Asymmetric Warfare: Ranked Choice Voting 

Ranked Choice Voting. Once upon a time, the election system was simple.  The person with the most votes WON.  It has stood the test of time, WINNER TAKE ALL.  Paper ballots, show an identification, submit the ballet to volunteers who passed basic addition tests. 

 Then there were more candidates.  Not only the Democratic and Republican, but the Green Candidate, the Socialist candidate, the Pro-life candidate, the whatever candidate.  And some rich New York social ladies decided that someone had to get 50% of the vote to truly be elected.  Why would they do that?  They have lots of money and absolutely no accomplishments, so why not destroy our basic voting privilege?  

For years, the winner takes all.  If there is not a decisive victory, the elected person needed to form a coalition around common themes.  In a split election, there was no ruling as with a mandate. 

 But now, we need a true majority winner.  How would it be possible?  It is so very expensive to run a second election, can we do it in one pass?  Can we make a process that provides an instantaneous runoff to determine the true winner?  

 And for that answer, we have Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).  Personally, if this comes to a community near you, fight it and fight it.  The basic premise is that there must be a majority winner, even if there is not a majority winner.

 OK, let us review the process with an example.  Let us assume that five people run for the same position.  These candidates represent the Democrat party, the GOP, Climate Change, Progressive and the Green Party.  

  • Every voter must fill out the ballot, indicating their first through fifth choice.  Failure to rank the candidates is cause for your ballot to be discarded.  It is easy, every candidate has five circles, so fill in the Number 1 choice, then color in the Number 2 choice, the Number 3 choice and so on.
  • When the election month or day is completed, if no candidate has received over 50% of the vote, the instantaneous runoff commences.
    • The people that voted for the loser, will have their ballots gathered, and these people will get a second vote…  in the same election.  The second choice of those people that voted for the loser, will be added to the totals of the four remaining candidates.  Did anyone get over 50%?  Let us assume NO, because then we can see the absolute insanity of the idea.
  • OK, we now have another loser, the person who placed fourth.  The runoff continues.
    • Take all the people take voted for the fourth place and collect their ballots.  Now the voters that picked Number 4, get another vote.  And those that picked #5 and then #4 get a third vote!! 
      • Take the 3rd choice of anyone that voted for the 5th place loser and the 4th place loser, add those votes as required to the remaining three candidates.
      •  Then take the ballots of those that voted for the 4th place loser originally, and add their second choice to the remaining three candidates.  If persons in this group voted for the first loser as a second choice, then take their third-place candidate and add the vote to the total.
  • Please, let there be someone with over 50%!!  If not, get the tables ready.  Let us see if we can determine how to split up the votes.
    • Separate all the ballots cast for the 3rd place loser.  Find those that initially voted for the 3rd place loser, take their 2nd choice and add those votes to the remaining two candidates, unless they selected the 5th place loser or the 4th place loser, then take their 3rd choice.  But if that has either the 4th or 5th place loser, then take the 4th choice..
    • At this point, it gets very confusing.  Take the ballots of those voting for the 3rd place loser and also the fourth-place loser.  Take their third-place vote and add to the total, unless it included the 5th place loser, then take their 4th choice.
    • Now take the ballots of those voting for the 3rd place, 4rd place loser and the fifth place loser, take their fourth-placed ballot, unless it is the fourth-place loser, then take their 5th place selection.  Not sure I am correct here.
  • It is time to tally the votes!!

Could the process be any simpler?  YES!!!  The winner takes all!  There is nothing wrong with the winner winning!  It has been the custom for years, no matter how many run for office.

Imagine the opportunity for fraud, for vote manipulation.  There are no boundaries to the process.  The losers, the fringe voters, keep getting additional votes.  Is that really fair?  No, one person, on vote, period!

The proponents say that RCV ensures that a candidate who is disliked cannot win, while they could win based on winner take all. Proponents say that RCV provides winners most liked by the voters, because being liked is important.

RCV removes the illusion of voting for the lessor of two evils, as one votes for everyone!  And RCV does not allow one to throw their vote away, as one gets second and third options.  But beware, if you positively hate a candidate and do not rank that person, your ballot is cast into the fires of hell and will not be counted!  San Francisco discarded RCV when a race for Board of Supervisors resulted in 9,608 exhausted and discarded ballots, allowing the winner to be declared with 4,321 total votes, 25% of the votes cast!  

Elections are sacred.  Elections are the periods in time where the common man votes for whom they believe is the best.  After two years of opinions, arguments and study, a person casts their vote.  The votes are counted and the one with the most wins.  People can live with winner take all, even if it is Barry Obama.  RCV violates the basic premise of republic, one person one vote.  

RCV also eliminates a citizen’s greatest vote – the blank ballot!!  That ballot would be exhausted and discarded, even though the citizen is making a statement that all the candidates suck!  

Talk to your Representative.  Tell them that each person has one vote, and that vote can be blank, indicating that all candidates are greatly flawed.

If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN

Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA

1 thought on “Asymmetric Warfare: Ranked Choice Voting ”

Leave a Comment