If you have ever wondered why the Massachusetts legislature is opaque and lethargic, it is a function of the state’s electoral system. Legislators view themselves as immune to any kind of political pressure to get anything done because they are immune to political pressure.
Consider these facts about Massachusetts elections:
- There are 218 seats (US Senate & House, MA Senate & House, Governor’s Council) on the state ballot in 2020. Prior to the primary, we had 345 candidates file for places on the ballot, roughly 1.6 candidates per seat.
- The September primary eliminated 61 candidates, including nine candidates seeking the MA-04 congressional prize, who were sent home a week before Labor Day. Ballots are now being printed with 284 candidates seeking 218 seats, roughly 1.3 candidates per seat. 18 seats have no Democratic candidate on the ballot, while 152 seats have no Republican. The Green-Rainbow and Libertarian parties are recognized under state election law, and we print primary ballots for these parties in every precinct in the Commonwealth, yet the only candidate on any of these ballots is running for state representative in the Twelfth Worcester district.
- In 28 districts, where Democrats had a primary with multiple candidates, the September 1 primary eliminated all competition, creating an uncontested race in November. This included five districts in which Democrats had three or four candidates on the primary ballot.
- Democrats had 161 candidates who were uncontested in the primary; 30 primaries featured two candidates. Only 9 races had three or more candidates, and 4 of these had winners receive more than 50% of the vote. The Republicans had 152 seats without a candidate, 60 races with one candidate, and only 6 races had two candidates. There were no Republican primaries with three or more candidates.
How do we fix this?
How do we bring better outcomes in a state that averages 1.3 candidates per seat on the November ballot? Move the primary to May? Adopt a top two primary, so we don’t eliminate all competition in the Democratic primary? Make voting and voter registration easier? Of course not. We put a Ranked Choice Voting question on the ballot.
Actually, we didn’t really put this on the ballot. Texas billionaire John D. Arnold provided the money to put this on the ballot. Mr. Arnold and his wife created Action Now Initiative, a 501(c)(4) organization based in Houston, Texas, that contributed $3,038,850 of the $5.6 million raised by Voter Choice Massachusetts. Voter Choice Massachusetts spent $274,356.81 to collect 111,268 certified signatures to put RCV on the November ballot, that’s $2.47 per signature.
Who is this dark money Texan?
John D. Arnold was an Enron trader, who took an $8 million bonus days before Enron’s bankruptcy. He used that bonus to start an energy trading hedge fund, Centaurus Advisors, LLC. He retired from hedge funding, and is now an advocacy philanthropist, dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into 501(c)(4) SuperPACs. His worth in excess of $3 billion, and gave more than $100 million for charter school advocacy. He spent $250,ooo of that money to support the ballot question to lift the Massachusetts charter school cap in 2016.
Professor Maurice Cunningham was on the Arnold’s money trail in 2018, when they created the Patients for Affordable Drugs Action Independent Expenditure Political Action Committee. The Arnolds were the only contributor to this SuperPAC, and all of their expenditures benefited the re-election campaign of Governor Charles Duane Baker III.
In a state with an average of 1.3 candidates per seat, in a state badly in need of significant ballot reforms, why is Ranked Choice Voting the option in front of the voters? Because… Texas hedge fund guyJohn D. Arnold paid to put it there.
This went from “pound the facts” to “pound the table” awfully fast.
Facts: 1.3 candidates per seat. Rank choice 1.3.
This is a terrible take for many reasons.
The first is the falsehood that “Arnold” isn’t the reason this is on the ballot. It’s on the ballot because hundreds of volunteers (unpaid) gathered over 100,000 signatures in 351 cities and towns around the state. That’s practically unheard of for modern ballot questions – most rely exclusively on paid signature gatherers.
The second is the insinuation that the supporters of the reform are puppets of the Arnold foundation. Elizabeth Warren, Ed Markey, Maura Healey, and Deval Patrick are all tools of the Arnold foundation? What about the heads of the Boston NAACP, Amplify LatinX, and the MIRA Coalition? They haven’t reached their own conclusions independently? I think they’d be surprised to hear that.
The third issue is the irony of promoting top-two while at the same time bashing Arnold. Who exactly do you think invests in top two initiatives around the country? The funders are the exact same ones that invested in the RCV effort: the Act Now Initiative and United America. If someone were to pursue a top two initiative, that would be their only source of funding to get on TV and run a successful campaign. So the only reason this reform exists to be even remotely talked about is because of the same funders you are bashing.
Fourth, it complete ignores RCV’s role in creating competition. It is not merely a response to existing competition but also a stimulant for new competition.
Fifth, you have no political project to achieve your alternative solution. You have a theoretical idea, but that’s not political project. You have no organization, no legislation, no substantial grassroots support, no substantial establishment support, no support for the electoral reform organizations in the state. You can throw bombs from behind a keyboard but no organizational capacity of any kind. So from a political perspective, your alternative “solution” is really just a prescription for doing nothing — no change.
If hundreds of volunteers collected signatures, why did Voter Choice Massachusetts report spending $274,356.81 to collect signatures?
There were a fraction of signatures collected by paid gatherers as a buffer and a variety of logistical costs. The bulk of the on-the-ground work was completed by volunteers.
Have you looked at how Q1 gathered its signatures and will you be voting no as a result? What about past questions?
I will probably vote no on 1, but the difference between Right to Repair and Ranked Choice Voting is that Q1 has no impact on our democracy. Q2 goes to the heart of how our electoral system operates, and I don’t think our choices should be based on who can pay $274,356.81 to collect signatures. The bottom line is simple. This is on the ballot because of $2.367 million of Texas hedge fund billionaire money.
Show me how a Ranked Choice scheme is a tool to promote competition in a plethora of uncontested races. It makes no sense. We can’t find a way to get 2 candidates on the ballot, and RCV doesn’t come into play with less than three candidates. Makes no sense.
CD4 this past month, CD3 two years ago, CD5 when Katherine Clark won. There’s a host of examples. 2000 and 2016 where third party votes would have possibly transferred to Democratic candidates under ranked choice. 2010 Governors race where Patrick got re-elected with less than 50% of the vote, 2014 where Charlie Baker got elected with less then 50% of the vote. The 2012 Congressional general election when John Tierney was re-elected with less than 50% of the vote. Those examples are just off the top of my head. There are a host of multi candidate primaries that were decided with less than 50% of the vote at the state legislative level.
As a persistent third party critic for the spoiler effect, you are opposing the best reform to eliminate it. This reform has been endorsed by Gov Weld, Gov Patrick, Elizabeth Warren, and a host of minority and grassroots voter groups. Your accusation that a friendly donor is the only reason it’s on the ballot is both unfounded and an insult to the long winding road this grassroots campaign has taken.
Again, let’s put this into perspective.
MA-04 had only five Democratic primary races out of 218 seats decided with less than 50% of the vote. And yes, you are making my point bringing up the congressional elections, because of the ultimate outcome of the race in which:
In two of the three cases, it is very clear that we removed the second most competitive candidate in the Democratic primary, while advancing a Republican who has as much of a chance of winning the seat as the Red Sox have of winning the 2020 World Series.
A top two primary would have solved the problem of eliminating competitive candidates in a Democratic primary, in a state where 18 Democratic slots, 152 Republican slots, 217 Green-Rainbow slots, and 218 Libertarian slots on the November ballot will have no candidate.
A) A top two primary is not on the ballot. Your argument that most Massachusetts primaries under the first past the post system are non-competitive and most general elections are non-competitive is proof that we need more competition and not less. Ranked choice voting reduces the barrier to campaigning for office by making the process more inclusive and cooperative. It encourages more minority and female candidates. It increases competition. Our choice is between adopting ranked choice and continuing the first past the post status quo you admit isn’t working. You’ve been proposing a jungle primary for as long as the ranked choice issue has been percolating. Their reform got on the ballot, yours did not. You’re welcome to propose it and see if it gains traction, so far it has not gotten as much widespread support as ranked choice voting which will be on our ballots thanks to the hard work of a dedicated non partisan grassroots campaign
B) Jungle primaries are terrible. Weren’t you the one complaining that Kennedy’s primary sucked money away from swing states? Under your proposal that would happen far more frequently as top two Democrats advance to the final election. Our proposal increases both intraparty competition and interparty competition while yours reduces both. Our proposal ensures that every primary and general election winner receives a majority of the votes. Your proposal does not. The top two candidates in the CD4 primary combined for less than 55% of the vote let alone 50%. Why should 44% of the voters get to pick the nominee in that race? Our proposal elevates candidates in the middle, your proposal could elevate candidates on the extreme ends as the CD4 arguably did. With a far left and a centrist Democrat in lieu of the center left candidates in between them they garnered 55% of the vote. Our proposal encourages moderation in both parties, your proposal encourages playing to the base all the way to the general election and privileging then majority party in law. Your proposal could effectively shut out Democratic candidates competing for winnable senate seats in GA, another jungle primary state. Your proposal is more expensive and requires multiple elections while ours requires one election.
