Who is really behind ranked-choice voting? The usual suspects



Democracy is not “heads I win, tails you lose,” but some left-leaning reformers want it that way. When they disagree with election outcomes, they demand wholesale changes to the process. Ranked-choice voting, or RCV, is the latest example.

Normal elections are “one person, one vote”— each voter casts one vote in each race, with a single, simple process for counting votes. But in RCV elections, voters can rank multiple candidates and there may be many rounds of counting, adjusting and recounting votes.

The mess this creates is not theoretical. This summer, Arlington County, Virginia, experimented with RCV in a primary election. The Washington Post noted “emerging pushback” before election day, with “frustration … focused on the wonky, hard-to-follow way that votes are counted.” Civil rights groups raised concerns about disenfranchisement. After the election, Arlington officials announced the county will go back to normal elections.

RCV has been historically rejected. The system was invented in Victorian England but failed to gain traction there. It was tried in various American cities early in the 20th century, but every one of them subsequently repealed it. More recently, Utah created a pilot program for local governments to use RCV. Half of those that tried it have already ended the experiment and returned to a normal process.

So who really wants RCV? And why? Most of the push comes from a network of advocacy organizations on the political left. They claim RCV will reduce partisanship, make campaigns less negative, and give voters more choices. None of that seems likely. In fact, the system has flipped two congressional seats — in Alaska and Maine — from Republican to Democrat.

The leading proponent of RCV is FairVote. The Maryland-based think tank identifies itself as “the driving force for RCV.” Founded in 1992, the group pushes RCV at the local and state levels. Supporters are a who’s who of far-left donors, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, other Soros-connected foundations, the Arnold Foundation, and the Tides Foundation.

Another group pushing RCV is Unite America. Despite claims to bipartisanship, its leadership leans way left. For example, its board has three former members of Congress — two Democrats and one Republican. The latter is former Rep. Carlos Curbelo, who was the most liberal Republican in Congress at the end of his time in office, according to American Conservative Union rankings.

The founder of Unite America, Charles Wheelan, ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat and has contributed to numerous Democratic Party causes. The co-chair of Unite America’s board, and one of its major funders, is Kathryn Murdoch. She also gives almost exclusively to Democratic candidates and campaign committees. In 2019, The New York Times reported that Murdoch and her husband had “already invested millions” in Unite America. Since then, Unite America has pushed RCV in at least 17 states.

Another major backer of RCV is Katherine Gehl, who advocates a more comprehensive — and radical — change to elections called “final-five voting.” She previously worked for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and was an Obama appointee. She has served on the board of Unite America and runs her own national nonprofit, the Institute for Political Innovation.

Gehl’s final-five proposal incorporates RCV into a scheme that would also eliminate political parties from the nominating process. Instead, a preliminary election would include all candidates regardless of party. It would be open to all voters, with each casting a single vote, and then the five candidates with the most votes would advance to a final RCV election.

A version of this plan became law in Alaska in 2020. Voters in Nevada passed it as a state constitutional amendment in 2022, with supporters outspending opponents more than ten to one. Gehl, the top donor, gave more than $6 million. Kathryn Murdoch gave $2.5 million. Because Nevada requires amendments to pass in two successive general elections, it will only take effect if passed again next year.

RCV is often part of the larger agenda to reduce or eliminate the role of political parties. Gehl says the parties have “plagued and perverted” our politics and is hard at work bankrolling a shift to a system where major donors would have even more power.

Ranked-choice voting is a particularly dangerous proposal. By making elections more complicated and less transparent, RCV threatens to accelerate distrust in democratic processes. This can only drive down participation and feed suspicions—held by voters on both sides—that elites are rigging the game. And in the case of RCV, these suspicions may be close to the mark.

Trent England and Jason Snead are coauthors of  The Case Against Ranked-Choice Voting, from which this article is adapted. This column first appeared in The Daily Caller.


    • Vote in large numbers. Dump everyone who supports it and replace them with people who don’t.

      Same way one solves and political problem.

    • We need to get it back on the ballot. There is a petition circulating to make that happen. You can find signing locations at the Alaskans For Honest Elections website.

