Ranked Choice is a Bad Choice

New York City recently held their mayoral primary elections,

employing a new method of counting votes --- and it is a 

can of worms.

Known as "Ranked-choice voting", this idea isn't new; it has 

been discussed and favored by many of the left-wingers.

There is no neutral method devised which simply reflects 

the people's will without manipulating it one way or another.

However, ranked-choice voting has its own little tricks and

will only make elections worse for all concerned. 

So how is it that this idea is so awful? One, by ranking choices 

a voter is required to divide his vote between his favored 

candidate and some merely (at best) acceptable candidates.

The first choice is the what the voter finds suits his needs 

best. What happens is that if the voter's chosen candidate gains

much fewer votes than most or all of the rest of the field,

then that candidate's votes are rolled over to one that is 

more "in the hunt" than the candidate that the voter voted for.

Ranked-choice suffuses the spirit of electoral systems where 

political parties compete to build coalitions after the votes 

are cast. In the United States, the parties compete to gain 

majorities through the voting at election time rather than

through secret, back room negotiations after the election.

Our two major parties, Republicans and Democrats, strive

to assemble coalitions: the former tries to reconcile the 

interests of evangelical Christians and libertarians; the 

latter attempts the same with the radical progressives and

moderates. Come presidential election time, the Electoral 

College produces a majority which recognizes the importance 

of the states, sometimes differing from a popular majority

(such as the 2016 presidential election). But it is, after

the shouting, a coalition majority.

Voters in a coalition must make note that while they may not 

have gotten what they wanted, the at least avoided that which 

they disliked. The goal must be a first choice willed as a 

compromise rather than to have that choice abandoned for

a compromise. This distinction points out considerable contrast

in common trust and the way in which we Americans think 

politically. 

Two, ranked-choice voting is made so that it offers a bit of 

success to as many varieties of opinion as possible. However,

the Constitution's creators intended for elections to find 

competent governors (elected representatives chosen to form

and operate a competent, dependable government). 

Three, ranked-choice voting rewards extremism in the electorate

(no wonder so many lefties are so keen on it!). Voters who cast 

their votes for extremist candidates should be excluded from

the majority. Ranked-choice voting rescues them from such a 

fate. One could, if one wanted to vote for an politically extreme

candidate, vote once for Bernie Sanders and once for Joe Biden.

So if one of their radical candidates falters, the other could end

up going to the general election and possibly win.

In summation, ranked-choice voting, although it tries mightily to

pass itself off at compromise (a noble goal), it instead gives 

compromise a bad name. It is nothing but a sham. New Yorkers

must reject this bad idea, and the rest of the country should take

heed. 

MEM