The question on the ballot still strikes me as at least one step removed from what strikes me as the real issue here in MA.
The real issue here in MA is that the GOP is dead. As in politically DEAD. Unable to field candidates in most elections. When a GOP governor like Mr. Baker wins, he does so despite rather than because of GOP strength.
The Democratic Party here in MA is on life support. Party affiliation means little or nothing. We have had an overwhelmingly “Democratic” legislature since I’ve been here in 1974, and yet our day-to-day governance reflects a GOP agenda in too many crucial areas:
I think it’s time to send our officially-sponsored political parties to the same historical archives that we sent our blue-laws to.
I think that modern, reliable, and effective online voting technology is a far better use of our political and economic capital. If we could run a reliable election whose results are as good or better than we’re getting with our current manual systems, then run-off elections would not be so fearful.
Christopher described a process where hard-copy ballots are sent by snail-mail, opened, and run through a scanner on election day. Those same ballots could be filled out electronically, turned into securely-signed and encrypted pdfs, delivered in milliseconds, and processed by the same scanner (modern scanners are fully capable of reading pdfs without needing hard-copy).
All of THAT is overkill. We routinely handle electronic transfers in amounts of a few dollars and millions of dollars. We do those securely and privately. I want to fix our election process itself, so that we can have as many elections as circumstances warrant.
Since “Democratic Party” and “Republican Party” mean absolutely NOTHING about what a given candidate will support or oppose, I think it’s past time to retire the terms and dissolve the legal entities.
NO to electronic voting, especially in the age of Russian hackery! Our system works and doesn’t even take that long. You can probably guess what I think of eliminating parties. They are still more often than not good indicators of philosophy. People just need to run and shake things up a bit, but if it is in different parties from the major two then we need a runoff system to guard against spoilers and its easier to use RCV than to call voters back to vote again between the top two. Spend some time on national sites and you’ll realize that relatively speaking we are privileged in MA to be governed as well as we are.
Russian hackery is easily overcome with even a tiny bit of technological discipline.
When was the last time you saw an arithmetic error in your bank or credit card statement? An electronic voting system is MORE, rather than less, likely to detect fraudulent behavior and attempts at hacking.
I don’t believe that’s true in today’s Massachusetts. I think that significant number of elected officials would be members of the GOP in another state.
This is a circular argument. If voting is easy, cheap, and reliable then this “problem” goes away.
EVERY new system works better than old system it replaces — until the new system is up, running, and being used.
We don’t know what the unintended consequences of our flavor of RCV will be. We don’t know what candidates will flourish and what will not. We don’t know how dark money will react to RCV, and so we don’t know that RCV will have any impact AT ALL on the role of dark money in politics.
I’m going to vote “No” on 2. I see to much handwaving and too little concrete analysis.
I’m also going to vote “Yes” on 1, by the way. It appears to me that we may even need an constitutional amendment that says something to the effect of “Any data about a given person BELONGS to that person, and may not be used, bought or sold without the express written consent of the person who the data pertains to.”
There have been too many questions I have heard about electronic voting machines, and I would file our voting process under “if it ain’t broke…” We have enough problems getting people to turn out once, let alone for a runoff. Even jungle systems keep parties intact. The founding generation were brilliant in many ways, but woefully naive about avoiding parties. It is human nature to want to organize to elect like-minded candidates to a variety of offices and that is what parties do. RCV allows the proliferation of parties because they could gain support from those otherwise reluctant to be spoilers. I don’t know that it will impact money one way or the other, but that’s not the point. Very few MA politicians of either party would be comfortable in today’s Republican Party. I still say in 95% cases in a given race the Dem is to the left of the Republican in ways that are noticeable.
Pablo is not the first to move quickly from “pound the facts” to “pound the table” — the official information mailed by the state (https://www.sec.state.ma.us/ele/elepdf/IFV_2020.pdf) includes an “Arguments in favor” that so far as I can tell does nothing but pound the table hard enough to threaten its structural integrity.
Here’s the full text:
This text raises more questions for me than it answers. I haven’t (yet) set up a spreadsheet to model various scenarios. I want to do that because I remain unconvinced by the various descriptions that this actually works the way its proponents claim. The very fact that I NEED a spreadsheet to understand what happens itself lights up at least some yellow “caution” indicators.
Let me just highlight a few of the concerns/questions this text raises:
Here is the argument offered by the opponents:
Did Jerry Brown really say this? What Oakland Mayor was he referring to? Would the system being proposed here result in a Democrat nominee for CD4 that was last or next-to-last in voter’s choices?
Is the second paragraph of the opponents true about the proposed Massachusetts system?
I invite proponents and opponents to point me towards more factual and less opinionated sources that allow me to sort this out for myself.
At the moment, I find the arguments presented by each side equally compelling. This is a big change, and so far as I’ve seen so far that change is not yet supported by equally compelling factual evidence. Most of all, I’d like to see an online model where I can set up a scenario, fiddle with some numbers, and see what the results are.
At the moment, the thread-starter from Pablo is the most helpful information I’ve seen about this in a long time.
In particular, the information about Jack Arnold is news to me. I’d like to hear more about that. I don’t much care whether or not the thread-starter pushes buttons for proponents — I’d like know whether the information about Mr. Arnold is true.
One interesting thing about this post in relation to the against argument is that at least we know the pro sides funders. The Mass Fiscal Alliance is a dark money organization that has fought for years to hide its donors.
The argument includes a statement that is provably false. It is referencing the 2010 race for mayor of Oakland where Brown backed the incumbent Perata who lost. At the time, Oakland only allowed for 3 ranks per ballot (due to a technical limitation that has since been fixed), so it’s not possible to see “seventh and eighth place rankings” contributing to anyone — there were only 3.
The winner of that race, Jean Quan, was heavily outspent by Perata and went on to become the first woman and Asian American mayor of Oakland. It’s actually an excellent example of how RCV gives diverse voices a chance to compete and win against better-funded candidates, by building grassroots coalitions.
Brown wasn’t happy to see his candidate lose so be blamed it on the relatively new system. The reality is that more voters said they preferred Quan to Perata than the other way around, so the outcome was the right one.
Let’s not wander off into the arguments presented by the Mass Fiscal Alliance (which is politically evil), and focus on my arguments. Let’s start with 4 recognized political parties in Massachusetts, and we have only 1.3 candidates per seat on the November ballot. With a boatload of empty ballot slots, how would Ranked Choice Voting change this reality?
I know it’s a stupid idea, but my initial reaction is that I’d rather change MA election regulations so that there are two non-partisan elections every two years — a starting round in early September, where every voters gets two votes and a final round in November where the top two vote-getters from September compete for the seat.
Even if candidates choose to affiliate with a party, I think the idea of a party-oriented primary election for a Massachusetts office is an anachronism. Massachusetts has not had a viable GOP since I moved here in 1974.
Two elections — “preliminary” and “final”. One ballot for each. Each voter gets two votes in the preliminary and one vote in the final.
My bottom line is that I don’t want my second or third choices in a given election to have any role in the outcome of that election. I’d rather make run-off elections easy and affordable — I think that’s a problem that we know how to solve, and has far fewer potential for unintended consequences.
Tom we could more easily do that under ranked choice voting without requiring multiple rounds of voting. We could just hold an open ranked choice election on the first Tuesday and call it a day. No more partisan primaries. I support your addendum to RCV and think it’s a great idea.
Pablo’s reform suffers from two problems:
1) It’s not presently on the ballot
2) It entrenches the flawed primary system you dislike and actually creates more problems than it solves without ensuring more intra and inter party competition or ensuring a winner always gets a majority.
