Jeanne Massey, executive director of Fair Vote Minnesota, and state Sen. Kelly Morrison shown speaking in front of the Senate Elections Committee.
Jeanne Massey, executive director of Fair Vote Minnesota, and state Sen. Kelly Morrison shown speaking in front of the Senate Elections Committee. Credit: MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan

Voters in some of Minnesota’s largest cities are familiar with ranked choice voting elections, the system that since 2009 has allowed voters to rank candidates for nonpartisan local offices. Now, a bill advanced through a state Senate committee takes the first steps toward using that election system for partisan federal and state offices as well.

Senate File 2270 was approved last week by the Senate Elections Committee on a party line vote. That kept the issue alive past a self-imposed legislative deadline for bills to pass out of committee. If passed into law and signed by Gov. Tim Walz, the bill would first broaden the number of local governments that could adopt the system and then create a 26-member task force with the aim of crafting a plan to elect members of Congress, governors and legislators later in the decade.

While the measure has support among DFLers, it is opposed by Republicans and has not been at the top of DFL election law changes. It is set for a hearing Friday before the House Elections Committee and among the 35 sponsors in the House are Speaker Melissa Hortman.

Ranked choice voting is sometimes called instant runoff voting because in most cases there is no primary election to winnow down the field. Instead, all candidates are on the general election ballot only. Sponsors, however, have said the intent is to use both an RCV primary election and an RCV general election for state and federal partisan offices. 

A new version, adopted at the request of top sponsor, Sen. Kelly Morrison of Deephaven, would also change the timing of the move to RCV. Initially the bill called for RCV to be used for the 2026 election. Now, the task force would come up with details about holding partisan races using RCV, as well as a timeline for when they would start. The task force recommendations, due no later than January of 2027, would need to be adopted, amended or rejected by a future Legislature before they could be implemented.

Currently, five cities elect local offices using the system. They are Minneapolis, St, Paul, St. Louis Park, Bloomington and Minnetonka. Two states, Maine and Alaska, use RCV for state and federal offices.

Morrison told the committee that “toxic politics and division are damaging our democracy” and that her bill – what she calls the Protect and Advance Democracy Act – is a remedy for that.

“Ranked choice voting is one of the best steps we can take to reduce our political divisions and strengthen our democracy,” she said. “Candidates must appeal to their opponents’ supporters for second and third choice votes. They do that by running positive campaigns that focus on policy solutions rather than personal attacks.”

Under the system, all candidates appear on a single ballot and voters rank them with first choice, second choice, third choice or more. The candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is dropped and the second-choices on those ballots is assigned to the surviving candidates. The process is repeated until someone has a majority or until there are no remaining ballots that haven’t been assigned or are “exhausted,” meaning they no longer contain a vote for a surviving candidate.

In the case of partisan elections like for Congress or governor, there might be a RCV primary that would declare one party candidate the nominee. Major party nominees would join third party and independent candidates in the November election for another RCV process. An early version of the bill anticipated such a two-election adaptation. It was removed in the amendment but would likely be considered by the task force.

Republicans on the committee objected to both the content of the bill and the haste with which it was brought before the committee for a hearing and a vote.

“All I’ve heard all session is that we have the best, cleanest, fairest, most-trustworthy election system in the entire country, yet this is another bill that will change every single aspect of a system you said was the greatest in the country,” said Sen. Mark Koran, R-North Branch.

Local Elections

Currently, only charter cities have the authority to switch to RCV. The bill before the Legislature would allow any city, county, school district or other local government to adopt it for their elections. Rochester City Council President Brooke Carlson told the elections committee that her city adopted a resolution supporting ranked choice voting in local elections but are not legally empowered to do so. The bill would change that.

“This bill would provide the potential to have a robust local conversation on this issue to see if this is right for Rochester,” Carlson said.

St. Paul City Council Member Nelsie Yang told the committee that she thinks RCV levels the political playing field for immigrant communities and people of color.

“No one is at a disadvantage from the start with ranked choice voting … which is why I’m such a strong supporter of it,” Yang said.

Expanding its use for partisan elections, said Simon Barnicle, an election attorney from Eagan, would help voters vote their true feelings about candidates rather than have to think tactically. For example, he cited Democrats in 2020 who might have preferred someone like Amy Klobuchar or Pete Buttigieg for president but instead voted for Joe Biden as a way to keep Bernie Sanders from winning the nomination.