    • Start by signing the petition. Then get out and vote it down when it surfaces on a ballot. That’s the important part

    • I would venture that most people who support the positions of Must Read Alaska, and therefore are opposed to RCV, are also very pro Electoral College. The Electoral College most assuredly violates the principle of “one person, one vote,” that Suzanne clearly advocates for in this article. How do you square these two seemingly contradictory positions?

      I freely admit I am a liberal, and I support RCV. But please do not commit the ad hominem or the straw man fallacy. I would be very grateful if you would please address my argument.

      • Thomas, I appreciate your question and will try to give you my take.
        The electoral college does not change “one person one vote”. Electors (in most states) must vote for the person the majority of their state elected, get only one vote per person and are in essence simply stand-ins for the majority will of the people of their state.
        The electoral college to my understanding was created partly out of practicality when our nation was first established. After the initial voting in each state, electors served as representatives of the states to cast the votes for president. (No internet, phone etc) We live in a representative republic, having a group of people represent Alaskans to cast the vote for the majority’s choice, is in keeping with our system of government.
        The other more important consideration for the electoral college is one of fairness. We are the United STATES not a homogeneous country like France, but individual states with their own constitutions and laws bound together by the US constitution. If you go with the popular vote only California, Texas, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina and Michigan voters need to get out of bed to vote. That’s basically 10 out of all 50 states deciding for all. Small states (in population) like Alaska, Vermont, Wyoming, North Dakota have no impact whatsoever. The founders wanted every state to have a say. With the electoral college every state and their representatives count as you have to reach 270 to win, meaning our measly 3 AK votes can make a difference. Again, one vote per elector.
        In my opinion RCV is a set-up for the wishy-washy and no longer supports a candidate but a party. There are many republican politicians I would be loathed to cast a vote for. As a voter I don’t want second/third/fourth best. I as a voter should make a clear choice of support not some scheme were somehow there is a fake equivalency to all the candidates. There is NOT.
        RCV fails to deliver on its most attractive argument, the win of the majority. As candidates and their votes are eliminated the pool or numbers to win majority shrinks and you need less and less votes to get a majority. That isn’t a true majority of ALL voters, it is a manipulation of the numbers. Earn your office honestly with a true majority of voters not mathematical gymnastics.

        • Excellent explanation on the continued relevance of the Electoral College. However, your attitude of “I don’t want second/third/fourth best” when voting is exactly what is wrong with politics today. Politics is about compromise, not about getting exactly what you want all the time.

          • AK Pilot, thank you for your kind words.
            I agree a level of compromise is required, it is in the nature of our republic. The question however is WHERE to compromise.
            Voting is a singular activity to determine the ONE person filling a position. Each voter has an idea of who they would like to see in this or that office. When you have one vote per person the individual gathering the most support(votes) wins. RCV demands that I compromise my belief in the “best candidate” by voting for people I disagree with substantially.
            Compromises in policy and law-making, taxes and regulation are valid and needed to meet the needs of the people, but in order to have adequate representation to hammer out such compromise, you need candidates and elected leaders ACTUALLY elected by the majority and not fringe candidates getting throw-away votes to win.

        • Re: “RCV fails to deliver on its most attractive argument, the win of the majority.”

          That is RCV’s most UNattractive argument! Don’t pursue a majority winner, and don’t incorporate a majority criterion in a voting system. There’s really no such thing anyway. That RCV fails this criterion isn’t its problem. The problems with RCV and reasons not to use it are many, but this isn’t one of them.

          • Interesting Brian, so if there is no majority component in a voting system then how do you determine the winner? Voting is ALL about getting the most support (votes). It is how our republic works from the congress down to the assembly. If you have the votes your idea gets implemented. RCV majorities are fake, but are sold as the “true will of the people” something that appeals to the uniformed.

  1. I am a petitioner currently collecting signatures to get RCV back on the ballot with the intent to repeal it. From the many signers I have encountered, this system seems to disenfranchise mostly seniors in as one of the many reasons to get rid of it. Some of the signers have been Democrats. It does not help that we have ADN writing and publishing hit pieces on these efforts. I have written letters to the editor to show the other side to this, but of course , they won’t publish it. It must be repealed.