I would oppose anything that does not allow a representative from competing parties and ideologies on the final ballot.
What I am saying is that a May “top two” primary would solve the biggest problem facing Massachusetts. No real choice. 1.3 candidates per seat.
We sort of have a one party system now, in that progressives talk about the DINOs who are elected on our line and clog up the legislature. They run uncontested because a September primary places the primary campaign in the dog days of summer. People register as unenrolled so they can choose their primary ballot, so the Democratic primary is really a Democratic and almost everyone else primary.
I would support a RCV scheme attached to a May open primary. It would put campaigning in the middle of Town Meeting season, during the school year, where you could gain some traction against an incumbent. It would give plenty of time to resolve recounts or difficulties.
Consider that a first round of votes must be complete before we eliminate the bottom candidate and move to the second count. This year, Franklin lost 3,000 votes and it took.them a week to resolve the issue. With a May primary, that’s not such a problem. With a September primary, you have no more than 2 1/2 weeks to resolve problems, challenges, and recounts. Tack onto the Franklin recount the possibility that the fourth place finisher in the field of nine candidates demands a recount. Why? Because the difference between fourth and third may make a significant difference based on which candidate gets eliminated and has their votes redistributed. With a May primary, we can take the time to resolve the problem. With a September primary, not so much.
Thoughtfully place RCV in a significant reform package that reduces the number of uncontested elections, I’m all for it. Tack it onto the current system, I’m a hard no.
I would close the primary and make people take a side. I understand that running can be daunting, but it also can be done.
The information about Arnold being a Enron trader and then making a killing in a energy hedge fund is true. I am a RCV advocate, but in terms of bullet one, I don’t see how it combats influence of money in politics, certainly in the short run. Point two is really about eliminating that spoiler factor that creates a huge reason why 3rd parties have no voice in elections. RCV let’s you vote your 3rd party choice as the first pick, and when they are eliminated, your second choice is the mainstream party that your closet to. Also part of that is, should we be elected people that have a majority of support? If you want 3rd parties to have a voice, then without RCV winning candidates with 45% of the vote have an air of illegitimacy. As for the potential of cooling down the intensity of our political polarization, watch this 10 minute video. https://youtu.be/Ds2TN_XA2dY
There’s plenty of uncontested races that would benefit from third parties running candidates as the second party on the ballot. Remember that Republicans failed to field candidates for 152 out of 218 seats.
Yes, RCV would improve outcomes in multi-candidate races, but that is such an unusual event that it wouldn’t provide much improvement unless it is a tool incorporated into other reforms.
As for Mr. Arnold, his money allows for a fraction of the reform needed to hit the ballot, while excluding discussion about a May primary or a top-two RCV primary. Why? I don’t have a billionaire to fund the options I would like to see discussed. $2.3 million of Texas hedge fund guy’s money is killing off consideration of the reforms we need in Massachusetts.
I hope folks who are upset about Citizens’ United and the ability of the very wealthy to influence elections all see this for what it is. If Mr. Arnold wants to have a big say in Massachusetts elections, let him move to Massachusetts, pay Massachusetts taxes, experience the frustrations we have over our elections, and work with us for a comprehensive reform package that will make this state more democratic and progressive.
I addressed some of your concerns in a comment that is still pending for approval (since when does that happen? Must of finally pissed off Charlie.) Let’s see if I cut and past it:
Some valid points, but you miss the point about RCV and its contribution to a better democratic republic.
First your valid points. Yes, having a political system that centers on what a billionaire funds or doesn’t fund is tragic. But it’s the system we’ve got. I’ve been railing about this forever on BMG (and elsewhere). But in fairness, Arnold (I don’t think) didn’t throw a dart at the map and decide on RCV in MA. “People” come to him, they make their pitch to fund their reform effort, he no doubts talks to friends and bored consultants and MA RCV won the grant. A shitty system and I wish it were better.
Secondly, yes, I can think of a couple of other reforms I’d rather see first. Always #1 on my list is public campaign financing and if we did that, in one election cycle we’d have nearly EVERY legislative seat be contested at either the primary and general election level.
But we don’t have that on the ballot, you have to vote for the reform on the ballot. What’s so hard to understand about that? Do you what against a medicare public option if on the ballot, because you weren’t offered something your preferred more?
As for the value of RCV, it relates to the 1.3 candidates per seat stat you’re throwing around. (Although that is skewed by just a few multi-candidate primaries, as a large majority of incumbents don’t have challengers…which is a huge problem).
If you want the electorate to have a meaningful amount of voices that with more than 2 parties bring, RCV is an essential tool. It solves the “spoiler” objection that disincentivizes people from voting 3rd party today.
Also the ability for a voter to choose a “back up” creates a strategic dynamic that punishes the candidate who is the biggest a-hole. Hopefully creating a calming layer over our blistering negative politics.
As for a May Primary or “Top Two Open Primary”. I don’t view a May Primary in the same light as democratic reform issue like Term Limits (not a fan) Automatic Voter Registration (Yes) or independent redistricting commissions (Yes), but more a power play with MA politics.
As for top two open RCV…sure that is the ideal (in theory…do we even know), but voters are going o have a big enough left to pass the concept of RCV…add in arguing about open primaries and your going to really lose voters attention and lose. At best you’re arguing for the perfect and killing the good.
Sorry I missed this. My filter nabs even mild potty-mouth.
For pogo:
Your two comments were sent to the moderation queue because the comment filter flags a word you used that rhymes with spitty. I’m pretty sure that if you replace that with a different word your comment will post without any issues.
FWIW, that’s an automated filter. Charley may be able to do something about it after the fact if he sees it, but it’s usually easier to avoid the flagged word.
I don’t get the big-money angle either.
Then you must be fine with Citizens’ United, because this is obviously a boatload of speech in the form of $2.3 million from that Enron hedge fund billionaire.
It is sad that we live in a world where no single measure will cure all our ills. But at least there are specific reforms we can adopt to make specific things better.
I was just agreeing with Pogo that the claims of proponents about campaign finance do not seem to follow. But an extravagant claim does not invalidate the merits of this proposal.
Maybe billionaire guy was wrong then, and right now.
Maybe billionaire guy should move to Massachusetts and pay Massachusetts taxes before he funds Massachusetts ballot questions.
Fortunately, we get to decide this on the merits, rather than choose between billionaire guy versus odious mass fiscal alliance.
But what fun is that? Pound that table!
We don’t decide election reform on the merits, because Mr. Arnold chose what we are allowed to debate.
Ah, table again.
Never mind table. What would election reform look like if a broad coalition of Massachusetts voters were able to craft a reform proposal? It certainly wouldn’t be a desire to keep the current system, where three quarters of the races are uncontested, with the only change being a RCV scheme added to a broken system.
“ What would election reform look like if a broad coalition of Massachusetts voters were able to craft a reform proposal? ”
Oh I don’t know, maybe several hundred thousand of them signing signatures to get one on the ballot? Maybe having a grassroots campaign that successfully got it on the ballot before us today? I remember when this campaign was five people in an office. I’m glad to see it gradually gain so much organic support.
Support for ranked choice voting has nothing to do with opposing Citizens United. If anything RepresentUS the lead group pushing for an Amendment to overturn citizens united also endorsed ranked choice voting. Along with a litany of progressive lawyers, elected officials, and political scientists. The most liberal city in the commonwealth has elected both bodies this way for 70+ years. No millionaire bought this system in Cambridge, it predates citizens united by almost a century.
Perhaps someone can share the history of how RCV was enacted in Cambridge — who originated it, who wrote the regulations, how did they become law, etc.
Did it start as a ballot question?
Cambridge’s system of proportional representation does use a transferable ballot.
It is NOT the system proposed in Q2. It has a fundamentally different purpose, to create virtual districts for an ideologically diverse city council.
Cambridge adopted its current charter in the 50s. It is a “Plan E” “weak mayor/strong manager” system, probably a more significant aspect of the form of government than the method of electing the city legislature.
Charter changes are typically made, formally, by the Legislature in response to a local home-rule petition from the city or town. The Lege often makes the effectiveness of the change contingent on ratification by local referendum.