“In Minnesota … for years, partisan operatives have cynically promoted extreme, third-party candidates in hopes that they will siphon votes away from the DFL,” Barnicle said. “This bill would end that practice by preventing third-party candidates from acting as spoilers.”

Bill supporters, from left: Mark Bohnhorst, Simon Barnicle and St. Paul City Council Member Nelsie Yang.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]Bill supporters, from left: Mark Bohnhorst, Simon Barnicle and St. Paul City Council Member Nelsie Yang.[/image_caption]
But RCV has become a partisan issue in Minnesota and nationally with Democrats making up the majority of supporters and Republicans mostly opposed. Neither bill in the state House and Senate has a GOP co-sponsor.

Both supporters and opponents cite the 2022 U.S. House race in Alaska as evidence for their positions. There, Democrat Mary Peltola won first a special election for an unexpired term and then a full term over Republican Sarah Palin because she secured more votes from a second Republican in the race, Nick Begich.

Had Begich been eliminated in a traditional primary — or even in the type of RCV primary Morrison envisions — and only Peltola and Palin faced off in the final election, Palin likely would have prevailed. Peltola had been scheduled to testify before the Senate elections committee but canceled due to her schedule in Washington, D.C., Morrison said. But she is set to testify before the House committee Friday and be the main attraction at a rally later that day. Also elected from Alaska was incumbent GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski.

Given the partisan divide over a bill backers say would reduce toxicity, there would likely need to be a DFL trifecta to pass the enabling legislation after the task force reports in 2027. By then, there will have been two state House elections, one state Senate election and an election for governor.

Sen. Andrew Matthews, R-Princeton, said big changes like this should have bipartisan support, otherwise election laws could be changed with each new partisan majority, leading to instability.

“Most people have no idea how ranked choice voting works or how the counting works,” Matthews said. “I’ve been trying to figure it out for many of my six years here. It feel like you dump all the results into a blender, you’re pushing on high, you power chop it up, and someone pours it out and announces who the winner is days, if not a week or more, after the election.”

He said faster results are key to transparency and confidence and Minnesota usually can declare winners on election night or at least the next day. Koran said the toxicity and threats of violence in elections and around policy making have happened in the cities that use ranked choice voting.

“It seems like that temperature has been raised dramatically because of this type of system and the people who have been elected,” Koran said.

County elections officials have expressed concerns about the complexity and cost of conducting both a regular election for county offices and an RCV election for state and federal offices on the same ballot and at the same election. While counties could adopt RCV for their own even-year elections, they would have the option to keep the current primary/general election system.

Deborah Erickson, Crow Wing County administrative services director and president of the Minnesota Association of County Officers, wrote to ask that local officials be well represented on any task force. She also asked that the task force consider “the administrative complexity, voter education needs and security and integrity of such elections.”

Many legislative and congressional districts cross county lines, adding to the complexity. Alaska and Maine have statewide vote counting, not the county based system that Minnesota uses.

Max Hailperin, a retired computer science professor who has been advising Citizens for Election Integrity on the technical details of the bill, said the biggest change in the recent draft was changing the date for implementation. Before, the first statewide RCV election would have been held in 2026 whether the state was ready or not. He said the bill now gives local governments that use the system more flexibility in details such as ballot layout and the use of software to process the vote count.

As for MACO’s concerns about a RCV and non-RCV ballot at the same election, Hailperin said “no one has a clue what that would look like.”

The committee received numerous other letters about the bill, most in support. The campaign is organized by Fair Vote Minnesota that has been working for more than a decade to see it implemented at the local and state government levels.

One of the board members of Fair Vote is Michael Osterholm, who heads the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota. He wrote: “While I have been fortunate to experience significant success in my life, I view RCV as the legacy of my lifetime and a way to bring about a better world for my kids, my grandkids and their future. RCV is a simple change to the ballot but one that holds the promise of bringing about a more inclusive, representative and responsive democracy for all.”

U.S. Rep. Angie Craig, DFL-2nd District, wrote that she is elected from one of the few remaining swing districts in the U.S. and that her voters tend to be less partisan.

“Implementing Ranked Choice Voting in Minnesota would help ensure candidates are more concerned about fighting for the support of constituents rather than tearing each other down,” wrote Craig.

