent.

In Maine, where RCV was adopted for state elections, Democratic candidate Jared Golden won the 2018 congressional race even though Republican incumbent Bruce Poliquin received more first-choice votes. This result, reached after several rounds of elimination, caused an uproar among voters who felt that the process was undemocratic and counterintuitive.

The Case Against Ranked Choice Voting: Complexity and Confusion

For a democratic process to function properly, the voting system must be straightforward and accessible to all. Ranked Choice Voting, with its complex system of ranking and elimination, creates confusion and disenfranchises voters, particularly those who are not familiar with the intricacies of the system.

One significant flaw of RCV is that it assumes all voters are equally knowledgeable about how to rank their preferences, which is far from the truth. Older voters, individuals who are less tech-savvy, and even first-time voters often find RCV confusing. In Alaska’s special election in 2022, many voters complained about the complexity of RCV, with some ballots being discarded due to improperly filled rankings. This resulted in a substantial number of votes being invalidated simply because voters couldn’t grasp the convoluted process.

The confusion caused by RCV isn’t limited to Alaska. In New York City’s mayoral primary in 2021, thousands of ballots were invalidated for similar reasons, leading to delays in election results and widespread frustration. The complexity of the system ultimately undermined voters’ confidence in the election process, and many felt their voices were not heard.

Conservatives believe in the principle of simplifying voting systems, ensuring that every vote is counted and every voter’s voice is heard. A system that leads to mass confusion, voter disenfranchisement, and invalidated ballots does not align with these principles. RCV, in its complexity, alienates voters and creates unnecessary obstacles to democratic participation.

Undermining Majority Rule: Why RCV Dilutes Democratic Principles

One of the most fundamental principles of democracy is majority rule. Under the traditional voting system, the candidate who receives the most votes wins the election. This ensures that the candidate with the broadest support among voters assumes office. Ranked Choice Voting, on the other hand, undermines this principle by allowing a candidate to win even without receiving the most first-choice votes.

Take the 2018 Maine congressional election as an example. Republican Bruce Poliquin garnered the most first-choice votes but lost after several rounds of elimination to Democrat Jared Golden, who had fewer first-choice votes. This system rewards candidates who may not have had the strongest initial support, diluting the impact of the majority and giving undue weight to lower-ranking preferences.

This dilution of majority rule runs counter to Conservative values. Conservatives believe that elections should reflect the true will of the people. The candidate who earns the most votes—whether in a primary or general election—should be the winner. Allowing a candidate to win based on redistributed preferences creates the illusion of a majority that doesn’t exist and results in less representative outcomes.

Furthermore, this process can lead to elections being decided by a small, marginal group of voters whose lower-ranked preferences ultimately tip the balance. In this way, RCV undermines the principle of “one person, one vote” by giving some voters more influence over the final result than others. For Conservatives, this is a deeply troubling distortion of democratic principles.

A System Vulnerable to Manipulation

Ranked Choice Voting also opens the door to strategic manipulation. Because voters are encouraged to rank multiple candidates, they may feel compelled to rank candidates they don’t actually support in order to block their least preferred candidate from winning. This leads to strategic voting, where voters focus not on their true preferences but on gaming the system to achieve a desired outcome.

In traditional elections, voters are asked to make a clear, straightforward choice between candidates. But under RCV, voters are forced into a complex calculus of how their rankings will influence the final result. This manipulation not only distorts the democratic process but also makes elections less transparent and more prone to “gaming.”

For example, a voter may rank their second or third choice higher than their true first preference in order to prevent an extreme candidate from winning. This kind of strategic voting undermines the integrity of elections, as voters are no longer expressing their true preferences but are instead trying to outsmart the system.

For Conservatives, election integrity is paramount. A system that encourages voters to manipulate their rankings in order to achieve a desired outcome cannot be trusted to deliver fair and honest results. Ranked Choice Voting allows for manipulation and increases the possibility of election outcomes that do not reflect the true will of the people.

How Ranked Choice Voting Hurts Smaller Political Parties

While proponents of RCV claim that it helps smaller parties by allowing voters to rank them without fear of wasting their vote, the reality is that RCV often hurts third-party candidates. In practice, RCV encourages voters to gravitate toward establishment candidates in order to prevent their least preferred candidate from winning. As a result, smaller parties are squeezed out, and political competition is diminished.

In the 2022 Alaska special election, Republican candidate Sarah Palin lost to Democrat Mary Peltola despite winning a large share of first-choice votes. Palin’s loss was largely attributed to RCV, which saw voters rank Democrat candidates higher on subsequent rounds. This resulted in a consolidation of votes that ultimately shut out Palin and other third-party candidates, proving that RCV does not, in fact, empower smaller political parties.

By encouraging voters to rank more mainstream candidates in order to avoid wasted votes, RCV reinforces the dominance of establishment parties, limiting the ability of third parties to make meaningful gains. This is especially damaging for Conservatives, who value political competition and the presence of alternative voices in elections.

Conservative Values and the Importance of Electoral Simplicity

At its core, the Conservative philosophy favors simplicity, transparency, and accountability in government, including in the electoral process. Ranked Choice Voting, with its multi-round eliminations and vote redistribution, adds unnecessary layers of complexity to a system that should be straightforward and transparent.

Conservatives believe that elections should be clear and accessible to all. Voters should be able to walk into the voting booth, select the candidate they prefer, and trust that their vote will be counted. RCV complicates this process by introducing ranking systems that many voters don’t fully understand, leading to confusion, invalid ballots, and an overall erosion of voter confidence.