Again, Cambridge’s system (where voters have one vote for a nine member city council) is different from the RCV scheme on the ballot. Most important, it is conducted by only one municipality. A RCV count in MA-01 would involve coordinating a count in more than five dozen municipalities, ranging from Springfield to Monroe. All it takes is for one precinct in the mix to grind the whole process to a halt.
That’s true under the status quo, so how is it relevant to this discussion?
No, if we have a missing town in the count, we don’t need to hold things up if the winner is obvious. A missing town in a RCV scheme is a problem. I’ll talk about that in a separate post.
You’re right Trickle Up. The Cambridge count is MORE complicated than the Q2 proposal and has functioned smoothly for over 70+ years. It was a home rule petition in the 1940 election adopted by voters when we switched from Plan B to Plan E.
I highly recommend Robert Winters website which really goes into detail on every count ever conducted in the city and the history of this system. I might add he and I are politically on opposite ends of many local and national issues, but we both agree this reform is a great idea. I’ll invite him to come back on here to explain how it works too.
http://www.rwinters.com/
If you call a Texas Enron hedge fund billionaire paying $3 million to put this on the ballot, and spending $274,356.81 to collect 111,268 certified signatures ($2.47 per signature) a grassroots campaign, that’s not natural grass. That’s Astroturf.
That’s an intellectually dishonest characterization of how these signatures were collected by many volunteers who gave many hours of their time. Again, that’s a relatively small amount of money when it comes to big dollar donations in political campaigns. Warren and Patrick raised far more money for their campaigns and paid far more for their signatures when they ran as outsiders in MA. Patrick self funded, which you defended earlier on this website. It’s okay for millionaires you agree with to spend money on politics, but not okay when millionaires you disagree with spend money on politics. Got it.
These extra signatures were at the end of the process to ensure they overwhelmingly cleared the hurdle. No one paid me for my signature or the 20 or so signatures I collected for the campaign. I deeply resent that accusation on my behalf and the behalf of everyone I know who volunteered without pay on this campaign. The paid organizers also took pay cuts to be part of this movement compared to the rates they would get on the market. No one in progressive Massachusetts would call Mac D’Alessandro a gun for fire.
That’s exactly what happened here.
It sounds like you are suggesting that the group had put together a more broad proposal and put it on the ballot. Even let’s say an organized group agreed on a more broad set of proposals, do you think it would be easier to pass an omnibus election reform bill by ballot question than one specific change?
If the *legislature* was acting on this, you may have a point. That is more or less what has been happening bit by bit. For example, OVR and early voting were passed together. So far, the legislature has declined to take on a bill that included RCV or anything you propose.
Pretty sure the MA Constitution prohibits omnibus initiatives.
Another point against what Pablo is proposing. We have to make reform one step at a time.
Some valid points, but you miss the point about RCV and its contribution to a better democratic republic.
First your valid points. Yes, having a political system that centers on what a billionaire funds or doesn’t fund is tragic. But it’s the system we’ve got. I’ve been railing about this forever on BMG (and elsewhere). But in fairness, Arnold (I don’t think) didn’t throw a dart at the map and decide on RCV in MA. “People” come to him, they make their pitch to fund their reform effort, he no doubts talks to friends and bored consultants and MA RCV won the grant. A shitty system and I wish it were better.
Secondly, yes, I can think of a couple of other reforms I’d rather see first. Always #1 on my list is public campaign financing and if we did that, in one election cycle we’d have nearly EVERY legislative seat be contested at either the primary and general election level.
But we don’t have that on the ballot, you have to vote for the reform on the ballot. What’s so hard to understand about that? Do you what against a medicare public option if on the ballot, because you weren’t offered something your preferred more?
As for the value of RCV, it relates to the 1.3 candidates per seat stat you’re throwing around. (Although that is skewed by just a few multi-candidate primaries, as a large majority of incumbents don’t have challengers…which is a huge problem).
If you want the electorate to have a meaningful amount of voices that with more than 2 parties bring, RCV is an essential tool. It solves the “spoiler” objection that disincentivizes people from voting 3rd party today.
Also the ability for a voter to choose a “back up” creates a strategic dynamic that punishes the candidate who is the biggest a-hole. Hopefully creating a calming layer over our blistering negative politics.
You don’t have a spoiler effect if you don’t run candidates. Given the large number of districts where a Republican can’t win (and don’t field candidates), there’s no reason why the Greens can’t be the second party in a majority of Massachusetts districts. Similarly, in the districts where the Democrats don’t run candidates, the Libertarians have an opening.
More candidates would run in more races in more parties under ranked choice voting. This is a fact.
Really? There are 218 Libertarian and 217 Green-Rainbow places on the 2020 Massachusetts ballot with no candidate, and a plethora of uncontested races. How would Ranked Choice bring more candidates into a race if they won’t do it now?
By altering voter psychology that dictates a vote for a third party is a thrown away vote. I am confident the rate of third party registration and candidate competition will increase after RCV. I’ll add that to the wager for the 2024 cycle. I am not confident enough that it will happen overnight but I am confident by two cycles we will have enough data to pass judgment.
-More contested primaries
-More contested general elections
-More third party participation over all
This year we’ve already seen third party polling and registrations plummet after a decades long high in 2016 thanks in part to the electorate polarizing between Trump and not Trump. I have yet to meet a Stein or Johnson voter who does not regret their vote, and maybe they would not have had they been able to rank Hillary second or third and Donald Trump last. Maybe that produces a different President.
Under a ranked choice primary and a ranked choice general, it’s a lot less likely Trump wins in 2016. Or George W Bush in 2000. That alone is reason enough to support this reform. Passing it here makes it easier for other more nationally competitive states to pass it there. Just as Massachusetts was right to join the electoral compact even if it ends up sending out electoral votes to a Republican who wins the popular vote. If we want change, we have to be up front and push it.
And you don’t run candidates (effectively) because of the spoiler effect. So lets continue of the downward spiral of a binary choice in a complicated world? Or do you start a new system that over time will potentially encourage more 3rd party choices?
You just seem to be in a “no” mode and not open to the potential positive impact on RCV on the current dismal status quo.
What an unfortunate pile of ad hominem nonsensical ranting this is.
If you’re referring to “billionaire guy”, I don’t think that’s nonsensical or irrelevant at all. We need only look at the collapse of the government at the national level to see the consequences of large amounts of dark money unencumbered by regulation or oversight.
Did we think those ENORMOUS volumes of illegal cash (about TWO TRILLION, according to leaked documents from the feds) would have no effect? I think that significant spending from out-of-state billionaires is well worth knowing about and talking about when we’re discussing a fundamental change to how we vote.
I have issues with Question 2 and this exchange has moved me towards the “No” camp. I agree that there’s too much ranting and not enough plain analysis, but smoke always accompanies fire and it appears to me that something is burning here.
Weren’t you the one defending Bloomberg’s billions back in the primary? Oppose RCV on the merits, not by cherry-picking strawmen to attack. So far Pablo has not made a rational case that does not rely on fallacies.
In my view, Mr. Bloomberg’s money has never been “dark”. Mr. Bloomberg also did not, so far as I know, use his money to advance a specific ballot question in a state where he is not a resident.
Even if I end up voting “No” on Question 2, it won’t be because of the billionaire guy, it will be because of the factual exchanges we’ve had here and that I’ve had with friends and colleagues.
I view the participation of the billionaire guy as part of the smoke that makes me look more closely at the fire.
I also want to be clear that I am not opposed to RCV — and so far as I can tell, neither is Pablo. I am instead reluctant to support this specific ballot question. I’m not convinced that it will actually play out the way its proponents sincerely believe.
My reservations have more to do with making profound changes like this through ballot questions than with RCV itself. The last successful initiative petition I can remember that proposed a change that was this radical was Prop 2 1/2 — that was a disaster.
I like the concept of RCV. I don’t like Question 2.
For the record, while I detest the thought of a billionaire deciding the outcome of ANY election through the use of their wealth, I have to point out there is NO DIFFERENCE between what Arnold and Bloomberg are doing.
Neither is enchanted in funneling “dark money” in the situations we are discussing, as their donations have a bright flashing light around them, telling us where the money came from. That’s not too say either isn’t funneling money elsewhere and that turns out as dark money.
I don’t really understand your position here. What is it about the question itself that bothers you? It’s a straightforward proposal to implement RCV statewide, which you are saying you support.