Join the Conversation

65 Comments

  1. I thought the “code words” for the DFL is “protecting our democracy”?

    Why could they support a system were the person who gets the third highest total of votes could possibly win and election?

    1. Is that worse than a system in which the person who gets the second highest number of votes could become President?

      1. We are the “United States of America.” ” And to the Republic for which it stands….”

        1. The old “republic, not a democracy” canard! Like so many snappy sayings so beloved of the right wing (“America first,” anyone?), it has its origins in the rhetoric of those who would have had us stand idly by when a European tyrant threatens non-authoritarian rule with his megalomaniacal designs of conquest and ethnic purity. Plus ça change, am I right?

          By the way, you do realize that when you quote the Pledge you are quoting a Socialist, don’t you?

    2. It rarely happens that the person with the most votes in the first round doesn’t win, but if they don’t, it’s an indication that their support among the total voting population is limited to less than a majority, and they are probably too extreme for most voters. Ranking of votes ensures that the winner has enough support to be preferred by the most voters. This does not happen when multiple candidates split the vote. Someone with 35% of the votes is hardly “winning the most votes.”

    1. So you oppose the GOP gerrymandering that has taken place in Wisconsin. Great to hear.

    2. Not at all, which is why it isn’t always popular with incumbents. Candidates need to engage with voters about issues and have ideas most voters accept. They can’t just run on negative attacks or false promises if they want to win.

  2. I am a progressive Democrat and I strongly oppose RCV. I want elections decided on strong partisan differences. Voters need clear choices and they need to make up their minds before they vote, rather than this “well he or she isn”t too bad so I will rank them second,” etc. We have a great state because we have strong, well-defined political parties. If you want proof for what’s wrong with RCV just look at Minneapolis, which demonstrates a level of political incompetence seen only in a few other places. Contrary to what advocates claim, RCV shifts elections from issues to personalities, which is just the opposite of what we need.

    Divisive politics exists in this country because we are DIVIDED in all kinds of ways and manipulating the election process is a smoke scree that isn’t going to change that. Some of the Far-Left Bernie Sanders people who advocate RCV should examine some of the stuff they advocate. I don’t agree with most conservative politics, but not all conservative people are like Trump or Scott Jensen, or are evil and nasty. Many, probably most are decent people, who work hard, who pay their taxes, and who just view the world differently.

    If RCV becomes the law in this state it is going to make a lot of people very angry and it is going to make us more polarized.

    1. Well said. Look at Mpls, many candidates received the least amount of votes, won. Many people don’t understand how the process works when they vote and so the put people on their ballot they don’t want and assume the ranking won’t matter much. It’s not patronizing, it’s fact. And didn’t Maine actually attempt to recall rank voting? We don’t have a parliamentary system; if we want to change to that, that is another discussion.

    2. The bulk of information from places that do RCV would indicate the opposite in terms of people being more angry and more polarized. So I wonder if your thought is just a guess (which is fine), or do you have something to support this view?

      And I don’t think there are many amongst us who can imagine anything causing our state or federal politics to become more polarized than it currently is. Each party hates the other and won’t even consider that the other side may occasionally have a decent idea or position.

  3. Cool. Does that mean I can vote against Joe Biden 5 times next election .(By voting for 5 other people, I can vote against Biden 5 times. )

  4. I hope they get the details worked out, so that in the future RCV is how we vote. The argument that it is too complicated for voters to figure out, seems very patronizing. I think the strongest arguments for RCV are that it would reduce bashing your opponent, and instead it would (hopefully) encourage candidates to discuss what they would actually do to resolve issues.

  5. In the 2016 Minnesota Republican primary, Trump finished fourth. That was because he was wisely despised. Had their been ranked choice around the country, I believe another nominee would have been selected. We will have a divided country as long as extreme and widely despised candidates are selected.

  6. Sen Matthews, R-Princeton, said “I’ve been trying to figure it out for many of my six years here. ”

    That seems to say more about Sen Matthews than RCV. It’s pretty straightforward, really. Though I do have to wonder why so many on the right find it hard to understand.

    1. “I do have to wonder why so many on the right find it hard to understand.”

      They understand RCV. They oppose it because it takes away their assault weapons: vilifying opponents, throwing out red meat, and ignoring issues.

  7. I’m surprised this is a partisan issue. RCV might help the MN (R)s win more seats by allowing more moderate candidates to reach the ballot. More voter choice, less party control is needed.

