There is a push for ranked choice voting in many states nationwide. People are dissatisfied with candidates that win in the current primary process and want to vote for someone else.
Ranked choice proponents say that “ranked choice is more competitive and resembles the free market system”.
That is 1000% incorrect. It’s not free market at all. It’s FREE RIDING. There is a big difference.
Funny thing about the ranked-choice proponents I meet. They are never conservatives.
In the case of an election, a free rider is a candidate who wants others to get the vote but plans to use the vote for themselves. Adverse outcomes occur with ranked-choice voting.
For example, Alaska is pointed out as a “great place for elections” because they have ranked-choice voting. But, it’s the perfect example of why it is a terrible idea. Senator Lisa Murkowski couldn’t win in the Republican primary, but ranked-choice voting saved her butt. Alaska is a red state and has been for years yet ranked choice voting allowed a Democrat to get elected as the state’s representative.
The free market system works when consumers are free to choose. If you don’t like Coke or Pepsi, start a new soft drink brand and compete. When you go to the vending machine, you don’t get a Coke when you want a Pepsi just because the soft drink you wanted didn’t get enough votes.
Compete in the primary. For sure there are advantages to being an incumbent. In many states, the systems are rigged. Central planners put money and resources behind candidates they know they can control.
We have plenty of other ways to solve the problems ranked choice voting is trying to solve. The solutions all involve increasing the level of competition.
End gerrymandering. In my state of Nevada, the Democrats severely gerrymandered the state to secure a majority, and probably a supermajority for the legislature for the next ten years. Plenty of other states gerrymander big time to limit competition and limit people having a voice. The way districts are drawn up in most states take choice away from voters.
Term limits. It takes away the advantage of being an incumbent. The US has too many career politicians. It’s not just serving lifetimes in the US legislature. How many of those legislators were legislators in their home state before they went to Washington? 6 terms as a House member and 3 terms for a Senator is good enough. Want to stay in politics? Run for something else. If you are good you will win. Term limits force more competition and competition is good for politics.
Repeal the 17th Amendment. The founders weren’t stupid. There was a reason they wanted state legislatures to send Senators to Washington. It has to do with the way federalism properly works. The Senate would be forced to listen to their state legislatures and not ignore them.
Money. No loopholes no limits. Only indigenous corporations, unions or citizens can put money in. A foreign company or one that repatriated out of the US? You can’t run ads or put money in any campaign. LOTS of transparency. Track every dollar. No more hiding. If a union or a corporation wants to donate money to political campaigns that is fine but they have to engage in an annual vote of their members/shareholders. Want to be a bundler? Fine but it’s gonna be searchable on a decentralized database. The fraud in our system due to money is incredibly large.
Let’s do those four things first before we try the very radical solution of ranked-choice voting.
I used to think that term limits would be a panacea of sorts, and then I heard arguments that it would further empower the bureaucracy. We already have an enormous government that seems to have a mind of its own, regardless of what the public or our representatives want.
If you are a deep stater and you know that so-and-so Senator will be out after next year, and then a bunch more after that, you are inclined to do what you want and be even less responsive to the legislature.
Overall I think your items would help, but the honest underlying solution to all of it is to shrink government in size and scope, which would give politicians less power. That might even the stakes a bit, and attract more people who actually have a civic interest and not a profit-minded one.
The business of politics is too big, and needs to be gutted like a fish.
I like ranked choice voting in primaries, but I think it's terrifically toxic in general elections. In primaries it allows for more diversity of candidates and allows voters to indicate who is undesirable as well.
In general elections, you're right, it just gives the more extreme voters of fringe candidates a way to free-ride by voting for their fringe candidates and still having a back-up. There's also the very anti-democratic optics of potentially a candidate going from down 6 or 7% to winning after 'Round 2' or 'Round 3'. This almost happened in Susan Collins' 2020 senate race and it would've caused a riot here.
Agree about your finance piece - campaign finance reform neutered the political parties and placed immense emphasis on out-of-state crowd-sourced small donor funding. This money is exceptionally dumb and doesn't account for candidate electability in a specific place at all. Case in point Sara Gideon in Maine or Amy McGrath in KY in 2020. Let parties control more money and they'll push for more electable candidates in primaries.