Editors at the Washington Examiner focus on the flaws of a dubious election system.
By a margin of just 737 votes out of 340,078 cast, Alaska voters chose to keep their ranked choice voting system this year. This was the lone victory for a movement that saw losses in eight other states despite heavily outspending opponents. The empty promises of the ranked choice voting movement are being exposed, its costs are mounting, and voters are wisely choosing to reject this fundamentally undemocratic premise.
Advocates of ranked choice voting claim the system makes it easier for more centrist candidates with broader support to win over more “extreme” candidates who they claim benefit from low-turnout primaries. Ranked choice voting advocates, who happen to be almost entirely composed of Democrats, also claim that ranked choice voting discourages negative campaigning since candidates are forced to appeal to a wider spectrum of voters.
There is no empirical evidence any of this is true.
Just look at Oakland, California, where Mayor Sheng Thao, endorsed and funded generously by public sector unions, outspent centrist opponent Loren Taylor, who won on the first ballot. Only after multiple rounds of recounting ballots, which is a necessity of the ranked choice voting system, did Thao finally come out on top. The whole process took weeks, delaying governmental transition and undermining faith in electoral integrity.
And what did Oakland voters get with their public union-funded ranked choice-voted winner? A corrupt incompetent who is now under federal indictment and has since been recalled by voters. So much for wise moderation.
A more fundamental problem with ranked choice voting is its inherently undemocratic nature. Voters should not be forced to vote for candidates they don’t want to vote for. But the entire premise of ranked choice voting depends on forcing people to vote for candidates they don’t want to. Otherwise, voters with little preference between candidates are given more votes than those who don’t.