    1. The possibility that “moderates” would be helped would be a strong reason for Republicans to oppose it.

      1. If one of the RCV advocates can point me to one example district in the country where this is in place where a republican won, I might be open to discussion. I’d bet they can’t. In fact, to make your argument, you should publish a list of historical elections where RCV is in place, and a statistical breakdown on which party has won these elections.

        1. All that tells me is that Republicans don’t run well in areas where there are more than two choices. That’s a problem with the Republicans, not with the system.

          1. She ran against another republican, so that doesn’t count. Yet, she was the least favored in the polls so that raises other questions.

            1. You said
              “If one of the RCV advocates can point me to one example district in the country where this is in place where a republican won, I might be open to discussion. I’d bet they can’t. ”

              I said Lisa Murkowski.

              You gonna discuss, or move the goalposts?

              In the other AK example, it’s not hard to imagine that some Rs would vote for a moderate Dem over Sarah Palin. Not unlike how some Rs switched to Biden rather than put Trump back into office. When Republicans nominate ridiculous candidates they should not be surprised that voters defect to other alternatives.

  8. Fair is the best descriptor for RCV. But of course, fair is a four letter word for most Republicans in their dealings.

  9. At a time when about half the population thinks the elections are rigged (including some democrats), this is not the time to be introducing new and dubious vote counting systems. The fact the DFL feels they can ram this down everyone’s throats only lends credence to the charge that any changes to the election system that is so wholeheartedly supported by the left means it must provide them with just another way to cheat. It’s like walking into a casino where the dealers are all snickering and elbowing each other. I’d walk out too.

    1. Another ridiculous comment based on zero facts and false accusations. To say, “…provide them with just another way to cheat…” suggests there has already been some cheating by Democrats.

      Which there has not been. That’s the trouble the left faces in trying to discuss anything with the new right. The right starts from a stance of false, unproven conspiracy theories – which makes it impossible to have an adult conversation about pretty much anything.

      1. There has been cheating. Stop lying to us all:

        Minnesota
        2022
        Muse Mohamed
        Criminal Conviction
        Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots
        Minnesota
        2022
        Jill D. Kelley
        Criminal Conviction
        Duplicate Voting
        Minnesota
        2022
        Bradley Haugen
        Criminal Conviction
        Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots
        Minnesota
        2022
        Abdihakim Amin Essa
        Criminal Conviction
        Fraudulent Use Of Absentee Ballots
        Minnesota
        2022
        Zameahia Ismail
        Criminal Conviction
        False Registrations

        1. Wow. A whole five convictions out of . . . how many ballots were cast, again?

          1. I don’t care how many. You cannot say there wasn’t any fraud. So, stop saying it.

            1. How about “there is no significant fraud, and such fraud as there might be is in no way sufficient to change the results of an election?”

            2. Ah yes. It appears that the laws work. You find 5 examples of people convicted of voting fraud (with no proof of whether any ballots were actually cast, let alone how many). I’m old enough to remember when some people shrugged off that the ex-prez’s own Chief of Staff (and wife) committed voting fraud. Wasn’t charged because “reasons” (who says no one’s above the law?). Anywho, I’m trying to figure out how the “law and order” folks are upset that the law was actually upheld for these unknown folks. Oh yeah, because the law is irrelevant when you can just outright deny people access to the polls. I mean, if you were for fair elections, you’d actually be for fair elections. But that’s not what you’re for.

    2. Tell lies about election fraud that undermine trust in elections, then use the fact that some people are easily duped into believing these obvious lies as proof the lies have merit. In other words, conservative thinking. But maybe we can coin a new term and call it the “Tester Cycle.” Referring to it as circular logic seems a bit ambitious since circles need more than two single points.

  10. For me, what happened in Alaska is a very strong argument against RCV. Because of RCV, a Republican state sent a Democrat to Congress. How is that not wrong?

    1. It is not wrong because it means the election was competitive, and voters decided based on their views of the candidates rather than on blind partisan loyalty. If the Republicans couldn’t compete against multiple candidates, that’s their problem.

        1. Alaskans sent an R senator & a D rep. In the house race, two Rs split the conservative vote, leaving an opening for the Dem. Oops!

        2. The mods allow this dangerous comment, furthering the undermining of our democracy. It’s just crazy, given how my far more innocuous comments don’t see the light of day.

