I’ve always felt this was a great idea, a great way to arrive at a plurality and elect a candidate a majority can agree on. But it could still have major flaws. As a friend once pointed out, What happens if the candidates are Stalin, Caligula and Vlad the Impaler?
It’s telling that here in Maine, the only real, sustained opposition to ranked choice voting is coming from Republicans. Once again, they seek to disenfranchise as many voters or methods of assuring a voice for the majority of people in as many ways as possible.
If we had ranked choice voting in place for the 2010 governor’s race, then the blowhard LePage would never have been elected and our state would have moved in the progressive direction that a true majority desired.
If Stalin, Caligula or Vlad the Impaler are the candidates, one of them wins no matter what the voting system. If they walk into a bar together, however, hilarity ensues (albeit of a distinctly Tim Burton variety).
They can’t be candidates. They’re all furriners. And they’re all dead. Except maybe Vlad.
How’s about Don, Mike, and Mitt?
The argument against ranked-choice seems to be “People are so concerned about getting second-place votes that they’re afraid to offend voters.”
So it forces a politician to have positions that offend the smallest portion of their constituency possible. Can someone tell me why that is a bad thing?
Is it better to have a position that offends 49% of your constituents, as long as 51% approve?