    • I too am circulating a petition and am surprised at how many people had no idea there was a petition, and also how many still do not know what RCV is. Even those that voted. When I explain, they then often remember that ‘weird selection thing we had to do”.

      FYI – Thank you for your efforts to refute the ADN agenda articles. You could try going to the ADN Facebook page and commenting there. Even if you don’t have a subscription and can’t access the articles you can still post a general, educating, comment. Albeit you will have to have Facebook.

      • If my experience with the ADN on Facebook is any indication, they’ll keep deleting your comments before eventually blocking you. Good luck, though.

    • That’s why I don’t use the daily rag. They are a one viewpoint wannabe news agency.
      They lie and don’t tell the whole story.

  2. RCV put Mary Peltola into office quite handily, same with Lisa Murkowski. It’s an easy way to manipulate elections but packaging it as change for the better.

    • It’s an easy way for Democrats to influence elections, because Democrats are typically better at cooperating with one another. They are warring tribes convened in anticipation of common plunder.

    • Sarah Palin put Mary Peltola into office by being so unlikeable that many of Nick Begich’s voters couldn’t hold their noses and rank her second, and Lisa Murkowski would have won under plurality voting anyway. And for those who think she would have been primaried out, just remember what happened in 2010.

  3. It’s amazing how much of societal ills trace back to George Soros.

    It’s appalling how, knowing this, the alleged right has been unable (unwilling?) to organize a counter.

  4. This offers interesting insights on the PM radio drive time host.

    -was he a gun for hire, putting his political and personal judgment aside to make money?

    -is he not quite as sharp as people think?

    -was he flat out conned and unwilling/
    unable to admit it?

    -did he do as told?

    He is as culpable as anyone in this state for the RVC debacle.

    • Money talks. His defense of supporting it on the radio were quite hollow. Of course it was a good gambit by the supporters of RCV to tempt him with ad money. It worked. Money talks.

  5. Face it folks independent voters in Alaska, the majority, love rank choice voting. Our vote isn’t cast aside because of the introduction of a third-party candidate, especially in the primaries. I personally vote for who I think will do the better job and if my first-choice loses in the first round then my vote for my second choice has a voice. The Republican Machinery don’t like this scenario because they have “The Party” choice and that is all they want their mindless followers to choose from. It reminds me of Pink Floyd’s The Wall video.

    • Face it, Tim: the large majority of Alaskan voters, like voters everywhere else, despise and hate rank choice voting, which is CLEARLY just another ploy by the radical leftist extremists, like you, to manipulate and corrupt the voting process to their advantage. It WILL be repealed in Alaska, and rightly so.

      Enjoy your radical leftist day in the sun, because that is rapidly fading as well.

      You radical leftists are such a brainwashed, arrogant and clueless bunch — truly a blight and a plague on humanity.

      • Incorrect


        RCV also made it easy for the Governor to win re-election and the GOP to hold a majority of house seats in the state.

        Take off your tinfoil hat.

        • Yeah, I believe you (rolling my eyes).

          Then if RCV is so great, why are all the radical leftist extremists, er, Democrats in California, among certain other places, so adamantly opposed to it THERE?

          As usual, the hypocrisy of radical leftists literally knows no bounds.

          • I think the current leaders (dems in Cali and repubs in AK) don’t like that RCV takes away their stranglehold on control of their state or city.

            RCV gives the candidate that appeals to the largest amount of people the chance to win an election. This is with or without the backing of a political party.

            It gives the citizens a choice as to who to elect to a position, not the political party, repub or dem.

            Why should the citizen’s choice be between two candidates that are chosen by political parties?

            This is especially true for Alaska, where as of 2022, the 590,422 people registered to vote in Alaska were as follows:
            17,861 people were registered AK Independence Party
            78,664 were registered democrats
            142,266 were registered republicans
            80,972 were registered non partisan
            259,634 were registered undeclared
            11,025 were registered to other political groups.

            Why should the 340,606 (80,972 + 259,634) people registered as non partisan or undeclared be forced to choose between a democrat, chosen by a small portion of 78,664 people, or a republican, chosen by small portion of 142,266 people?

            Why can’t they choose from any candidate in an open primary? Why is that such a bad idea?