          Seriously, MinnPost is still catering to the Big Lie? Amazing.

        3. Well, I finally started thinkin’ straight
          When I ran outta things to investigate
          I couldn’t imagine anything else
          So now I’m at home investigatin’ myself
          Hope I don’t find out anything… good God!

        4. The voters. Unless you can prove otherwise. Show your work like you always ask everyone else to do.

        5. Is Dennis a real person or a caricature of a paranoid Q Anon bumpkin?

          So many questions…

      1. Junior congress people are fungible. The only thing they do that matters is vote to organize the house for one party or the other.

    2. “For me, what happened in Alaska is a very strong argument against RCV. Because of RCV, a Republican state sent a Democrat to Congress. How is that not wrong?”

      So is it also wrong that West Virginia, a Republican state, sent a Democrat to the U.S. Senate in a winner-take-all traditional election?

      1. In West Virginia, the voters had a clear and unambiguous choice and they made it. I think the voters of all states should be given the same opportunity the voters of West Virginia had.

      2. It wasn’t that long ago that WV was a Democratic state, because of the coal mining unions. Joe Manchin, a decade or so ago, was the Democratic Governor of WV. He has always been a “moderate” so was able to appeal to more moderate GOP voters. In fact he is a great example what proponents want RCV to produce, someone who has wide appeal to a broad crosssection of voter. I don’t happen to agree with him on a lot of issues, but again I don’t think that RCV would produce anything better.

  11. As a voter who does not identify with or support either of the two major political parties (or their candidates), RCV is a welcome, if still undemocratic, compromise. Proportional representation with a multi-party system is a superior voting system. Third parties and third party voters have historically and still do have much to offer this country and state (as they do in many democracies around the world).

    Here, they are considered “spoilers” only because they threaten the power and influence of the two corporate parties. And, they are labelled as “extreme” only because their ideology and positions differ from the major parties. What’s extreme is voting in the same two parties year after year and getting the same horrible results.

    I’d prefer to live in a democracy that judges all political parties with respect, fully included in political campaigns, and voted for or against on the merits of their policy proposals.

    1. “Proportional representation with a multi-party system is a superior voting system.”

      Perhaps it is. How would that work, given our constitution?

  12. Nice to see the upstanding Dems lowering themselves to trade in insults with the Deplorables

    1. Well no, ours are actually intelligent and humorous, as opposed to desperate and sad. Though not as sad as those of supposedly “moderate” conservatives, those are just beneath interest.

  13. Judging by the sterling leadership in Minneapolis, RCV is certainly worth emulating

    1. To say nothing for Alaska, Maine, as well as the cities of St. Louis Park, Bloomington and others.

      Did you honestly think different people were being elected in Minneapolis when they had the old system?

  14. In a country where voting takes place on a day that ISN’T a national holiday, anything that can reduce the burden on average working folks is an honest step in the right direction. RCV isn’t that hard to understand, and is a way to reduce hyperpartisanship. That doesn’t mean that there can’t be reasonable differences in policy. It just means that there’s reduced risk for literal insanity. I welcome the idea, and I’m not bothered at all that it’s technically feasible for an “unpopular” candidate to win. It’s actually a perk, not a flaw. If you’re afraid of the consequences, tell me how they’ll be worse than what we have right now, where voting is becoming more and more restricted in the name of partisan politics and to complete a vote if there’s a tie, you ask people to give up their paychecks or be voiceless. That’s a terrible outcome. And I agree with the idea that we need to make politics with third party candidates possible. If given any serious thought, a two-party system is about the worst version of a party-based system we could come up with.

    1. We don’t need elections to take place on a national holiday, which would only be a holiday for federal employees, like Columbus Day. We need elections on Saturdays.

  15. Practically any change in election laws helps some people and hurts others. Elections are complicated things that cut a lot of different ways.

    Does RCV reduce the burden on an average voter? It doesn’t reduce the burden on me. All of a sudden, I have to research the views of all the also rans; weigh the merits of candidates I would ordinarily never have heard of. I have to decide whether Republicans or grass advocates are better for Minnesota, a question I assure you, I never thought worth asking prior to RCV. All this is in an environment where the “average voter” has no idea who the major candidates are, or even has a clear idea of the nature of the offices they are running for.

