So what is the problem we are trying to solve with ranked choice voting? It's called Duverger's Law, but more on that in a minute.
I am assuming that if you are reading this blog, you think there may be a problem with our current political system. Most people seem to complain that there is no one good to vote for on the ballot.
It's just the same old far right vs. far left, they're both terrible, third parties can't win, my person lost in the primary, everybody is a crook, I'd vote if there was someone worth voting for, politicians suck, bowl of creamy awfulness. And you're right. These people we are stuck voting for, with rare exception, are terrible.
And the way we vote just promotes the terribleness. So how does ranked choice voting solve it and why is the current method so terrible?
Unfortunately, I can only explain complicated topics with sports metaphors. If I can't make a sports analogy, I'm lost. It's some kind of brain malfunction. So here is why the way we vote is so awful.
Imagine your favorite college football team and imagine they are terrible. Now imagine they have been terrible for years - like haven't won a game in ten years terrible. So how do they fix it?
Well first all of the college uppity ups come together to talk about it and throw out ideas. Fire the head coach. Build better facilities. Fire the assistant coaches. Move to a lesser league and play lesser competition. And then somebody suggests ending the program altogether.
Realizing they can only do one of these, the uppity ups decide to put it to a vote. Twenty uppity ups cast their ballots.
Fire the head coach - 4
Build better facilities - 5
Fire the assistant coaches - 2
Move to a lesser league - 3
End the program - 6
And well, I guess your favorite team will never play another game. That's depressing.
"But wait," one of the uppity ups says, "Fourteen of us still want to field a team. Why do the six that want to end the program get to out-vote us?"
Good question, but that's how it works. Under our current system, the minority can outvote the majority. Want proof?
The 1992 presidential election was a three-person race - Clinton, Bush, and Perot. While Clinton prevailed in the electoral college, he struggled in certain states. (For an electoral college discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States)) He even struggled in states he won.
In 1992, the State of Nevada elected Clinton, but it was close:
Clinton 37.36%
Bush 34.73%
Perot 26.19%
Because Clinton received the most votes, Nevada's four electoral votes went to Clinton. Pretty crazy when you think about it. The State voted 62.64% against Clinton, but he won. Does that seem right?
Of course not.
The problem is the rule - "most votes wins." Unless a ballot only consists of two candidates, "most votes wins" will usually lead to the odd result of a winner whom more than half of the electorate voted against. The idea behind elections is for the people to speak and majority rule. How can majority rule when the candidate that wins is not the first choice of over half the people? It doesn't!
The "most votes wins" rule leads us to the reason most of us hate politics - political parties.
https://rcv-sc.blogspot.com/2017/11/the-two-parties-are-terrible.html
Oh, I almost forgot. Here is some nerdspeak about Duverger's Law.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law