RCV

RCV

In the United States, RCV (Ranked Choice Voting) is an electoral system used to vote for a candidate from a field of multiple contenders. It ranks the candidates as per the voters’ preference. Initially, the electoral authority counts the ballots for each elector’s top choice. The candidate wins only if he secures more than 50% of the votes (Neely et al., 2015). If none make it above the threshold, the system eliminates whoever is in the last place while the remaining contenders move up one spot on the rank. The process is repeated until one candidate secures 50%+1 vote. RCV eliminates instances of split votes, especially when like-minded voters support two or more candidates.

History

RCV is not a new concept. In Ireland, voters have used it since 1922. Other countries that have applied ranked choice voting system in regional elections include Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom. In the US, Mainers employed it in Portland referendum. In 2011, they approved a citywide Ranked Choice Vote to replace a system that empowered a handful of counsellors to select the mayor. In the first round, there were 16 candidates but Michael Brenan (a Democrat) won by 28%. He was declared a victor in the second round with 57%. Whether he was a majority winner or not depends on an observer’s interpretation of the outcome. Notably, a small number of ballots listed all the 16 candidates because most voters ranked only two or three favourites. Consequently, there were exhausted ballots in each RCV round (Burnett & Kogan, 2015). It occurred for some voters that listed a candidate as the first one on the list but emerged 15^th overall during the first round. Hence, the candidate cannot proceed to the second stage, though he was the first choice for numerous people. Though Michael Brennan defeated Strimling by more than 2100 votes in the final step, less than half of the cast ballots were his. Essentially, the majority of voters did not rank him on top of the list.

Arguments

Political scientists are tabling mathematical models to undermine proponents’ claims. Already, they look for weak spots by poking around RCV, signalling that the analytics movement is here to stay. Although RCV will not limit the number of polling data during the electioneering period, it will introduce alterations. The pollsters will not ask Maine’s residents about their choice for the mayoral or gubernatorial seat but the prospective list to rank the candidates in a favourability order. Thereafter, they will adjust the projection into a horse-race match.

Anomalies

Pro-RCV activists argue that this parsing of results is misleading. They articulate that critics should view it as a fair and transparent democratic process rather than judge RCV by the election outcome. In addition, the proponents emphasize that Portland election was successful because no candidate engaged in negative campaigns. Instead of focusing on becoming a leader in all rounds, the candidates aimed at advancing to the next round even if the fall on second, fourth, or third positions. For each candidate, negativity against an opponent was unwelcomed due to the sensitivity of voters. Besides, voters can choose their candidate without assisting in electing their least favourite contender.

Minneapolis

Indeed, supporters of RCV system demand positive changes on the way the federal government handles elections. Without a doubt, the majority should choose the winning candidate to eliminate a spoiler issue. In a democracy, policymaking and politics ought to be civil, substantive, and inclusive. Yet, a section of political analysts is convinced that RCV does not solve all the issues affecting modern elections. During the 2013 Minneapolis mayoral ballots, the winner garnered 48% of the vote after 30 tallying rounds. Clearly, he did not get the majority but became a frontrunner.

Contrary to a popular belief, there can be a spoiler in RCV elections. The situation happens when a candidate with a support of most voters fails to win due to ranking irregularities during early rounds. Besides, the new system is less inclusive compared to the regular voting method. The main reason for this is that within the first three rounds, there is a probability that the voter’s ballots will drop  due to concerns. Therefore, the only individuals to rank one of the last two contenders on their ballot are the decision makers. In Minneapolis 2013 mayoral election, approximately 20% (16, 523) of the people that voted in the first round did not participate in the last round to select the ultimate winner (Anest, 2014). If there is no clear victor in RCV polls the final outcome delays for days or weeks and the cost soars. Besides, candidates may swing to a third-party aspirant, thus enabling an unlikely contender to win surprisingly.