    1. I don’t think you need to worry. You aren’t forced to choose from the suplemental candidates. It’s optional. You can vote as you always have and just pick one person. In some elections the value of that vote may be for naught, and in others, will count for the winning team exactly as before.

      If you don’t want to, you won’t need to burden yourself beyond your current effort.

      This likely ends up a lateral move. Solves some issues in certain cycles, and creates new ones in others.

      I’ve used these ballots in MPLS. It overwhelmed me with a feeling of “meh…this is fine.”

  16. “You can vote as you always have and just pick one person.”

    This raises one of my favorite criticisms. If RCV changes nothing, as so many have assured us, why make the change. If people don’t use it, and that doesn’t change the result, why have it at all? If nothing changes, what interest does it serve?

    But I don’t think that is true. RCV does change things, and it does it in often inexplicable and random ways. It posits a model for voter behavior that just exist in the real world. I don’t rank candidates in real life, what sense does it make to rank them on the ballot? And let’s just say I know way more about candidates than the average voter who is barely aware that the legislature meets in St. Paul.

    1. “I don’t rank candidates in real life, what sense does it make to rank them on the ballot?”

      You don’t? So you pick one candidate & anyone else is no good? That seems unusual to me. I suspect most people would agree with me; if there are four candidates I’ll likely have an opinion on who I like most & least.

      The broader intent is to move away from the ‘lesser of 2 evils’ mindset. There might be a 3rd party candidate I like the most, but feel obliged to vote major party so the major party candidate I like least is kept out. That’s a terrible way to pick someone – no wonder we end up with irritating politicians. Going back to 2016, how is it that Trump & Clinton were the candidates? They were two of the least likable / most despised politicians in the country. That the current system came up with them is a clear sign the system is broken.

    2. Its possible it changes if your first cantidate doesn’t win outright. But who cares? Vote your person and that’s that.
      No one needs to, or will be, more informed whether we use this system or not. Look at the mensa members running the state now. Does that make you believe the status quo is great?

  17. So you pick one candidate & anyone else is no good? That seems unusual to me.

    From a lot of personal experience, I can tell you that what is unusual is for people to know who any of the candidates are at all. Most people know virtually nothing about state government. The notion that we have an electorate full of individuals knowledgeable enough about who is running for office to rank them in some sort of order just does not comport with reality.

    How people vote is a very complicated thing. Do people vote for the most likable candidates? I liked John McCain a lot more than Barack Obama, but I never for a moment considered voting for him. What motivates voters is based on a lot of factors and it really is impossible to construct a model for voting that is congruent to how voters vote. RCV changes how we vote but not in a way that is consistent or comprehensible. It simply adds a complication for no specific reason we can clearly identify.

    1. You are really overstating the incomprehensibility of RCV. It’s simply a winner take all election on the first ballot, if that person gets 50%+1 votes. After that, it’s just a series of run-off elections, except you never have to go back to the polls or fill out another ballot. If your first choice doesn’t make it to the next round and you’ve left the second choice blank, it’s the same as you sitting out a traditional run-off election. It’s not difficult to understand, and you don’t have to change the way you vote if you don’t want to.

  18. There are two basic things people say about RCV. First, they say it will change nothing. The second is that it will change everything. This goes to the seemingly infinite mutability of the proposal in that in any given situation, no matter how diverse or complicated, it does only good things and never does bad things. It’s porridge that is always exactly the right temperature.

    Now we are told that it is leads to a series of run off elections which conveniently voters don’t actually have to participate in. Well, not even in the old Soviet Union did they have elections in which voters didn’t have to vote in at all. The fact is, when you take one candidate off the ballot, circumstances and issues change for all the rest of the candidates. Voters should have a chance to recognize that through a separate election.

    But all of that aside, I leave you with the Alaska result. After a turbulent election with all sorts of strategizing and game playing, a Republican state sent a Democrat to Congress, something that would not have happened without RCV. I have a problem with that. It’s not that I am a Republican, which I am not, so much as I am a firm believer that what goes around comes around, and I don’t want to be blind sided substantively, with something that shouldn’t be more than a process issue.

    1. When you make a second choice, you’ve already examined what would happen if your first choice didn’t make the cut for the run-off election.
      If you don’t want to make a second choice, you are free to do that, just as you are free to not vote in a conventional run-off election.

      If the people in Alaska didn’t want a Democrat to win, those who voted for a Republican in first position could have voted for the other Republican in second position.

Leave a comment