            A candidate who appeals to the largest portion of the voters should be elected. RCV helps eliminate the extremists on both sides of the aisle. That is a good thing in my opinion

        • Santini, if you need to be rude you already lost the argument.
          If memory serves the governor’s election did not even go into RCV as he won over 50% on the first round. The same goes for a number of the legislators races as they only had one opponent. So I dispute that the republicans won because of RCV. Traditionally AK has had more republican representation. AK Public media has been trying to sell the RCV and so saw the results through that lens in my opinion

    • I am curious about something. Your fascination with incorrect assumptions you perceive as “facts”

      Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong?

    • It was pointless to talk about 50+ candidates filing to replace Don Young when 85–90 percent of them were marginalized right off the bat. That was due to pre-existing conditions, namely a constricted flow of information engineered by the political establishment, helped along by the (s)nooz. If you’re really passionate about bucking the establishment and/or the party line, Alaska has always been generous about accommodating write-in votes.

  6. RVC is probably the way of the future, despite its obvious flaws and that most people don’t want it.

    Why? Simple.

    -it works for the left and incumbents. they will never, ever, let it go.

    -the GOP is clinically brain dead and is incapable of countering it.

  7. In Alaska the Blow Torch hosted by Mike Pocarro was instrumental in pushing the RCV, and His ad agency made a lot of money to push it. Is this a conflict? Just asking!!

    • He was open about his agency backing it. That’s fine on its face.

      The fact he talked so much about it, and advocated for it so aggressively was very potentially a violation of the spirit, if not letter of campaign law.

      He probably should have recused himself from discussing it. It seems like KENI was giving RVC a huge in kind campaign donation.

      But this is Alaska, where the laws are…more flexible than usual.

    • Ken, you’re absolutely correct. Ranked choice voting would not have passed had Mike Porcaro not pushed it hard, just like how he pushed the vaccines, and never talked about high enough vitamin D levels for Covid, which was the main solution in which Alaska would have soared, people’s health and well being improving with no lockdowns or masks. He and Crash even justified mask mandates. And they both waste so much time often talking about stupid, sometimes vulgar things.

      Mike Porcaro wouldn’t let Dr. Iona Farr call into the show; though, Dan Fagan often did on his excellent morning show. I miss him! Dr. Farr talked about Ivermectin, vitamin D and when it was clear that the vaccines were damaging many, she said so.

      Porcaro’s Dr. Keissling sold Alaska out during Covid, pushing everything Big Pharma. Imagine how many people died because of those two or are now vaccine injured, because Mike kept pushing false information, and wouldn’t allow Alaskans to hear the truth.

      The RCV ballot Measure 2 passed by a slim margin: 49.45% to 50.55%. There is no way RCV would have passed had Mike not promoted it.

      A strong conservative friend of mine has often said he voted for RCV because of Mike’s hard sell.

      I’ve too often gotten the impression that Mike Porcaro is “love of money” driven, instead of principle driven, what’s best for Alaskans.

      He and Crash shamelessly run 2 and 3 minute ads during his own airtime in which he gets paid personally multiple times during every show, saying the same thing each day over and over, wasting people’s time, insulting people’s intelligence.

      And they spend so much time discussing national issues that are discussed everywhere on national radio and TV shows. Why not focus on local issues that the other shows don’t cover? He rarely says anything they’re not saying.

      And Crash often plays reruns, perhaps because Porcaro is busy doing his third job now, well past retirement age. I wonder how much money is enough for him, and when he’ll quit.

      Will he ever admit he was wrong in pushing RCV and the jab, not letting people know the truth about vitamin D and Ivermectin?

      One more thing: after Sarah Palin entered the race against Nick Begich, Porcaro kept saying how RCV isn’t that hard to understand, often laughing, to justify its passing. Then he had to try and explain it to people every single day, many who still don’t fully enough understand how it works.

      I rarely listen to the show anymore. Just am tired of his and Crash’s sick jokes and wasting air time.

      Dan Fagan was truth focused instead of “love of money” focused. I listened to almost every single show since Covid began in 2020.

      Gob bless you, Dan!

