Reasons to Vote NO to Ranked-Choice Voting

• Why should some voters get their vote to count more times than others?  Voters who happen to choose the loser in each round get their choices counted more times than choosing the winner. (39)
• Your vote may not count!  "Exhausted votes means exhausted voters." - Kerri Toloczko, CPI
• Voters are discouraged because a forced third choice who wins may not be the best choice for the race.

A

A

Many examples in ranked-choice contests show that usually after three rounds of tabulation and considering exhausted ballots, a majority of votes is never reached.  Let's look at some examples:

2020 Massachusetts 2020 Primary - of seven candidates on the ballot, the top two finishers garnered 22.4% and 21.1% of the valid votes. (23)

A 2014 study examining 4 local elections in California and Washington found that in none of these elections was a majority received.  Exhausted ballots are the key. (25)

RCV encourages candidates to negotiate with one another for ranking and position without the knowledge to the voting public.  When it is discovered that candidates colluded together, the city will incur additional costs with court challenges and recounts. 

Here's a great example of what Fairvote believes is positive campaigning.

Oakland - 2010

https://youtu.be/E4RQccdmFJ0 

Once ranked-choice voting becomes a substitute for a one person-one vote system, Fairvote comes in with their private foundation money and provides training on the best way for candidates to form alliances prior to courting the voters.

Fairvote would like you to believe that RCV will give the voter more choice. Fairvote also accuses the current plurality voting systems of allowing "Spoiler Candidates" to influence outcomes.   You can't have both!  And you won't get more choice without dealing with greater "spoiler effect". 

A spoiler candidate is one in which his/her non-winning presence in the election may draw votes away from a stronger candidate and affect which candidate wins.  

RCV has produced a much more diverse cast of characters, that is true, and we would add, with more extreme political views. Check that box.  A shining example would be Jacob Frye's Minneapolis Mayors Race in 2017 where Capt. Jack Sparrow threw his hat into the chaos that now is Minneapolis. 

However, with more choice claims comes the greater chance the spoiler could actually win in an RCV election. The Center for Election Science has found that RCV does not eliminate the spoiler effect that RCV proponents so genuinely convict our current  plurality voting system of having. (24) In fact, in Burlington, VT, the weakest candidate was the winner, which is possible in every RCV race depending on redistribution of votes.  (38)  (See image below)

FairVote promises increased voter turnout. Not true!

EXAMPLE:  

Mpls voted traditionally 1993-2005 with a 30-45% participation rate.

Mpls in 2009- first RCV year the voter participation rate was 20%

Mpls in 2013 - when the city geared up for a 75% participation rate,  only 33% showed up to the polls. 

A

A

Many examples in ranked-choice contests show that usually after three rounds of tabulation and considering exhausted ballots, a majority of votes is never reached.  Let's look at some examples:

2020 Massachusetts 2020 Primary - of seven candidates on the ballot, the top two finishers garnered 22.4% and 21.1% of the valid votes. (23)

A 2014 study examining 4 local elections in California and Washington found that in none of these elections was a majority received.  Exhausted ballots are the key. (25)

RCV encourages candidates to negotiate with one another for ranking and position without the knowledge to the voting public.  When it is discovered that candidates colluded together, the city will incur additional costs with court challenges and recounts. 

Here's a great example of what Fairvote believes is positive campaigning.

Oakland - 2010

https://youtu.be/E4RQccdmFJ0 

Once ranked-choice voting becomes a substitute for a one person-one vote system, Fairvote comes in with their private foundation money and provides training on the best way for candidates to form alliances prior to courting the voters.

Fairvote would like you to believe that RCV will give the voter more choice. Fairvote also accuses the current plurality voting systems of allowing "Spoiler Candidates" to influence outcomes.   You can't have both!  And you won't get more choice without dealing with greater "spoiler effect". 

A spoiler candidate is one in which his/her non-winning presence in the election may draw votes away from a stronger candidate and affect which candidate wins.  

RCV has produced a much more diverse cast of characters, that is true, and we would add, with more extreme political views. Check that box.  A shining example would be Jacob Frye's Minneapolis Mayors Race in 2017 where Capt. Jack Sparrow threw his hat into the chaos that now is Minneapolis. 

However, with more choice claims comes the greater chance the spoiler could actually win in an RCV election. The Center for Election Science has found that RCV does not eliminate the spoiler effect that RCV proponents so genuinely convict our current  plurality voting system of having. (24) In fact, in Burlington, VT, the weakest candidate was the winner, which is possible in every RCV race depending on redistribution of votes.  (38)  (See image below)