Skip to content
Subscribe

OPINION: Ranked Choice Voting Not "Most Superior" for Independents

Published:

I am concerned with the July 24, 2018 op-ed titled, Virginia Republican: “Ranked Choice Voting Most Superior Voting Method in US.”  While the statements are true, what is missing speaks volumes and illustrates why IRV/RCV may not be in the best interests of independent voters.

The op-ed starts with a quote asserting “Ranked Choice Voting, or Instant Run-Off Voting, is by far the most superior method of electing representatives available in the United States.” That is currently true. What it does not say, however, is that, depending on how you count them, there are only two, maybe three methods currently available in the U.S.

In other words, IRV/RCV is not the worst available. That isn’t very strong praise.

Further, with a decent amount of luck, that won’t even be true by the end of the year. There are initiatives on the ballot in Fargo, North Dakota and in Lane County Oregon this November to adopt Approval Voting and STAR Voting, respectively. There is even an active movement to get Score Voting (also called Range Voting) adopted in some cities in Washington state.

Any one of those methods is almost guaranteed to be better for independent voters, having a “Nursery Effect” for independents and minor parties.

ALSO READ: 4 New Voting Methods That Upend Partisan Politics

Mr. Tucker’s interest is not even necessarily the furtherance of independent voters. His evaluation — and his bias — are clear in the very next paragraph.

His definition of “better” seems to be “better for his own party;” in the original op-ed on “The Bull Elephant” blog, Mr. Tucker expressed hope that independents would “join and participate in Republican Party politics” (emphasis added), implying that his aim is to strengthen his own party, to the exclusion of others.

He offers a “more meaningful seat at the Republican Table,” perhaps unaware that many independents and participants in other political parties do not want a seat at the Republican Table, nor at the Democratic Table.

Independents and minor parties do not want “a taller seat” at the kid’s table, we want our fair share of seats at The Table.

We aren’t going to get those seats at the table under this “most superior voting method.” Look at Australia’s House of Representatives, where they have used IRV/RCV for nearly a century. A minor party has never won more than one seat for two elections in a row since 1943.

I am not content to be an auxiliary wing of one of the major parties. Are you?

Have an opinion on this topic? Send us your own take here.

Photo Credit: andriano.cz / shutterstock.com

Adhere to the IVN etiquette

By posting a comment, you agree to adhere to our etiquette rules: No partisan attacks, no personal attacks, substantiate your sources, no self-promotion.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Contact IVN

Questions about this article or our coverage? Send us a message. A free IVN member account is required.

Message sent

Thanks, we’ll review it and get back to you if needed.

Message not sent

Sorry, something went wrong. Please try again.

Sign in to send a message

Messages are tied to your IVN member account. Signing in is free and takes a few seconds.

Republish this article

Republishing guidelines

Republish IVN articles for free. Independent Voter News articles may be republished online or in print under a Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 license, on these terms:

  1. Credit the author and IVN. Keep the byline ("By Author Name, Independent Voter News") and the attribution note at the end, which links to the original.
  2. Keep the meaning. You may update time and place references and apply your house style. You may trim for length, as long as the cuts don't change the meaning or misrepresent the author. Keep the headline. Mark any additions as your own (for example "Additional reporting by ...").
  3. Translations are welcome. Translate faithfully, add "Translated from English by [your outlet]", and tell us at editor@ivn.us.
  4. Keep the links, including the link to the original article.
  5. Keep the tracking image. The HTML includes a 1-pixel image that counts readers on your page. It collects no personal information.
  6. Photos and illustrations. Images credited to IVN may be used with this article only. Images credited to others (AP, Getty, Unsplash, Wikimedia and so on) stay under their owners' terms. Secure the rights or switch "Include images" off.
  7. Don't sell it. You can't sell our articles or sell ads specifically against them. Your normal site advertising is fine.
  8. No implied endorsement. Don't suggest that IVN or the author endorses you, your candidates or your causes, or that donations to you support IVN.
  9. Keep labels. Opinion or analysis pieces keep that label.
  10. Point search engines to the original. Where your CMS allows, set the canonical URL to the original IVN article.
  11. No bulk or automated republishing, and don't submit our articles to aggregators (Apple News, Google News, MSN) as your own.
  12. Corrections and removals. Update your copy when we correct it, and remove it promptly if we ask. We'll contact you at the email you give us.
  13. Questions or print republication: editor@ivn.us.
Preparing the article

OPINION: Ranked Choice Voting Not "Most Superior" for Independents

Choose a format
  • HTML
  • Email HTML
  • Markdown
  • Formatted (.docx)
  • Plain text
  • WordPress blocks
  • PDF
Choose a platform

Photos credited to others need their owners' permission.

Republishing somewhere else? Questions? editor@ivn.us