Oppose Ranked-Choice Voting!
- chair3153
- May 13
- 5 min read
On Monday, May 12th, the Whatcom County Charter Review Commission held a special meeting to consider Ranked-Choice Voting. At the time, a number of presenters from outside Washington State (D.C., Massachusetts and Utah) spoke in favor of RCV (Ranked-Choice Voting). Every invited presenter stated they were involved in the Republican party in some fashion. It was strange that every LOCAL Republican that has spoken about RCV has spoken AGAINST it being implemented in Whatcom County. So why did the liberal-leaning commissioners pick Out-Of-State Republican supporters to speak in favor of it? Were they attempting to persuade our conservative Commissioners into thinking Republicans want this? Whatcom Republicans want accountability in Elections: Voter ID, In-Person voting; One Person-One Vote!
One of the liberal commissioners stated they have only received TWO OPPOSING EMAILS TO RCV. Either the staff isn't forwarding all emails or that commissioner was sharing incorrect information. Based on the multiple emails forwarded to me from dissenting voices, there are a lot MORE THAN TWO OPPOSED and we need YOUR HELP!
Please contact the Charter Review Commission and OPPOSE RCV!
For those who don't understand the concern about RCV, here is an example. RCV can be exploited, especially in times of instability. Imagine a fractured community using RCV. The community is deeply divided with many candidates vying for leadership. No one candidate wins outright at first, but through rounds of redistributing preferences (as RCV works by eliminating the lower vote-getters and reallocating their voters’ next choices), a charismatic figure emerges victorious. This leader, initially underestimated, gains momentum by appealing broadly enough to secure second- or third-choice votes from diverse groups, even if they’re not the first choice of most. Once in power, this leader consolidates control, exploiting the system’s legitimacy to dismantle the very process that elevated them. RCV, also known as proportional representation, allows less-popular candidates to gain votes through broad but shallow support in a polarized environment, especially if the voter is desperate or disengaged.
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), while promoted as a fairer and more representative electoral system, introduces significant flaws that undermine its effectiveness and threaten democratic integrity. Despite its appeal, RCV’s complexity, susceptibility to strategic manipulation, and potential to erode voter trust make it an inferior choice compared to simpler, more transparent voting systems.
1. Complexity Undermines Accessibility and Trust
RCV requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference, a process far more cognitively demanding than selecting a single candidate. This complexity can alienate voters, particularly those with limited time, education, or access to clear information about candidates. Studies, such as a 2019 analysis of RCV in San Francisco, showed that ballot exhaustion—where voters fail to rank all candidates—disproportionately affects minority and low-income voters, leading to their preferences being underrepresented in later counting rounds. A system that inadvertently disenfranchises vulnerable groups contradicts the democratic principle of equal participation.
Moreover, the multi-round tabulation process, where lower-performing candidates are eliminated and votes redistributed, is opaque to the average voter. Unlike a single-vote system, where results are straightforward, RCV’s “black box” mechanics can foster skepticism about whether outcomes truly reflect voter intent. In a 2021 New York City mayoral election using RCV, delays in announcing results and errors in initial vote counts fueled public distrust, with some voters questioning the system’s integrity. Simpler systems, like plurality voting, may not be perfect, but their transparency ensures voters understand and trust the process.
2. Susceptibility to Strategic Manipulation
RCV incentivizes strategic voting, where voters rank candidates not based on genuine preference but to game the system. For example, voters may avoid ranking a strong but polarizing candidate as their first choice, fearing their vote will be “wasted” if that candidate is eliminated early. Instead, they may rank a less preferred but “safer” candidate higher to influence later rounds. This undermines RCV’s promise of capturing true voter preferences. A 2018 study by political scientist Lee Drutman noted that in polarized elections, RCV can reward candidates who appeal broadly but lack strong support, potentially elevating bland or opportunistic figures over those with passionate, focused backing.
Worse, RCV can amplify extremist candidates in fragmented electorates. If voters split their first-choice votes among many moderates, a polarizing candidate with a dedicated minority base can survive early rounds and win through redistributed votes. Historical analogies, like the Weimar Republic’s proportional system enabling extremist parties to gain footholds, suggest that complex systems can inadvertently empower fringe voices in times of division. While RCV isn’t identical, its structure risks similar outcomes in polarized climates.
3. Erosion of Decisive Outcomes
RCV often fails to deliver the “majority winner” it promises. In practice, many voters don’t rank all candidates, leading to ballots being discarded in later rounds. In Australia’s 2019 federal election, which uses RCV, nearly 10% of ballots were “informal” (invalid or incomplete), and some races saw winners with less than a true majority of total votes cast. This undermines RCV’s claim to produce broadly supported candidates. Plurality voting, while criticized for allowing winners with less than 50% support, at least ensures a clear, decisive outcome without requiring voters to navigate a labyrinthine process.
Additionally, RCV can produce counterintuitive results, such as the “center squeeze” effect, where a broadly liked centrist candidate is eliminated early because they lack enough first-choice votes, leaving voters with a less preferred winner. This occurred in the 2009 Burlington, Vermont, mayoral election, where the Progressive candidate won despite the Condorcet winner (preferred head-to-head by voters) being eliminated. Such outcomes can frustrate voters and erode confidence in the system’s fairness.
4. Practical and Costly Implementation Challenges
Implementing RCV demands significant resources, including new voting machines, software, and voter education campaigns. Jurisdictions like Maine, which adopted RCV in 2016, faced costs in the millions to overhaul their systems and train election officials. These expenses divert funds from other public priorities, and smaller municipalities may struggle to afford the transition. Furthermore, RCV’s complexity increases the risk of administrative errors, as seen in New York City’s 2021 election, where 135,000 test ballots were mistakenly included in initial counts, delaying results and fueling confusion.
Conclusion: Simplicity and Clarity Over Complexity
Ranked Choice Voting, while well-intentioned, sacrifices accessibility, transparency, and decisiveness for an idealized notion of fairness that it often fails to deliver. Its complexity alienates voters, its structure invites manipulation, and its outcomes can feel arbitrary or unrepresentative. Simpler systems, like plurality voting or runoff elections, better balance clarity, trust, and efficiency, ensuring that democracy remains accessible and credible. In an era of growing distrust in institutions, adopting a system that risks further confusion and skepticism is a step backward. We should prioritize straightforward, reliable methods that empower voters without complicating their voice.
Attend the Next Meeting
Your input is essential to the charter review process. Commission meetings are open to the public and include scheduled time for public comment.
The next meeting of the Charter Review Commission is Thursday, May 22, 2025 at 6 p.m.
This is your Charter, let your commissioners know how to represent you!
Thank you for getting involved in the process.
Respectfully,
Misty Flowers
WCRP Chair
Comments