A simple choice
Out-of-state donors are pouring millions into an effort to forever alter the outcomes of Massachusetts elections.
Unfortunately for them, the concept of ranked choice voting is so convoluted that it can’t be convincingly explained in a one-minute TV ad or even with an oversized, glossy, two-sided mailer.
That’s one reason why the “NO on Question 2” campaign has been running neck and neck with the carpetbagging financiers of the “Yes” campaign — despite being grossly outspent by these blow-in, would-be election-fixers.
You probably got the 9×13-inch color mailer with the picture of the young woman sporting the “I voted” sticker while holding her nose and grimacing as if she just stepped off the elevator at a baked bean factory. (Poor thing. She probably had to vote for some yucky male. Eww!)
The flyer informs us that by voting “Yes” on Question 2, “you’ll never have to chose between the lesser of two evils again.”
Then the flyer proceeds to tell this whopper. “Ranked choice voting is a simple, fair, and easy way to give voters more choice and more voice in our elections.”
Whenever someone describes a concept as is both “simple” and “easy,” prepare yourself for something that’s beyond complicated and confusing.
Who is supporting the campaign that’s paying for all those expensive TV commercials, radio ads and fancy mailers?
As of Oct 5, Voter Choice for Massachusetts, the campaign supporting a “Yes” vote for ranked choice voting, had received $7.9 million in contributions. The top contributor ($2.9 million) is listed as the “Action Now Initiative,” based in Houston and founded by Texas billionaire power couple John and Laura Arnold. John Arnold became a billionaire as a hedge fund manager at his own firm, Centaurus Advisors. He began the firm in 2002, after his former employer, Enron, went bankrupt. Arnold retired in 2012 at the age of 38.
So, as you can see, the Arnolds are just regular folks. From Texas.
Despite having raised nearly $8 million, Shauna Hamilton from Voter Choice for Massachusetts wrote the following (presumably with a straight face) in the red Voter Information booklet put out by the Secretary of State’s Office.
“Big money and corrupt special interests have too much control over our democracy.”
You don’t need to tell the No Ranked Choice Voting Committee, which as of Oct. 5 had raised less than $3,000.
And yet, despite a 1,000-1 fundraising advantage, the pro-ranked choice side hasn’t been able to put away their underfunded opponents. That’s how unappealing the idea of ranked choice voting is.
I’m not here to explain ranked choice voting to you. That’s the job of the slickest advertising firms $8 million can buy. But essentially, it allows some people to vote multiple times until one candidate has a “majority.”
Let’s say that John Smith, Bob Jones and Jane Doe are running in a three-way race. Voters rank the candidates in order of preference. If one of them gets more than 50 percent of the first-place votes, he wins. But in the far more likely scenario where no one gets more than 50 percent, that’s when the ranked choice system kicks in.
Let’s say that John Smith got 43 percent of the first-place votes, Bob Jones got 42 percent and Jane Doe, a victim of systemic sexism, got 15 percent.
In that case, the last place finisher, Ms. Doe, would be eliminated and the second-place votes on the ballots that had picked her as their first choice would be counted and redistributed between Smith and Jones, presumably pushing one of them over the magic 50 percent.
Ranked choice advocates deny it, but in the preceding example, those who voted for the last place candidate just voted twice. Under a normal election, those who voted for Jane Doe or Bob Jones came up short. Their candidates lost. Game over. Better luck next time.
But under ranked choice voting, those who voted for the last place finisher, Jane Doe, get a do-over. They effectively get to vote again to determine the winner.
Simple, right?
Or how about this system: one person, one vote. The candidate with the highest vote total wins.
If the latter sounds a lot like the system we have now, it’s because it is. It really is simple and easy for people to understand – the way voting should be. And it’s been working pretty well for the last 200 or so years.
Many of those who are pushing ranked choice voting are the same people who are always screaming that we have to make voting “easier.” Yet here they are, advocating for a system that many voters find baffling, because it is.
Keep voting simple. Just say “NO” to ranked choice voting.
—
[This column originally appeared in the October 22, 2020 Wakefield Daily Item.]
Filed under: Columns & Essays, Feature stories, History, Humor, News, Opinion, Politics, Wakefield | Leave a Comment
Tags: ballot question, ballots, candidates, carpetbaggers, elections, Humor, John Arnold, Laura Arnold, Mark Sardella, Massachusetts, money, Opinion, Politics, ranked-choice voting, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Shauna Hamilton, Texas, vote, voting, Wakefield Daily Item
Search this site
Categories
Flickr Photos
Archives
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
Recent Comments
Maureen Howland on Forum follies Bob Cohen on Forum follies Carole on Forum follies Anthony Antetomaso on Forum follies John E Butler on Forum follies Blog Stats
- 310,527 hits
LINKS
No Responses Yet to “A simple choice”