Published with permission of the author. A similar piece ran as an Op-Ed in the Rochester Post-Bulletin on April 1, 2023.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.”
― Plato

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is making its way through our state legislature.

RCV is a voting system in which each voter votes for more than one candidate per office, ranked by their preference: 1, 2, 3… The number of choices can vary. Tallying rules vary. Generally, ballots are counted with first-preference votes. If a candidate receives a majority of the votes, s/he wins. If no winner, the candidate receiving the least number of votes is disqualified; ballots cast for that candidate are replaced with those voters’ next choice. Another tally is done. The process continues until a candidate receives a majority.

Fair Vote Minnesota is an organization working to convince people that RCV is a great thing. Kim Norton and Brooke Carlson are all in. How could anyone be against a fair vote?

FairVote says RCV doesn’t violate the “one person, one vote” principle. It does. Voters whose high-ranked candidates are eliminated get subsequent votes that other voters do not get: the least representative voters get more votes. Some voters may have no vote in the later rounds (if they did not rank any of the remaining candidates). Both ways, RCV is not “one person, one vote”.

FairVote says RCV eliminates “wasted” votes. Nope. No votes are wasted in our current system; they’re all counted. When there are more candidates than voters are allowed to (or choose to) rank and their candidates get disqualified, they have no vote in the race. That’s waste.

FairVote says RCV solves the “spoiler” problem. Nope. This is a curious thing to consider a problem as they praise RCV for providing more choice.

FairVote says RCV increases voter participation. Nope. RCV is more complicated than checking a single box per office. Voters need more information about more candidates. The ballot is more complicated. In Minneapolis, RCV showed a significant rise in spoiled ballots. That’s decreased participation. Plus, those whose ballots were spoiled tended to be less affluent and people of color. Fair?

FairVote says RCV reduces the cost of running campaigns. Nope. Candidates run as hard as they can as long as they’re running. RCV pats itself on the back for avoiding primaries. With primaries, candidates stop running when they lose. With RCV everyone runs to the end.

FairVote says RCV reduces the cost of elections. Saving primaries and run-offs saves money. Running RCV elections costs more than running current elections: ballots are more complicated and require fancier voting machines. Not all races include primaries but with RCV we’ll pay more for every election.

FairVote says RCV ensures majority outcomes. Nope. Voters who do not rank last-standing candidates have no vote in the final result. Candidates can win with less than 50% of the voters.

FairVote claims RCV yields office-holders who better represent voter desires. In a three-way race it’s possible to elect the candidate that was least preferred by most voters.

FairVote mentions places where RCV is in use but doesn’t mention places that have avoided it or tried it and got rid of it. Fort Collins, Colorado defeated it almost 2-1. In the UK it was defeated 2-1. Duluth decided against it 3-1. Burlington, Vermont tried it and removed it.

FairVote is in business to sell RCV. Like a used car salesman in a horror movie with better teeth and web site. FairVote folks like what they’re selling but that doesn’t mean they’re making any sense, or seeing or telling the whole story.

For some of us, the breakage of “one vote per voter” is enough to discard RCV. As you can see, there are other reasons, too.

—Bruce Kaskubar