Ranked-choice voting advocates must deceive voters about the concept of “fairness” to gain their support.
States and localities are discovering the disastrous consequences of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in their elections. From Alaska to Virginia, the leftist-backed election system gaining popularity across the country is causing confusion among voters and leading to undesirable outcomes.
Under RCV, also known as “rigged-choice voting” by critics, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the first round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the voters’ second-choice candidate.
Despite the numerous failures associated with RCV, proponents are trying to deceive voters into adopting the system for their local and state elections. A polling memo obtained by The Federalist reveals their tactics.
Produced by HighGround Inc., a public affairs consulting group, the memo analyzes the most effective pro-RCV talking points to convince voters. The survey, conducted among 500 likely 2024 Arizona voters, found that misleading arguments centered around “fairness” resonate with the electorate. These arguments claim that RCV empowers voters, ensures equality among candidates and voters, and empowers independents (the largest voting bloc in Arizona).
HighGround’s memo emphasizes the effectiveness of the ”fairness” argument, stating that it is a universally appealing virtue that is difficult to argue against. The group believes that these types of arguments can convince Arizonans to reject a proposed constitutional amendment in 2024 that would ban the use of RCV in the state.
In addition to analyzing pro-RCV talking points, HighGround also surveyed arguments against the system to help proponents counter election integrity activists’ warnings. The poll found that claims of RCV causing “absolute chaos” and being a “dangerous idea” do not resonate with Arizona voters. However, arguments that RCV would bring California-style primaries to the state generate the most opposition.
Election integrity experts interviewed by The Federalist confirm that the memo validates their concerns about RCV. Proponents of the system must obscure its true nature and mislead voters in order to gain support.
Internal RCV Polling by The Federalist
RCV’s Dark History
Contrary to misleading claims by proponents, governments that have implemented RCV in their elections have produced unfair outcomes. In Maine’s 2018 elections, for example, the incumbent GOP Rep. Bruce Poliquin lost to Democrat Jared Golden despite receiving the most votes in the first round. This outcome was a result of the state’s ranked-choice voting system.
In Alaska, undesirable election outcomes have also occurred since the adoption of RCV in 2020. In the state’s 2022 special election for its at-large congressional district, Democrat Mary Peltola won despite nearly 60 percent of voters casting their ballots for a Republican. RCV also played a significant role in helping Alaska GOP Sen. Lisa Murkowski defeat conservative challenger Kelly Tshibaka in the November 2022 midterms.
[[RELATED: Ranked-Choice Voting Is The Monster Under The Bed Of American Elections]Several U.S. municipalities that have adopted RCV have also experienced confusing and even inaccurate election outcomes. In an Oakland school board race, for instance, election officials announced two months later that they had made a counting error, leading to the rightful winner suing for their seat. Additionally, a Utah town that piloted RCV in its 2021 municipal elections experienced high rates of discarded or spoiled ballots.
After using RCV in a primary election, officials in Arlington, Virginia, decided not to use it in the general elections due to confusion among voters and concerns about outreach efforts.
However, these examples of chaos associated with ranked-choice voting have not deterred advocates from pushing for its adoption in local elections across the country. In recent off-year elections, residents in three Michigan cities voted to adopt RCV for their local elections pending state legislation. Minnetonka, Minnesota, voters also voted to keep RCV for municipal contests after first adopting it in 2020.
It’s worth noting that both Michigan and Minnesota Democrats have introduced bills to authorize RCV’s use in various elections.
Following their successes in 2023, RCV advocates are aiming to expand the system’s use in other states and localities. In Nevada, a pro-RCV constitutional amendment was passed in 2022, and if approved again in the 2024 elections, Nevada will adopt a top-five RCV system. RCV supporters are also seeking to get similar initiatives on the ballot in Missouri’s 2024 elections. Other states targeted by RCV advocates include Arizona, Wisconsin, Idaho, and Oregon.
rnrn
What are the alleged benefits of ranked-choice voting (RCV) in promoting fairness and voter empowerment, according to its proponents?
Title: The Troubling Reality of Ranked-Choice Voting: A Deceptive Electoral System
Introduction:
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has gained popularity in recent years, with proponents emphasizing its alleged benefits in promoting fairness and voter empowerment. However, several states and localities are facing the disastrous consequences of implementing this election system. From Alaska to Virginia, the impact of RCV has caused confusion among voters and led to undesirable outcomes. A recent polling memo obtained by The Federalist sheds light on the deceptive tactics employed by RCV supporters to manipulate public opinion.
The Mechanics of RCV:
Under RCV, also known as “rigged-choice voting” by critics, voters are requested to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives more than 50 percent of first-choice votes in the initial round, the last-place finisher is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the voters’ second-choice candidate. This process continues until one candidate obtains a majority of the votes.
The Deceptive Tactics:
Despite the numerous failures associated with RCV, proponents continue to attempt to deceive voters into adopting this system for local and state elections. A survey conducted by HighGround Inc., a public affairs consulting group, reveals the most effective pro-RCV talking points employed to convince voters. The survey, involving 500 likely 2024 Arizona voters, highlighted misleading arguments centered around “fairness” as particularly resonant with the electorate. These arguments state that RCV empowers voters, ensures equality among candidates and voters, and empowers independent voters—the largest voting bloc in Arizona.
The Power of the “Fairness” Argument:
HighGround’s memo emphasizes the effectiveness of the “fairness” argument and suggests that it is challenging to counter. The group believes that these types of arguments can convince Arizonans to reject a proposed constitutional amendment in 2024 that seeks to ban the use of RCV in the state. By exploiting the notion of fairness, proponents of RCV aim to obscure the true nature of the system and garner support.
Surveying Arguments Against RCV:
In addition to analyzing pro-RCV talking points, HighGround’s survey also explored arguments against the system, aiming to help proponents counter election integrity activists’ concerns. The survey found that claims of RCV causing “absolute chaos” and being a “dangerous idea” did not resonate with Arizona voters. However, arguments suggesting that RCV would bring California-style primaries to the state generated strong opposition.
Validation of Concerns:
Interviews with election integrity experts confirm that the polling memo aligns with their concerns about RCV. The memo reinforces the notion that proponents of this system must obfuscate its true nature and mislead voters in order to gain support.
Conclusion:
The increasing popularity of ranked-choice voting should not overshadow its disastrous consequences. From confusing voters to yielding undesirable outcomes, the implementation of RCV has raised serious concerns. The deceptive tactics employed by proponents, as highlighted by the HighGround survey, only serve to undermine the integrity of the electoral process. It is
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