      • Porcarro’s pal, “Doctor” Keissling, should have his license to practice medicine revoked for all the misinformation, outright lies and suppression of information he bloviated over the airwaves during Covid

    • I believe there were people going door-to-door in Anchorage to get people to sign the petition to get rid of RCV; I have not heard if they still are. Some people with the Alaskans for Honest Elections group (alaskansforhonestelections.com) were in Anchorage Sunday collecting signatures at some of the local businesses. Check the alaskansforhonestelections.com website for locations.
      *Please share this information because Anchorage is lacking signatures to repeal RCV.

      • We got, I think, 110-115% of the required percentage on the Kenai Peninsula. Anchorage needs more though. All volunteers. No paid sig gatherers. The R party district Committees helped organize this effort but there were a ton of independents who helped too.

    • I know that Tudor Rd Bingo is one place that is collecting signatures. Really easy and quick to stop by and sign, petitions were right up where you purchase Bingo cards.

  8. By gosh, if it weren’t for RCV, us Murkowskis would be just ordinary folk. We disagreed with election outcomes everytime we lost. Lisa always got her way, whether it was fraud write-ins or RCV fraud. And I would have won the Governor’s race back in 2006 if we actually had RCV back then. We Murkowskis love RCV. And the Democrats love us for it. God bless Alaskan Democrats and RCV.

    • I keep seeing this and it is not true. The Reichstag used party-list proportional representation during that period, not RCV.

      • Was single transferable vote used? Some version of ranking? iOr was it mixed member proportional system with voters picking only one party and voting for one candidate in that party list? I’ve been trying to find information on that, but can’t. Some party list proportional systems use some version of ranking, but it isn’t Hare RCV for a single seat. which is what Alaska now uses.

  9. I heard stories about reactions from the pro-rcv supporters that push back against people trying to repeal rcv. Their reactions and actions are just about the same as any of the other pro-liberal, pro-lefty, pro-everything-backwards groups: loud, obnoxious, won’t listen – but you must listen, and use of intimidation to stop anyone who supports a conservative value. Sad times we live in. Why must everything be such a battle with their effort of end-result violence on every topic?

  10. By all means try to repeal it but you better educate yourself on how to use it as well.Even on the slim chance it is repealed that won’t change the election until 2026. Democrats are smarter politically, they don’t run multiple candidates and expend resources against each other as Republicans always do. Multiple Republicans on a ballot guarantee they and their supporters will spend resources attacking each other and not the liberal choice. The chattering class on social media will reinforce that as evidenced with Begich and Palin last time. This is exactly how a liberal minority runs the state. Disagree with them but we had better learn their tactics.

    • Conservatives couldn’t grasp RCV, let alone game it. Sentiments like this further proves that. With RCV in effect, Tom McKay wouldn’t have won reelection without another Republican on the ballot. It’s debatable whether he would have won under the old system.

  11. Weird how our “elected” legislature had no appetite to repeal RCV when they could…..makes you almost believe that they know they wouldn’t be in place if it were gone. And all the effort going to signing petitions to repeal it would have been good to apply to those legislators – I was told when I put in my letter to the hearing that almost no one bothered. Instead, we’re trying to get it on the ballot to face the same corrupt elections that put it there in the first place…..who wants to bet it barely loses by less than 1%?

  12. Simple, Conservative voters did not turn out for the election to vote. They apparently don’t care enough or can’t be bothered and we received RCV exactly what we deserved.
    I was once told republican voters are lazy, that made me mad. But now I would tend to agree and polling numbers show us all there’s a lot of room for improvement.

    • I’ve been saying that for years.

      Republican voters are lazy. We have the government we deserve because the GOP is particularly ineffective at motivating the base and the base won’t bother to vote anyway.

  13. RCV has a major problem in that it is easily manipulated. Two lesser candidates can united to take out a popular candidate or incumbent. This was used to insure Peltola’s election when Sarah Palin threw her support to the democrat. So in actual fact the democrats did have two candidates running. I keep wondering if Palin will have the cahonies to actually run again. I hope not. But a backup candidate in the same party that could have his/her votes go to the other candidate in the same party could help. Just beware of the RINO’s.

    • What you describe is solved by RCV, not caused by it. With plurality voting two ideologically similar candidates can indeed split the vote; RCV allows a voter to vote for his most preferred candidate, who perhaps doesn’t have as great a chance of winning, without “throwing his vote away”.