Little evidence exists to suggest that RCV system results in more civilized campaigns. In fact, most of the states whose introduction of instant-runoff voting is pending already enjoy civilized and orderly campaigns. In America, some municipalities like Aspen in Colorado and Pierce County in Washington adopted RCV but later rejected it. It is advisable that if the people of Maine want to change their voting method, they should consider the approval voting system. Unlike RCV, the voters in this system have a ‘no’ or ‘yes’ option. Eventually, the winner will have more ‘yes’ votes than the rest. In addition, there are no rounds that complicate the election process, given that each vote cast bears an equal weight to other valid votes. Prior to the introduction of RCV in the pending states, it is imperative for the government to create awareness through public education. While approval voting is new in America, it is relatively easy to understand and unbiased against candidates.

Maine

Maine’s committee on RCV has proposed that in 2018, they will implement the new voting system in all communities across the state. If they are right, RCV replaces the traditional plurality voting system applied when choosing federal and state legislators. Unlike Minneapolis’ RCV, Mainers have an in-depth understanding of plurality voting because a candidate wins by simple majority. In 2006, Paul LePage won with 37% majority in a three-way race.  Still, the plurality voting is ideal when the race involves two contenders (Magrino et al., 2014). An introduction of a third-party candidate to Maine’s gubernatorial race alters the campaign’s character. Therefore, this argument justifies the introduction of a reformed electoral system to address the challenges that frequently arose in the past elections. Some of the issues that necessitate introduction of RCV in Maine include sharp divisions among voters, presence of spoilers, and minority wins.

Adoption

RCV enthusiasts in Maine have to collect more than 60, 000 signatures to endorse the initiative for a referendum. Mainers must vote overwhelmingly in support if the proposal. It will not be easy, given that people are used to the existing election system and would shoot down any move to introduce a controversial system. If RCV is successful at this stage, chances are that the Supreme Court may declare it unconstitutional since there is no law that grants states to independently endorse amendments to voting regulations. If the Supreme Court confirms the proponents’ worst fears, they will have to introduce an amendment that requires a two-thirds majority supports in upper and lower house. Finally, the Maine public will have to vote for or against.

According to Maine’s political experts, RCV is a futuristic system that marries the state’s vision and strategic plans. Bearing in mind the prospects of the last election and the resultant distrust in the current system, the elections committee considers 2016 as an opportune time to advance the overdue reforms.

Ethics

Understandably, whenever an RCV election leads to a controversial outcome, the people and mainstream media quickly blame the new structure. Conversely, a successful Ranked Choice Voting receives unrealistic credit from the federal and state government. For example in 2011 Portland, Maine mayoral race, Brennan won all RCV rounds as would have been the case in a traditional election. Yet, suggesting that each election will be clear-cut is naive. In a worst case scenario, Maine could end up with a messy RCV election outcome like Minneapolis at some point. However, this does not mean that the electoral committee should not switch to the revolutionary system but people should be aware of the potential ramifications.

In summary, the introduction of RCV is a bold step forward towards ensuring functionality and fairness in the American democracy. Not only does it work on multiple contexts but also is a simplified alteration that yields significant impact. RCV enables voters to list as many candidates as they need but in an orderly rank. Proponents argue that this system is better than the traditional election process because the voters can select the first choice while influencing the outcome of the second, third, or fourth candidates. However, the opponents have expressed their dissatisfaction, given that a candidate with a popular support may fail to gather enough steam in the first stage for the next round. Therefore, the majority may not endorse the eventual winner. Besides, the process of adopting RCV in states like Mines is tedious, lengthy, and costly.

References

Neely, F., Blash, L., & Cook, C. (2015). An Assessment of Ranked-Choice Voting in the San Francisco 2004 Election. Public Research Institute, San Francisco State University.

Magrino, T. R., Rivest, R. L., Shen, E., & Wagner, D. (2011, August). Computing the Margin of Victory in IRV Elections. In EVT/WOTE.

Anest, J. (2014). RANKED CHocE VoTING. Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 4(3), 23-40.

Burnett, C. M., & Kogan, V. (2015). Ballot and Voter “Exhaustion” Under Instant Runoff Voting: An Examination of Four Ranked-Choice Elections.Electoral Studies, 37, 41-49.