Ranked Choice Voting

Voters prefer Ranked Choice Voting

Ranked choice voting allows voters to indicate their first, second, third, etc., choices on a ballot. If no candidate receives 50% of the first place votes, the votes for candidates receiving the least number of first place votes are examined, and their second place votes are allocated to the remaining candidates. The process continues until someone receives 50% of the total votes.

From a voter’s perspective, their votes can still count, even if their first choice is no longer in the running.

Should you find this slightly confusing, as many people do, Google can be your friend and teacher. Good non-partisan explanations are here and here. You can also go directly to the Better Ballot Iowa website here, which has a lot of information, including a way for you to sign up to help them bring RCV to Iowa.

The simple argument for RCV is it creates a better democracy, because winners have the most overall support in an election. The argument against it barely exists, claiming that voters don’t want change and don’t want to learn how to vote in an RCV election, a criticism I find unpersuasive.

I support ranked choice voting. If you don’t, could you do me a favor and write me a message explaining why not? Perhaps I’m missing something.

One Response

  1. Perhaps party based voting. If Republicans have 725,000 voters and Democrats have 700,000, then the Republicans would win, unless the Green Party with it’s 15,000 voters and the Libertarians with 20,000 made the Democrats promise to vote on X, Y and Z issues. If so, they would through in with the Democrats to get them elected. It would give smaller parties a voice on certain issues.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your donations are helping bring Freedom to Iowa

Join our mailing list!


Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on whatsapp
Share on pinterest
Share on email
Share on print

More Posts

Obscene Books

Obscene books

If the Supreme Court can’t define obscenity, why would you think I can?