  14. So it’s confusing? That’s the argument to repeal it? You vote for who you want and if they lose you vote for who you wanted instead. It defeats the stupid mentality everyone seems to have of “wasting a vote” because they didn’t pick the winner and are upset they didn’t get the correct voter cookie all the other drones got for picking the perceived winner rather than who they actually believed in.

    I’m sorry you can’t comprehend something that’s explained in the name… ranking your choices. I love the system, personally. i can vote for weird third party candidates without feeling like it’s entirely hopeless.

  15. Let’s discuss the merits of #rcv in a simple terminology.

    Is it Better? Why

    Is it cheaper? Why

    Is it faster? How?

    Does it increase turnout? Proof

    Does it eliminates spoiler candidates? Proof

    Does it help 3rd parties? Proof

    It produces an absolute majority? Proof

    I wrote the repeal and am the leading signature gatherer. I also wrote a 300 page book about RCV, and I have a 30 part animated video series about the topic.

    Anyone Pro-RCV is either ignorant to the facts or is complicit. You either know that 99% of the money used to bring Rank Choice Voting was from Out of State Sources and tied to people like George Soros, or you are ignorant to these facts. Either way you are wrong in supporting RCV.

    President Trump, Gov. Desantis, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Gov. Jerry Brown are just a handful of people who don’t like RCV.

    The DC Democrats sued to block RCV is 2023.

    The Pro-RCV groups claims lots of things, where is the proof? From my independent research in my 300 page book, I dispute all of these claims with 100 sources covering 20+ years of RCV use cases.

    I’d bet Scott Kendall and Co. Are associated or are people like the Masked Avenger in this comment section.

    I have coined the term about Pro-RCV people and paid consultants.

    “Liars and Fools led by Professional Liars and Fools”

    • Phil, thank you for your dedication to getting rid of RCV. It is good to see our under-55 yo group getting involved and taking the reigns to help get this ship upright again. Blessings to you.

    • I don’t like RCV for many of the reasons you list, but it’s better than simple plurality at avoiding the spoiler scenario. If I have to choose between the two of them, I will very reluctantly choose RCV over simple plurality. The hideous primary system needs to be abolished across the country, but let’s not use RCV as means to achieve that goal. Let’s use approval voting or score voting, or perhaps a Condorcet method of some sort.

  16. Plurality voting (which the authors of this article call “normal” despite it being anything but when looking at the rest of the world) is the worst voting system on Earth and the only one where a candidate can win with less than 40% of the vote. It is the only system that, by its very nature, tends to cement the positions of two dominant parties making it nearly impossible for other candidates and parties to have a chance. It is the reason why we have no alternative to the Democrat-Republican Uniparty complex. I’m not saying that RCV is the best system out there, but it is better that plurality voting.

    • 19 Rounds of Ranked Choice Voting The San Francisco Consolidated General Election was held on November 2, 2010. Malia Cohen was the winner out of 21 candidates after 19 elimination rounds.

      After 19 rounds of voting. The winner claimed a majority of the votes, even though they only received 21% of the total vote. 🤔🤔🤔

      • Receiving 21% of people’s first-choice votes is not the same as receiving 21% of the vote. RCV (properly called instant-runoff voting) allows voters to fully express their preferences and, while imperfect, is better than plurality voting at producing a winner that is acceptable to a majority of the voters.

        • That election most certainly did NOT allow voters to fully express their preferences. It only permitted voters to rank no more than three candidates. Some cities in CA allow only five. That’s outright voter suppression.

    • I don’t think you know as much as you think you do.

      Since ranked choice voting exhausts ballots, which takes away from the total. It would be incorrect to say that ranked choice voting gives an absolute majority. would you agree?

      You raise a valid point. In ranked choice voting (RCV), as ballots are eliminated or their votes are transferred during the counting process, some ballots may become exhausted and no longer contribute to determining the final outcome. This can occur when a voter’s preferred candidates have been eliminated or their remaining choices are not viable.

      As a result, it is technically incorrect to claim that RCV always guarantees an absolute majority in the strictest sense of surpassing the 50% threshold of total ballots cast. In some cases, the remaining ballots may not be sufficient to reach a true absolute majority due to exhaustion.

