To the editor:
Ranked choice voting is a solution in search of a problem. So a governmental unit – city, county, state -- decides that to win an election one must win a majority of the votes cast; or it might decide that the one with the most votes, even if not the majority, wins or, in that case, a run-off election between the two highest vote totals is needed to declare a winner. Clear and simple. So why is ranked choice even needed?
And why would it be better than any of the above? Saving money on a run-off election is the weakest reason if we want to know the will of the people.
We all believe in one person, one vote. But ranked choice voting can give a person multiple votes; votes that count. As an example, three candidates run for an office. Candidates A and B are middle of the road and Candidate C is fringe. So let’s say five people vote as follows: two for A, two for B and one for C. five votes, five people. No one got the needed majority of three votes.
Ranked choice would come into play. The one person who voted for C prevented either A or B from winning. So their vote counted. But now ranked choice gives this very same person (and only this one) another vote. The second choice of the one who voted for the least popular candidate votes again and that second vote is added to the total of either A or B. So the voter who originally backed the least popular, fringe Candidate C get to choose the winner by voting twice.
Vote no on Question 2 to prevent anyone from getting two (or more) votes just as governors Newsome and Brown of California did by vetoing ranked choice there.