Rank Choice Voting

The title is not a misspelling, it’s intentional. Bill Glahn goes through the exercise of looking at the reality of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). I’ll have to admit that this all but demolishes my argument that Mpls (or any other Big City) residents get what they deserve because they vote for it. The problems, of which RCV is but one of many, is that the electoral system is rigged.

Update (20211106): Not to discount the veracity of what follows, but it looks like the Mpls proggies overreached. The vote to get rid of the Mpls police was defeated. Frey was re-elected (as predicted below), but four council seats changed hands (all four supported the defeated amendment). Of course, the commies took it all well. Even the oh-so-nice ones:

Weirdly, on the eve of the election, we have six scary carjackings–almost all in safe, affluent southwest neighborhoods with high voter turnout. Enough to make me wonder if certain cops gave their informants a little nod. 1/

Thankfully, no one got hurt. And I doubt anyone will be arrested. I’m just saying the timing and location of this crime spree is …..strange. And it reminds me of Umbrella Man and other odd incidents from the summer of 2020. 2/End

What comes below is a mess in terms of how I like to present Twitter threads. The problem is that there’s about four threads looking at the topic but they’re not organized as threads. I don’t know how to organize these without putting in a lot of work very quickly because the Twitter ship just keeps sailing on… Anyway, Here’s the first.

Do you see a prayer for another candidate other than Jacob Frey? I couldn’t vote for him

Which brings up a serious point: ranked-choice voting appears to have *reduced* the range of choices available to voters.

The selling point of ranked-choice voting is that it will force candidates to moderate, to appeal to the “center” to gain 2nd and 3rd choice votes.

But in an environment as skewed as Minneapolis you just get left and lefter.

In 2021, Minneapolis really needed a stark left-right choice that only a two-party (or three-party) system could offer. With so many candidates on the ballot, a true alternative gets lost in the crowd.

Ranked choice is supposed to reduce polarization, but sometimes you need clear choices, not more shades of gray.

75% of the Minneapolis city council voted to defund the police, a move opposed by 55% of voters. But because of ranked choice, there is no viable pro-police, pro-law and order candidate on the ballot.

Thread 2

Im not a fan of rcv. Say i vote for the least popular two of six canidates. If my choices are “mathematically” elliminated early on election day its possible my votes arent even counted. Seems anti democratic.

It’s undemocratic (small “d”) by design. It’s meant to reinforce the existing consensus politics by preventing maverick candidates from prevailing through a plurality vote. It reduces political competition in the name of reducing “polarization.”

Perhaps polarization is not the worst thing in politics. Perhaps our system could use more competition in ideas.

No one can argue that ranked-choice voting has produced a more moderate or centrist politics in Minneapolis. It has done the opposite.

Thread 3

In more unsolicited advice, the best thing for Minneapolis would be a 50-member city council elected city-wide using proportional voting. Then all views across the spectrum would be represented and a true majority would be needed to pass legislation.

That’s the myth of the big Blue city. Whether it’s two-party or or ranked-choice, hard left politics dominate all big cities. 30 to 45 percent of voters have no representation.

Thread 4

That’s called “mission accomplished” by the RCV crowd.

But is was sold with the opposite argument. It doesn’t depolarize politics.

There are 17 candidates on the ballot for Minneapolis mayor. With ranked-choice, it’s impossible to create a referendum on current city leadership that would naturally flow from a two or three party contest.

If you live in Minneapolis and have had enough of murders, riots, and carjackings, your vote gets lost in an impenetrable fog of 3rd choices and exhausted ballots.

If you live in a city that consistently casts 80 percent of the vote for one party, “polarization” is not your biggest problem.

What you need is more effective competition. 17 candidates *looks* like competition, but just dilutes the available information. With 17 candidates, it’s all name recognition.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.