      In summary, while RCV may not always result in a strict absolute majority of the total ballots cast due to ballot exhaustion.

      Part 2:

      Rank Choice Voting Claims to get absolute majority, if you include exhausted ballots, you do not get “half of the total votes” so you do not get an “absolute majority”
      what is an absolute majority?

      An absolute majority, also known as a simple majority, refers to a voting outcome where one candidate or option receives more than half of the total votes or seats. In other words, it is a majority that surpasses the 50% threshold.

      For example, if there are 100 total votes or seats, an absolute majority would be achieved if a candidate receives 51 or more votes or if an option secures 51 or more seats. This means that the winning candidate or option has the support of more than half of the voting population.

      The concept of an absolute majority is often used in elections or decision-making processes where a clear majority is required to determine a winner or make a binding decision. It ensures that the winning candidate or option has the broadest support among the voters or decision-makers.

        • Pablo, Phil is actually one of those intelligent people that knows his topic very well and does not need scripts to give a good explanation. Just like you with trolling, you seem to know trolling very well. Sometimes I figured you were using ChatGPT to get your answers.

        • Im using ChatGPT as an intermediary in a conversation about Rank Choice Voting. Because people that promote or support the system are not traditionally honest and trustworthy when it comes to data.

          I’ll bring up points and I’ll be told that they don’t understand or that they need time to look at the data.

          ChatGPT allows me to ask questions and get answers based on a rational, logical, and formatted responses that help people understand complex issues.

          I also used ChatGPT to help format my bibliography and other parts of my book.

          • If you think the current AI Bot in ChatGPT is a better intermediary in a conversation about RCV than an actual person who supports RCV, I can only laugh. Using it for formatting or general knowledge questions is fine, but you will never get the same response as you would talking to a real person.

            Personally, I like RCV because it takes the power away from the political parties and gives it to the citizens. No longer are the citizens forced to choose between who the political parties want. We get an open primary that allows everyone who wants to run to run. Then we get a choice between 4 candidates and the one who can appeal to the greatest number of voters wins. No longer are the voters forced to choose between the extremist democrat or the extremist republican who survived the gauntlet of their party primary.

            I posted in another comment above the registered voters in the state of Alaska, but I’ll put it here as well.

            As of the 2022 national and state elections, there were 590,422 registered voters in Alaska. Of those 590,422, only 78,664 are registered as Democrats. 142,266 are registered Republicans. 340,606 are registered either undeclared or non partisan (80,972 non partisan and 259,634 undeclared)

            Why should 58% of the state’s population who choose not to belong to a political party be forced to choose between 2 people that 13% (Dems) and 24% (Repubs) choose in closed primaries?

            Politics is not about owning the other party or never losing a fight to get what you want. Politics is about compromise to better the lives of your constituents.

      • Ballot exhaustion simply means that a voter chose not to rank as many candidates as they could, and all of the candidates they did rank got eliminated. It is no different from a person, having voted in the general election, choosing to sit out a runoff because they don’t like either of the two candidates in the final round. Their vote in the runoff “didn’t count” because they didn’t show up.

  17. Let’s be honest: the number one goal of RCV is that it forces all of our elections to go through the computers. With a confusing algorithm to count ballots, we will never have fair or transparent elections. It’s simple and explains why no politician wants to touch this.

    • That is definitely a piece of this. In Arlington, VA in 2023. The Democrat party used RCV for their primary and they found it to be overly complicated.

      In that race they had to use 3rd party software that was not certified by anyone. The 3rd party that provided the software to calculate the RCV election was a Pro-RCV group.

    • Computers have nothing to do with it. Most areas of the U.S. use computers to count votes so I don’t see how you can say RCV is a way to force us to use computerized ballot counting. Furthermore, Australia has been using RCV since 1919 so it’s not fully honest to say that RCV requires the use of computers; the choice to use them is a separate issue which is certainly worth discussing.

    • Vote totals were made public, and people were allowed to run their own calculations and compare them to that of the state of AK. That aspect of the process is transparent.

  18. Get it on the ballot and lets get rid of this joke voting system. 1 person one vote was how it was meant to be by the FF’s.

Comments are closed.