The question as posed is like a piece of code that works in the happy case, and whose error-handlers have never even been exercised, never mind tested. Like every initiative petition, the “details” of implementation are left for later.
This is a fundamental change to a key aspect of our governance, and I’d therefore like to see a more rigorous and disciplined analysis of its consequences.
For those who may not appreciate the implications of my comment, making a piece of code do the desired thing when all is well (the “happy case”) generally takes no more than about 20% of the development effort of a piece of code.
The MUCH harder problem is making the code fail gracefully. What happens to the material you’ve spent the morning working on when you click “save” and discover that the storage medium is full or the network connection has been lost?
Laws and regulations are the same way (some argue even more so). Law libraries exist so that an attorney writing a contract can use “tested language” for each and every phrase — language that has already been cited in court decisions.
I think that Pablo’s point about how few candidates are on the ballot in state elections is very well taken. If Mary Marvelous or Henry Heroic are passionate and competent progressive candidates, the easiest way for them to get on the ballot is by running as a Green or Rainbow candidate for whatever office they seek.
In other words, it’s new here?
In other words “new” is not a synonym for “working”.
The status quo is no working since it’s producing nominees and elected officials selected by a minority of voters. Ranked choice is the most effective way to solve it. It’s worked for decades in my hometown, works in Maine, and works in most European countries where its been implemented for decades. It’s been tried and tested already. Galvin and his office says it be easy to implement, something he rarely says unless he means it.
You have no basis for implying that a voting method in use for hundreds of years and replied on to day by many jurisdictions and organizations does not work.
Or if you do, please provide it here.
A meaningful critique would be based on the actual performance of this method of counting votes and determining the preference of voters.
How many times do I have to say that I’m expressing concern about the actual language of Q2 and of the so-far nonexistent regulations that will put it into practice?
I’ve already said, multiple times, that I like the concept of RCV.
There is just one way of mathematically describing how an “average daily balance” is computed on any bank account or credit card, and how that ADB is applied to interest rates and charges and when the resulting changes are compounded. The wording of those agreements are standard boilerplate across a multiple of banks, credit cards, and accounts within banks and credit card companies.
That being said, every major bank and credit card corporation (such as Mastercard) employs an army of mathematicians and programmers who turn those standard boilerplate agreements into code. The resulting code is unique to each institution, reflects the priorities of its owner, and is nearly always capitalized as a crucial part of the intellectual property owned by the institution that paid for its creation. Such calculations are exquisitely sensitive to when and where round-offs happen in a calculation, how many digits are carried around and for how long, and so on.
These differences result in hundreds of thousand or in some cases millions of dollars (depending on the size of the financial firm) when rolled up across tens of thousands of accounts and thousands of transactions in at least some of those accounts.
The text of Q2 has NOT existed “for hundreds of years” and so far as I know is not relied on by anybody — it’s newly minted for this election.
There is a difference between supporting the CONCEPT of RCV and voting to enact a specific attempt at implementing that concept.
A meaningful comment would be responsive to rather than dismissive of my concern. Christopher and jConway are making such comments.
I am responding directly to your supposed concern.
You just do not like what I am saying, and would prefer to dictate the terms of the debate.
If you have a problem with the text of the law, let’s hear it! Pablo made it clear he had not read it; have you? (I have; it is not an easy read.)
If you have a problem with referendums generally, out with it! It is worth talking about.
I have attempted to read the text as published the formal booklet distributed by the state. I agree that it is not an easy read. That’s a part of my reluctance — I’ve returned to it several times and I find it impenetrable.
I do have a general resistance to referenda, influenced in no small part by the disastrous results of Prop 2 1/2. I wrote about that resistence upthread(
https://bluemassgroup.com/2020/09/why-rcv-q2-texas-enron-hedge-fund-money/#comment-424906):
I’ll make it clear that I have read it. (RCV folks just want you to watch the easy, breezy video.) Here’s the scary part, especially when imposed on a September primary:
For ballots counted under section 105, notwithstanding the requirements to place all election material in a locked facility, the city or town clerk shall deliver all cast ballots including absentee ballots by secure means as established and approved by the state secretary by regulation, or otherwise as described in section 105A.For the central tabulation facility designated under this section, the state secretary shall appoint the following election officers: a warden, a deputy warden, a clerk and deputy clerk and as many inspectors and deputy inspectors as the state secretary determines are necessary.Each chair of a state committee may appoint in writing a person the chair considers to be a computer expert to monitor the electronic counting of ballots at the central tabulation facility. The expert shall be assigned by the presiding officer to a position within the center that will enable the expert to observe all operations.The state secretary shall be the presiding officer at the central tabulation facility and shall assign to the election officers such duties as will ensure the accurate and complete tabulation of the ballots in accordance with rules and regulations for the operation of such tabulation center promulgated by the office of the state secretary.Through means established by the state secretary, the rankings shown on each ballot for each election or primary subject to tabulation under this section shall be converted into a machine readable form. The converted ballots shall then be entered in a computer the state secretary considers capable of conducting the tabulation process described in section 2B of chapter 50. Upon completion of all rounds of tabulation, the state secretary, or an election officer designated by the state secretary, shall publicly and in the presence of the other election officers, audibly and distinctly, announce the number of active preferences cast for each continuing candidate in each round for each office being tabulated at the central tabulation facility. The state secretary shall further examine all original and all additional copies of the records and make them part of the records of such election or primary, and shall certify and attest copies of the records of votes for the several candidates in each round of tabulation
Besides making my eyes glaze over as I try to read this at 1AM, what is the problem with this language?
In a nutshell that boils own to 2 things:
Pablo did the cut and paste, I assume because he thinks legal language looks scary to some.
What about it do you find confusing? There are two and three minute videos that easily explain how this works. All the clerks and Galvin are prepared to implement it. What’s the problem?
I didn’t say it was confusing. My concern is that the many edge-cases (analogous to the error-handlers in my code example) are as yet unspecified.
If it passes and becomes law, it won’t be the end of the world for me. If the result is a state government that is able to actually address the serious and immediate issues facing us, then I’ll gladly sigh and buy libations for all the BMG proponents who made it happen.
I suppose that my bottom line is that anything that helps remove Bob DeLeo as speaker is a good thing. I’m just not as confident as you that Q2 will have that effect.
I see Q2 ensuring that the winner of any election is backed by the majority of voters. So this solves that problem and also eliminates the spoiler effect and removes barriers to inter and intra party competition. I’m not arguing it has anything to do with the Speaker or electing particular candidates from a particular party. I am only saying it will ensure majority rule, end the spoiler effect, and broaden the field of candidates in competitive races. All good things in my book on their own merit, but that could also open up our options to more viable candidates and campaigns.
It won’t wax my car, either.
I am sure Bob DeLeo is amused by this. Uncontested. Just try to rank choice this!
Bob DeLeo has no reason to care one way or the other unless he gets multiple challengers.
How’s that different from using it to advance candidates in a state where he is not a resident? He’s done so multiple times, now for Biden and before for common sense gun legislation. I think we should overturn Citizens United and pass HR1. Until we have the votes to do that, I agree with you that we should not unilaterally disarm. The Mass Fiscal Alliance is dark corporate money thats fueling Dishonest and misleading attacks against this grassroots reform which attracted hundreds of thousands of signatures in the middle of a pandemic. So a millionaire gave the group Some money. Great, he recognizes our democracy is broken and needs fixing. Ranked choice is how we do it. Pablo and his allies in this cause from Mass Fiscal Alliance cannot winter an argument on the merits , so they are lying instead about how this got on the ballot. It’s an insult to Greg and the many team members who did a lot of hard work.
Is Warren dark money? Let’s get serious people. Let’s have a realtor based debate and leave the strawmen to the Mass Fiscal Alliance.
Nothing I’ve written suggests that Ms. Warren is dark money.
That’s an ironically funny auto-correct typo — surely we’ve been having a “realtor-based” debate about such matters for decades … 🙂
You and Pablo both supported a candidate who received dark money seven times greater than the dark money you decry from Mr. Arnold. This is not a dig at Sen. Warren. I proudly gave her $60 myself and gave my time to RCV.