Electoral simplicity is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our democratic system. A complicated voting process that leaves voters confused and uncertain about how their vote will count is not in line with Conservative values. RCV undermines the very principles of limited government and individual responsibility by placing unnecessary burdens on voters and complicating the democratic process.

Real-World Consequences: The Problems with RCV in Practice

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) has not only led to theoretical concerns, but its real-world application has proven to be deeply problematic. While proponents often tout it as a remedy to the flaws of the traditional voting system, the consequences of RCV in practice have revealed substantial issues that cannot be ignored. Several elections across the country demonstrate the pitfalls of implementing this system, with confusion, unexpected results, and delays eroding public trust in the democratic process.

A key example of the problems with RCV occurred during the 2021 New York City mayoral primary election. Initially, election results were delayed for days due to confusion around the tabulation process. Ballot counting was plagued with technical difficulties, further delaying the results and raising concerns about the system’s efficiency. Worse still, election officials accidentally included 135,000 test ballots in the final count, causing a public uproar. This blunder, combined with the delayed results, undermined voter confidence in the integrity of the election. In a city as prominent as New York, such errors on a national stage could be disastrous, leading to widespread doubt about the validity of election results.

Alaska also faced controversy when it used RCV in its 2022 special election. Republican Sarah Palin, a well-known candidate, lost to Democrat Mary Peltola, despite winning a significant share of the first-choice votes. As the ranked-choice system progressed through elimination rounds, Peltola gained enough second and third-choice votes to ultimately win. This result stunned many Alaskans and led to frustration among Republican voters, who believed that the system unfairly skewed the outcome in favor of the Democratic candidate. This outcome highlights a core issue with RCV: candidates with substantial first-choice support can lose to opponents who rely on the redistribution of lower-preference votes.

Perhaps one of the biggest criticisms of RCV is how it often leads to delays in determining winners. Traditional voting systems allow for immediate or next-day results, providing clarity and a swift conclusion to the electoral process. RCV, on the other hand, often takes days, if not weeks, to finalize. The need to eliminate candidates and redistribute votes in multiple rounds elongates the process, leaving voters waiting in uncertainty. These delays are not just an inconvenience but a direct blow to the transparency of the election process. Prolonged counting opens the door to speculation, doubt, and challenges to the legitimacy of election results.

Moreover, RCV has resulted in numerous voters feeling disenfranchised when their ballots are rendered invalid due to mistakes in ranking candidates or skipping options altogether. In the San Francisco Board of Supervisors election, an estimated 10% of ballots were deemed exhausted, meaning they no longer contributed to the final tally because voters had not ranked enough candidates. This left a significant portion of the electorate without a voice in the final round of voting. Such occurrences undercut the argument that RCV increases voter representation.

In contrast, traditional voting systems are clear, transparent, and easy for voters to understand. The introduction of RCV adds layers of complexity that many voters struggle to navigate, leading to frustration, mistakes, and ultimately, disenfranchisement. For a country that prides itself on democratic participation, Ranked Choice Voting poses an unacceptable risk to voter engagement and trust.

Defending the Foundations of Democracy and the Conservative Alternative

Ranked Choice Voting is often sold as a panacea to the imperfections of our electoral system. However, upon closer inspection, RCV poses a grave threat to the very foundations of American democracy. Its complexity, potential for manipulation, and the way it undermines majority rule all make RCV an inappropriate model for a country that values transparency and accountability in its elections.

For Conservatives, who champion electoral simplicity, individual responsibility, and limited government, RCV is antithetical to these core principles. The complications it introduces—confusing voters, extending vote counts, and distorting majority rule—are directly opposed to the Conservative belief in straightforward, accessible elections. Furthermore, RCV’s tendency to disadvantage smaller political parties while empowering establishment candidates runs contrary to the values of political competition and choice that Conservatives hold dear.

Instead of adopting complicated voting systems that muddy the waters of democracy, Conservatives should advocate for electoral reforms that preserve the integrity of our elections while ensuring every vote counts. Whether through voter ID laws, securing election infrastructure, or improving the transparency of the voting process, there are better ways to protect and strengthen our democracy than through RCV.

America’s electoral system must be rooted in simplicity, fairness, and trust. If we allow systems like Ranked Choice Voting to proliferate, we risk losing the clarity and transparency that are essential to the functioning of a healthy democracy. The Conservative movement must stand firm in its opposition to RCV and advocate for election reforms that honor our nation’s commitment to liberty, accountability, and majority rule.

Big Earl’s Take

Now, folks, let me break it down for ya real simple. Ranked Choice Voting might sound fancy, but let me tell ya—it’s like tryin’ to fix a tractor with duct tape and a prayer. It just ain’t right. Our elections shouldn’t feel like fillin’ out a test where you’re guessin’ more than you’re votin’. You pick your candidate, and they win or they don’t, plain and simple. But this Ranked Choice thing? It turns an election into some kinda wild goose chase with votes hoppin’ around like a frog on a hot stove.

It’s a mess, and worse, it’s a mess that confuses folks—especially good, honest, hardworking folks who just wanna make sure their vote counts. Why complicate what’s already a straightforward process? And don’t get me started on how long it takes to figure out who won! Ain’t nobody got time for that.

So, my advice? Keep it simple, y’all. One vote, one person, and let’s keep this great country of ours runnin’ on clear, honest elections.