This is the eighth article in a series of articles on FreedomFest 2021. The conference is organized by PhD.Mark Skusen, An economist and presidential researcher at Chapman University in California.This article covers a lecture Adam Friedman Regarding the new phenomenon of “ranking selection” voting, which is all the rage in certain political circles (mainly the Democratic and Liberal parties). He was the organizer of Get Out The Vote (GOTV) for the recent Mayor of New York City, which included a ranking selection method. He advertises himself As a “lifetime New Yorker, cartoonist, cat lover, and passionate advocate, he has been involved in human rights, prison justice, and LGBTQ+ issues.” Friedman is the founder of Rank the Vote.
This is what I captured from his conversation:
- Proposition: How to choose voting through rankings to bring freedom to ballot boxes.
- Our failed majority election is a prerequisite. “Majority: The one with the highest total votes wins.” (The root of our political crisis).
- The paradox of pluralism. More candidates running for the election split the ballot and arrive at a result that the majority of voters will not support.
- Ranking voters is a non-partisan reform; the key is to protect the will of the majority
- In Massachusetts, when there are 3 or more candidates participating in a competition, most of the elected candidates do not receive more than half of the votes.
- Diverse politics corrupts competition, hinders candidates from running for election, restricts the scope of debate, and restricts our honest choices
- Ranking Selection Voting (RCV): RCV allows you to rank multiple candidates in the order you like, instead of just picking one candidate
- Not all choices require ranking
- A majority of votes is required to win a particular game (if a majority is not obtained in the first round, a series of recalculations)
- How it works: In the column of the lowest percentage of RCV in the first round of voting, the votes are redistributed to the second choice of the group in the second round of voting; repeat this process until someone gets a majority of votes
- The RCV process is computerized; this means that all votes need to be received before the calculation is complete (this is the reason for the delays in the recent New York City elections)
- A more honest campaign, because everyone wants to be the opponent’s second choice (there is no real data to prove this hypothesis)
- Using RCV, candidates are motivated to campaign/preach to obtain the opponent’s second candidate position
- RCV elections have less negative impact (research and export polls indicate this)
- The media can also provide graded recognition and explain its rationale
- RCV has been used worldwide for a long time
- 23 cities and towns in Utah will adopt RCV in future elections
- The Republican Party of Virginia uses RCV in the nomination convention
- Believe that this system can better represent the will of the people
- Claims that the biggest obstacle to implementing RCV is voter education (the Democratic Party has accepted it)
- Jenny Kirby is the leader in the voting rankings of South Dakota; other states have clues (not all)
- Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, and Delaware are short-term targets for RCV implementation
- Liberals in the audience support RCV because they think it is a way to win elections, or at least select the most liberal-oriented candidates. [I’m not sure that that would happen.]
[Note: I remain a skeptic because they don’t take a stand on voter ID. Ballot harvesting and other unchecked fraud defeat the purpose of the system. I also wonder who the major donors are and what their agendas might be. Unclear. Finally, show me the results in a Red state, as all the examples given were in Blue jurisdictions.]
end.