I see no difference between me and Mr. Arnold or Dr. Jurvetson. We all gave money to causes and candidates we care about. Corporate money is something else, and that is definitely behind the Mass Fiscal Alliance which is funding opposition to this question. The people in power want us to have fewer choices, I think voters want more.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/20/mystery-warren-super-pac-funder-revealed-140233
Frankly I do see a difference between you or me and Mr. Arnold, but the law does not. I think campaign contributions should only be allowed from residents of the state. But that’s nowhere near the system we have. What we have is dark-money opposition to just about anything. So who can blame the organizers of the movement for accepting money where it’s offered, and doing so legally and transparently?
I’ve uprated this because it’s a perfectly legitimate question.
I have to say that I’m fighting back panic while I struggle to discern how to best prepare myself for the new America we now live in. In that context, I’m more resistant to change than usual for me.
That is a very puzzling and disturbing position. But I very much understand your feelings, it’s like a deer caught in the headlights, you freeze up in fear and the oncoming car hits you.
You acknowledge the system is broken (fighting back panic) but resistant to ways to improve it?
In terms of RCV improving our broken system, don’t you think we need more LEGITIMATE voices voters can choose from than the two parties? If so, we need to overcome the “spoiler” argument that third party candidates are a “wasted vote”, which RCV does. In the long run, RCV challenges the supremacy of the two party duopoly.
So if your happy with the status quo of just two realistic choices on the ballot, vote against RCV. But if you want to have meaningful ballot choices beyond the big two, vote for RCV.
Now there are many other reasons pro and con, but at the end of the day, that drives my decision.
No need to panic. Vote Yes on 2. It prevents the very problems you’re worried about. Mainly our democracy being hijacked from the fringes. This restores the voice of the majority of voters by ensuring a majority is always the rule and never the exception.
Is this the same SomervilleTom that continually dismissed my calls for public financing of campaigns? Are you one of those who argue points based on the moment? Or is it I can’t discern your objection to “large amounts of dark money unencumbered by regulation or oversight” and your continued opposition to reforms that will address your concerns?
I take the reforms one by one.
Let me cite CU as an example. I passionately and enthusiastically agree that the consequences of that decision have been awful.
The problem I have is that the “solutions” that have been offered so far are even worse. I’ve seen no language that, for example, constrains the ability of Exxon to use cash to manipulate elections and therefore elected officials and that does not also constrain media outlets, labor unions, religious organizations, and so on from continuing to make vital contributions to our culture.
The negative consequences of the CU decision are a direct consequence of the meme that an organization is a “person” and therefore enjoys constitutionally-protected freedoms. Other direct consequences of that meme are that every newspaper and media outlet has a constitutionally-protected right to publish whatever it wants.
I have yet to see language that addresses the negative consequences of the CU decision without worsening other equally important positive consequences of the corporation-as-person meme.
I’ve already offered one simplistic aspect of my reaction to “reforms” — if the proponents say that a proposal is a “common-sense reform” then I am more, rather than less, dubious about it.
Again cite specifics. That’s all I ask. What is specifically wrong about this proposal. For Pablo, a partisan Democrat, it’s that this proposal is non partisan and bipartisan and has popular support while his preferred reform is not supported by anyone other than him and one party states on the West Coast and the Deep South. I don’t want to be CA or GA, I want all recognized parties on the final general election ballot. If I want to vote for a third party first while ensuring the candidate I like least doesn’t win, that’s my right. Similarly within a crowded primary, I should be able to do the same thing. I have not heard a good argument for why this reform makes my vote count less, why it limits my choices, or why it won’t work. Argue on those grounds, don’t intent strawmen to attack. Both you and Pablo like sugar daddy’s when they back your preferred candidates and positions. I don’t see the difference here. Until we reform that system-a separate ballot question perhaps-we should focus on the two in front of us.
A specific that would make it easier for me to vote for Q2 is a cite to an analytic piece that uses the proposed Q2 as a starting point, provides several illustrative examples of recent relevant elections, and produces a contrast-and-compare that shows how the proposed change would play out.
I’m not yet convinced that Q2, if passed, will cause more progressive candidates to appear on primary ballots. I’ll happily spot you a dinner at the new restaurant just opened in Newton Center by my oldest daughter and her husband (“Thistle & Leek”) if there are significantly more progressive candidates on primary ballots in MA in the 2024 election season. You’ll enjoy the dinner and we’ll both be happy campers.
I am not making the argument that this is what RCV will do.
What I would be willing to bet is that after this reform passed, we will never again have another public official elected to office without winning 50+% of the vote. I also believe we will see more candidates run more frequently for more positions. I am willing to bet that the rate of contested elections in the state increases overall. Will you take me up on that?
This is a non partisan and non ideological reform. The goal is just to increase competitive elections, eliminate the spoiler effect, and ensure majority rule.
(As an aside happy to frequent that restaurant whether I win it or not! That’s a cool thing your daughter is doing during a difficult time. I have a few friends in that corner of the world).
It’s difficult to extrapolate an RCV result onto a non-RCV race. I will say that Jake Auchincloss, Lori Trahan, and Katherine Clark would not have won their primaries by appealing to a quarter to a fifth of the electorate. They would have had to appeal to at least half the electorate.
How that plays out is a separate discussion, but you likely don’t see Jesse play to the far left of the primary and her Brookline/Newton base or Jake play to the center of the party while appealing to the South Coast. Either frontrunner would have had to run campaigns across the district to attract its median voter and not the “far center” and “far left” of the field. We would not have seen two candidates have to drop out to endorse Mernell, they could have simply instructed their voters to rank her second and continued campaigning. We might have seen the 3-5th place candidates who bunched in the middle of the pack make a similar arrangement. It would have reduced the negativity of the race by allowing every voter to select their first choice and then have the other candidates compete for people’s second and third place votes.
A similar dynamic was at play in the Democratic presidential primary where the Bernie+Warren totals were higher than the Biden total. They could have campaigned cooperatively and not attacked one another as they did in their last debates. We may have had a different nominee had they operated in that system. Similarly, Klobuchar and Buttigieg would not have been pressured to drop out after South Carolina to consolidate the moderates. Yang might have gained a lot more traction as a first choice vote since people would not think it was wasted on him.
I can say for the First Middlesex and Suffolk Senate seat (Joe Boncore) special in 2016 that the two progressive women of color and the progressive rep from Cambridge and Boston would have likely consolidated their votes while the Revere moderates consolidated their votes. It may have resulted in a different victor. It’s clear that Jay Livingstone would not have had to argue he was more electable than Diana Hwang or Lydia Edwards and endure charges of racism and sexism for doing so. We could have just had all three progressives run as a cooperative slate as Maine gubernatorial candidates did.
Moderate white male State Sen Mike Brady was elected to a majority minority and majority women district because two women of color opposing him split the vote in early 2016. That’s unlikely to have happened with ranked choice voting. It’s unlikely Paul LePage gets two terms in Maine under that system. It’s unlikely Deval Patrick gets a second term if the bulk of the Cahill vote really goes to Baker. Or maybe Patrick still wins drawing his own percentage of Cahill voters, but he wins with >50% of the vote instead of 48%. It’s unlikely Tierney gets re-elected in 2012 if the Fishman vote goes to Tisei. It’s unlikely the other two Markey challengers drop out. A four way race would have been better for democracy than a two way race, which was still better than an uncontested primary.
So those are some examples. I evaluate based strictly on the process. Did the candidate truly win a majority of their districts voters? Shouldn’t that be what democracy is about? Why should we maintain the spoiler effect within primaries and during a general election? Why should Donald Trump win his party’s nomination in 2016 with only 40% of the vote in the primary? Kasich, Cruz, and Rubio voters could have ranked them all 1-3 and Trump dead last avoiding this administration. Similarly, Biden benefited from a plurality win over a divided field in South Carolina we did Bernie in IA, NH, and NV. Ranked choice solves for that.
Does it solve for DeLeo? Does it solve for Baker? Does it solve for more progressives in the statehouse? Not directly, but it creates better conditions for those reforms to actually happen.
Look. I’m fine with a top two May primary with a RCV component. I would vote for that. If the current ballot question called for the primary to occur before Memorial Day, I wouldn’t be happy, but I wouldn’t be unhappy enough to actively oppose it. Just slapping RCV on what we have now is a disaster. And please don’t bring other states into the argument, as their situations are all very different unless you want to bring in CA and WA.
Pretty sure their experience with LePage was a key motivation behind Maine adopting RCV.
Well you just set an unrealistic and unfair bar to clear.
