Copyright James R. Carlson
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is becoming increasingly popular versus the more traditional elections where runoff elections take place when a clear winner wasn’t chosen in the first poll. Although RCV has its advocates, it is clear to me that any time we extend the ballot box beyond the second poll (runoff election) we’re dealing with a real clear violation of electoral law.
Advocates of RCV complain that people who disagree with RCV cannot understand its complexity. Well, call me simple minded. From where I stand, simplicity spells out the problem with RCV clearly. When an election and runoff election are all that is needed to determine who gets the majority vote (50% + 1; not 51%) of the electorate (aka wins the election), having computer runoffs beyond the second tier represents a clear violation of electoral integrity.
At the very least, RCV is the same as any other system of tallying the votes when a clear majority emerges for one particular candidate in an election. The trouble begins when a runoff election is needed to determine who wins the majority of the votes and the runoff occurs in computer space. This is accomplished by having the voter cast a first, second, third, etc. choice for their vote. In any normal runoff, only one second choice is needed. All elections can be determined by one or two ballots. But the problem with RCV is that they have choices beyond just two, which is RCV+3.
The math they come up with is complex and takes time to digest. But who cares? We don’t need complicated math as simple math will do nicely. If RCV is ever to be valid, it can only go 2 tiers deep, which is RCV+2. The first choice of a voter, if not successful, then defaults to their second and only other choice – simple. The runoff in computer space then takes 2 candidates with the highest two pluralities of votes and puts them side by side in a runoff and the second-tier vote selects who actually acquires a clear majority of the votes. This will work in 99.9999% (read: 100%) of all elections. We need to go no further than 2 choices; perhaps this is too simple for some!
With only 2 choices made on a legitimate RCV ballot (RCV+2), this requires the voter to become more informed about their choices. And it allows a person to support the Party of their choice if they wish; or not if they so choose. This is a rational adaptation of the current RCV+3 theme; RCV+2 is the only viable option anywhere RCV is used.
I used to run the polling place for my precinct in Austin, Texas for 10 years (poll watcher, clerk, alternate judge, then election judge) and I prefer the method of voting that has worked for more than 200 years (first election then a second runoff if needed). I can see some value in a 2 tier RCV+2 system for electronic runoffs but I still prefer the traditional method.
I was also on the IEEE 1583 (electronic voting) subcommittee for a short time working on an ‘independent tally’ of the vote. And I still support a Voter Verifiable Paper Trail (VVPT) for electronic voting. RCV is one step beyond traditional and electronic voting as electronic runoffs occur in computer space based upon the tiered votes of first and second choices. Although a voter is given a second choice, they are not given the names of candidates who will be in the runoff election – they are voting their second choice in a blind contest between 2 candidates. It is an admittedly complex algorithm that is used, with the voters tiered choices, to decide who wins the runoff election. This takes the election out of the hands of the voter and into the hands of the computer programmer.
Cut the complexity, add simplicity, and limit the choices in any election to 2 choices. Tally the vote as normal or use the second choice in an electronic runoff to decide who the winner is. This simplicity is easy for the voters to understand, computer programmers to understand, but likely hard for RCV+3 advocates to understand as it limits their ability to manipulate the outcome of elections.
Again, any RCV system that adds a third tier (+3) or more is committing electoral fraud and should be suspended from continuing their work. Please keep it simple and always remember, the final objective of tallying the vote is 100% of the vote cast = 100% of the vote tallied.
Comentarios