RCV is about bigger picture democratic reform and not a narrow “how to we elect more progressives”. If that’s your aim, then democratic reform is not your bag. You just need to find more money than the conservatives…good luck with that.
But if your looking to change the power dynamics and giving more segments of the population more voice, then RCV is a good thing.
In fact, your litmus test of wanting to increase progressive voices will only polarize democratic reform issues by making it yet one more partisan battle. The reality is RCV will help the voices beyond the two party system. If you like that, vote for RCV. If you like the two choices and want to keep that system, oppose RCV. Simple.
No it won’t. You will continue to have Bob DeLeo and friends running unopposed, and Ranked Choice isn’t going to change that. RCV solves the problem of too many candidates running for one office, not too few.
I would suggest that if you want to encourage different voices, you go to multi-member districts with cumulative voting. Illinois had the system prior to an unfortunate referendum in 1980. Here’s how it works:
Every district has three seats.
Voters have three votes. They can distribute their votes among the candidates; 3 votes for one candidate, 1.5 votes for each of two candidates, or 1 vote for each of three candidates. This system guarantees a minority party representative in all but the most partisan districts, and would give minor party and independent candidates a real shot at winning a legislative seat. Unfortunately, that’s not what the Texas Enron hedge fund billionaire is willing to place on our ballot.
You seem to assume that RCV is a key to competition in the sense of making it easier to run. I don’t see anyone making that argument and it appears you are setting up a straw man. The reason for RCV is mitigating the spoiler effect. There are other reforms which may induce more candidates to run, and not mutually exclusive to this one. The question to the voters is whether RCV is a good idea on it’s own merits, not whether it’s the best and only choice of reform that we can ever enact. I certainly don’t see any way RCV reduces competition.
Pablo has been making a compelling argument in all his commentary here that there is no “spoiler effect” when nearly all candidates in the elections that Q2 applies run unopposed.
At least as it pertains to the “spoiler effect” in MA, Q2 is a solution looking for a problem.
I’ve brought up several counter examples where a spoiler effect is a problem. It’s also a tautology. Not enough third party candidates run in local races because third party’s have been tainted by the spoiler effect at least since the 2000 election. The number of people I encountered at the doors who said they would vote for or run as a UIP candidate “but for Ralph Nader” was surprisingly high.
One of our candidates running in an Democratic district against a Republican incumbent was met with enthusiasm but then fear that supporting her, even as a write in candidate in the UIP primary, would somehow help elect a Republican. Even though their candidate was just as much a long shot as ours. It’s pervasive.
This changes voter psychology by ranking preferences rather than making every choice a binary one between the lesser of two evils. Even in the CD4 two viable candidates dropped out to help Jesse Mermell against Jake Auchincloss. Shannon Liss Riordan dropped out to help Ed Markey against Joe Kennedy. In a democracy this shouldn’t happen, every candidate should run if they want to until Election Day without feeing pressure to consolidate before then. We saw this in the Democratic primary where the moderates dropped out and backed Biden while some Sanders supporters felt Warren not dropping out earlier arguably cost Sanders the nomination. With ranked choice voting none of those calculations matter anymore, it’s just the person a majority of voters selects wins. It eliminates tactical voting once and for all and should increase turnout and reduce negative campaigning and increase the number of competitive elections.
Like I said, I’ll bet both you and Pablo that if this passes we will have more contested elections in 2024 than we did in 2020.
I’m fairly certain both of you blames third party votes for the 2000 and 2016 losses in the electoral college. With ranked choice voting, that never happens again. That by itself should be reason enough to support it. Similarly anyone complaining about Jake Auchincloss winning with 22% of the vote, as you both have, should endorse the only mechanism to ensure any winner of a primary or general election wins a majority.
I do not, actually. I view third-party candidates and ballots with more than two choices as a normal part of a functioning democracy.
I blame a flagrantly corrupt GOP — all the way through the Supreme Court — for the outcome of the 2000 election. The Florida GOP literally stole the 2000 election, and the national party closed ranks to ensure its success.
I blame the Russians, a flagrantly corrupt GOP, racist whites and irresponsible urban minorities for the outcome of the 2016 election.
I think the James Comey letter to Congress on October 28 — literally days before the election — caused FAR more harm than Jill Stein.
Fair enough. I blame Comey a lot more then I used to, the polling data is irrefutable that he royally screwed Hillary over.
Appreciate this
“ I view third-party candidates and ballots with more than two choices as a normal part of a functioning democracy.”
Exactly! Ranked choice voting just makes sure that the final winner of that process is someone supported by a majority of voters. Over time, that could be a third party candidate if they figure out how to campaign in that system. It eliminates the spoiler effect and allows a Green candidate for example to say “vote for me first and then the Democrat second to keep out the Republicans”. Or for Bernie and Warren to say “vote for my friend and fellow senator second”. So in the long run this helps opposing candidates with shared beliefs or interests to cooperate in a campaign. Reduces negative campaigning and makes sure different coalitions and blocks of voters will be represented instead of shut out if their first choice does not place.
Two problems off the top of my head:
There absolutely is a spoiler potential in races that do end up with three or more candidates. RCV will have no impact anyway on races with only two candidates or are uncontested, but that’s no reason not to use that method where it is needed.
I have made an argument it would reduce negative campaigning which might incentivize more people to run. It’s also been proven that RCV does a better job than FPTP at producing female and minority winners. I think it reduces partisanship and acrimony in campaigns which also ensures that there are fewer sour grapes or questions of legitimacy at the end of the campaign. The results are always a winner who won a clear majority in both the primary and the general.
I support MMP’s, it is my understanding laws would have to be changed at the state and local level to have them. Then we could use PR STV to sort out the seats, as Cambridge does with its nine member city council we could do with our nine member congressional delegation. I think passing ranked choice voting now will get more voters on board with more radical reforms like that. I think preventing it’s passage sets the overall cause of reform back.
To be clear we should not criticize RCV for failing to solve problems it was not designed to solve. Bobby DeLeo is elected to the speakership by his fellow state legislators who also eliminated the term limits he was previously under. Since most folks on this site oppose term limits, I am not sure what another ballot initiative is that could fix that. RCV is not that initiative and it’s claimants never claimed it was.
“ RCV solves the problem of too many candidates running for one office, not too few.”
Yes we agree. And for the voters of the CD4 this year, CD3 in 2018, and CD5 in 2014 this is a feature not a bug. Not to mention Maine voters in 2010 and 2014 or Republican primary voters in 2016. There’s a host of examples we’ve already gone over where crowded primaries produce nominees or elected officials who won with a minority of voters. 1992 and 1996 are the classic examples for a presidential election. We can look at state level presidential results in 2000 and 2016 where third party candidates cost the Democrats the White House. You cannot simultaneously blame Ralph Nader KD Jill Stein voters for costing Democrats those elections and oppose the best reform to prevent that outcome from reoccurring.
I’ve already said above that RCV is not the first (and best) solution to increase competition in a state with so many incumbents running unopposed. And that is public financing go campaigns. But that ain’t on the ballot. RCV is. Multi-member districts (which I’m aware of) are not on the ballot. RCV is. Is it because a billionaire in TX decided what was best for Massachusetts? Partially yes, and it reflects the (beeb) system we have and why I think we have to tackle money in politics as #1 problem. But it was other reasons. Certainly trying to sell multi-member districts to voters–which is a new concept even for activists who at least have been following ME’s experiences since 2016–would be a much, much harder sell that RCV. (Which I think is a “heard” sell.)
So while I’ll agree with you that RCV won’t have the impact of some reforms, it will have an impact. And I don’t think the impact will be overwhelming. Maybe impacting a few elections a year. But overtime, and with more reforms like public financing that encourages more candidates, RCV is moving us into the right direction. It may be small, but it’s all we got. And I’m puzzled about the objections.
In other words “I like RCV because I like it”.
I find the responses from jconway and Pablo more helpful.
You seem to only want to consider perfect solutions and you want to test drive it a thousand times to make sure it is perfect.
With regards to CU, why isn’t a constitutional amendment that only grants rights to humans and gives Congress the right to regulate money in politics a good solution you won’t support? I’m assuming you are aware of this effort.
In the interim, what is wrong with stronger disclosure laws on dark money expenditures? And I still have no idea why you object to public financing of campaigns on the state and federal levels (voluntary programs with would ban/limit other contributions). But you do.
Yes, it is right to be dubious of an reform ideas, especially common sense ideas. But you seem to be setting high thresholds that are unrealistic (or vague) to meet.
I invite you to offer the text of such an amendment. I haven’t seen one yet that simultaneously protects the right of newspapers and labor unions to publish and do what they want and also imposes effective limits on corporate political spending.
The several I’ve seen each explicitly denies constitutional protections to any for-profit corporation. That shreds the First Amendment rights of every newspaper and nearly all broadcast and other media outlets (except NPR).
Taking on a line at the end that says “Nothing contained in this amendment shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press” is legal nonsense and is a great big squawking horn announcing that shredding the First Amendment is EXACTLY what the proposed text accomplishes.
The “high thresholds that are unrealistic (or vague)” that I expect for pretty much everything these days are that I expect things to WORK. I expect a wireless mouse to work until I drop and break it. I expect a phone to work until I decide to replace it. I expect a frigging solid metal hose nozzle to work forever. I expect the ballast in a florescent fixture and the tubes that it controls to last at least a decade. Each of these has proved to be “unrealistic” within the past few years.
I think it’s difficult or impossible for any ballot question that seeks to resolve a serious issue to be written in a way that is specific enough to produce good law and government if enacted. That’s why I tend to oppose ballot questions.
At least Q1 is clearly worded with clear and obvious consequences.
I’ve seen a version I think goes too far because it mandates legislation which is unprecedented. My ideal anti-CU amendment would simply state, “Nothing in this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit Congress and the several states from regulating financial contributions and expenditures intended to influence the outcome of an election.”
Are you in favor of blocking public interest groups, religious organizations, and similar entities from expressing their views in advertising?
My preference is to:
Massachusetts, like most states, already has a law that provides a good example of how this might work.
Massachusetts law requires that every employee has an absolute right to collect any wages and compensation due in exchange for work already performed. This includes accrued vacation and sick time.
The law explicitly states that if a company does not issue those pay checks, or if the checks are subsequently uncollectible for any reason, the executives, directors, and principle shareholders are immediately and personally liable for the amounts owed. In practice (at least in the early 1990s when my accountant and lawyer explained it to me while I was launching my first startup), it means that an employee whose check bounces calls a sheriff, police department, or other officer of the court. The next step of that official is to immediately impose a freeze on every bank account of the people responsible for the company.
The amount due the employees are then withdrawn from those frozen accounts. Contempt of Court and incarceration accompany those orders.
This very tough stance is why an official payroll check of any Massachusetts company can be immediately cashed at any bank (as well as a plethora of payday-loan outlets and shady lottery outlets). There is no question that the payroll check will be honored.
If executives of corporations had a similar PERSONAL exposure to liability resulting from corporate acts, many of these issues would be mooted.
I think the relevant question is why oppose the reform in front of us if we all agree the status quo is broken and unacceptable. I have yet to see an affirmative case for keeping first past the post, which is notably the system we have and would persist to have if we rejected ranked choice voting. It would seem that part of making a negative case for the change would be mourning an affirmative case for the status quo. Thus far nobody has done that.
Instead we have Pablo introducing a lot of irrelevant red herrings about a millionaire donating money to the cause, his own preferred reform being better even though it’s not on the ballot, and now irrelevant arguments about Bobby DeLeo and Citizens United.
Ranked choice will do 5 things:
1) Ensure every winner of any election has won a majority of the votes
2) Eliminate the spoiler effect
3) Increase electoral competition
4) Reduce negative campaigning
5) Increase diverse representation
Prove that any one of these five points wrong and/or argue first past the post does these things better. That’s how honest debates are won. Not on fallacies and red herrings.
This is accomplished by changing the meaning of “won a majority of the votes”.
That phrase “a majority of the votes” has always meant a simple enumeration of the results of a one-person one-vote mechanism for voting.
Adding the SECOND choice of a majority of the voters is a totally different concept.
Q2 changes the system so that the selected candidate can win with a dramatically LOWER number of first-choice votes.
We say that the current system is broken because a candidate can win with only 23% of the first-choice votes.
Suppose there are five candidates, with a first-choice distribution of 49%, 24%, 21%, 5%, and 1%.
How is an outcome where the winner has only 24% of the first-choice votes better than an outcome where the winner has 49%?
What is stop a major party from stuffing the race with three or four candidates who agree to cooperate on sending a consistent message to voters that any of three is a better second choice than any other candidate in the race? How does a new party compete against that collusion in the proposal of Q2?
I haven’t played out the games (yet). I can tell you that this approach creates and invites the opportunity to play such games.
There are “bread calculators”, “mortgage calculators”, “tax calculators” and similar things all over the web.
I’d like to see an “RCV calculator” where a community can play out “what if” scenarios with hard numbers and see the outcomes.
Maybe I’ll even code up something myself.
Sometimes a candidate who is everyone’s second choice even if nobody’s first choice IS a better reflection of the consensus of the constituency. Recall for example early in this year’s presidential primary (a lifetime ago, pre-pandemic) I believed for a time that Elizabeth Warren may end up our nominee because Biden and Sanders supporters could both be satisfied with her. In your above example say the 49%er is a centrist and all others are progressive. 51% want a progressive, but currently the centrist would win. RCV would at least allow the most popular progressive to win on the second round if the supporters of the lower ranked candidates all voted for the 24%er as their second choice. You have I believe advocated for a second election as a runoff before. This is the same thing except all in one step, Yes, it is possible that candidates start forming coalitions like we sometimes see in city council races, but I don’t have a problem with that.
Robert Winters has not only kept track of every city council election since 1940, he rans tabulations of what would happen to the count if a vacancy arises or if certain candidates drop out ahead of the race (two semi-frequent occurrences).
http://www.rwinters.com/
You’re welcome to reach out. He’s an MIT educated Harvard Math Dept. faculty member and know his stuff.
I’d also just add the 24% winner “lost” the votes of 76% of the district to another candidate. Under this proposed change the winner always has at least >50% of the vote after all the tabulations occur. The vote transfer is not a nefarious scheme, the voter has full control over where their vote goes.
So if I had ranked Yang, Warren, Bernie, Biden in the 2020 MA primary as I might have under RCV, my vote for Yang would be transferred to Warren and if she did not meet quota it would have transferred to Bernie. I know a lot of Warren voters who voted for Bernie or Biden instead since they saw she was not leading in MA prior to that primary and they felt it was an important tactical vote to block Biden or Bernie respectively. Tactical voting is the opposite of what a free vote in a democracy should feel like. It’s a constraint that limits voter choice.
Tom, you are conflating votes with preferences. The transferable ballot is a one-person, one vote system.
You are also conflating “first choice” with “winner,” when the whole project is to disentangle those things.
And your personal definition of “won a majority of votes” is both historically and psephologically wrong. The current system expressly favors a plurality, not a majority. The Mass. Constitution had to be amended to allow this, because it once did require a majority!
PS Would love to play w your computer simulation if you write it. However the transferable ballot, unlike the Borda count, is not vulnerable to the kind of manipulation that you imagine (which is sometimes called teaming or cloning). To be somewhat technical about that, IRV satisfies the Independence of Cloning Criterion.
If you are really interested in the details, you should familiarize yourself with the literature, which is extensive.
I’ve actually believed all along that if the NRA wants to come out with an ad blatantly saying vote for Jim Smith because he will defend (their interpretation of) the 2nd amendment they should be allowed, but they should do it as the NRA and not hide behind a front like Citizens for Common Sense Gun Laws. What you are asking properly falls in debate over specific legislation while a Constitutional amendment only needs to say the authority exists.
After reading your concerns and criteria, I’m reminded of the quote attributed to Sam Rayburn. “Any jackass can kick a barn down, but it takes a good carpenter to build one.”
So far as I know, this particular “barn” hasn’t yet been built.
I’ll tell you that in my nearly fifty years in high-tech, pretty much EVERY new system worked FABULOUSLY on the white-board, in powerpoints, and in work documents.
New systems that actually did what they were designed to do were much more rare.
This was in response to a comment about public financing of campaigns, a solution specifically designed to avoid those problems.
Understood. I’m just not yet drinking that kool-aid
The world is chock full of things that do not actually do what they were designed for.