“but Mister, how can you be upset at a debate since democracy is how we kept the peace in my country”. My newly arrived student from Bosnia checking my American privilege, but also leaving us with a warning. Clausewitz said war is politics by other means, but I worry too often we got it flipped in this country and politics has become war by other means. I worry we are losing a common set of facts, a shared sense of purpose, and a unifying narrative of what it means to be an American. Party line votes are now the norm and not the exception. The candidates appeal to their party base and not the independent majority of American voters. We are experiencing minority rule through the courts, through the Senate, and through the Electoral College. The solutions to these problems go beyond electing one candidate or one party, they require a wholesale revision and modernization of American democracy. It will take all hands on deck.
Voting Yes on 2 this November is one way to avoid this Balkanization by ensuring every candidate is elected by a majority and every choice matters without a spoiler. It will make our politics civil again by rewarding candidates who cooperate instead of divide. I urge every voter to support it. It’s not the only solution, but its a start, and we have to start somewhere soon.
I plan on voting yes on 2, but I do have a question/concern arising from my experience as a poll clerk in Lowell. Many non-native speakers had trouble with the concept of voting for just one candidate in each race. How will we communicate the instructions for them and avoid even more spoiled ballots?
“Many non-native speakers had trouble with the concept of voting for just one candidate in each race. “
Doesn’t allowing them to vote for more than one candidate in each race actually solve that problem? Perhaps they are coming from countries that have systems closer to RCV than first past the post, which is largely a method of voting in the global Anglophone and not in Francophonic, Linophonic, or Hispanic countries which tend to have proportional representation or runoff elections?
I’m afraid they will try to vote for more than one first, second choice, etc.
Gotcha. That’s valid.
Hey Christopher, good question. The ballots will continue to be printed in all languages that they are printed in today, and the terms “first choice,” “second choice,” etc are easily translatable. There are instructional videos about RCV available in most every language, and the initiative calls on Secretary Galvin to provide additional voter education.
Spoiled ballots rates are as low in RCV elections as they are in plurality elections, with no increase in racial/ethnic disparities. The voting machine will continue to catch overvotes as they do today, and even if the voter decides not to revote, the ballot is automatically interpreted in a lenient way (e.g. if they vote for candidate A first, candidate B second, but overvote in the third rank, that’s treated as if they voted for A then B then left the rest blank).
I hope that helps!
The current ballots I’m pretty sure say clearly “vote for one” in English, Spanish, and Khmer, at least in Lowell.
Wouldn’t they be changed post-RCV though? I can see explaining it via translation being a valid area I’d concern. Not enough to vote it down for me, but enough to convince me to also pressure Galvin and the clerks to make sure this is done properly.
Yes, my point is “vote for one” is about as simple as an instruction can get, and it IS translated, yet people still find a way to botch it. RCV is a bit more complicated to explain since it takes extra steps. I still support it, but my experience as poll clerk roused my inner teacher who wanted to say, “Just follow directions, darn it!”
Just a note. Towards the end of the primary, a growing number of voters seemed to be “Anybody but Auchincloss.” A majority, even.
The question of which candidate to vote for to ensure that Auchincloss lost was several orders of magnitude harder than ranking preferences for a transferable ballot. (And, they “botched” it.)
I’m a big Q2 fan, and the point about how RCV rewards unifying candidates is well taken. I’m all for that too.
But this is way overselling.
Q2 will take effect in 2022. In Massachusetts. Similar reforms in other states are speculative and won’t be realized for much longer. Not “soon.”
The house is on fire NOW.
Again, I am saying it is just a start. Might as well start here.
Let’s challenge some statements.
Given that Massachusetts elections are generally decided in the Democratic primary, Question 2 won’t address this problem (if it is a problem). I suspect the majority of Massachusetts voters are Democrats or Democratic leaning.
Massachusetts judges are not elected, and Question 2 will do nothing to address Mitch McConnell’s tampering with the federal courts. It won’t eliminate the Electoral College.
Whatever the solutions may be, they have nothing to do with enacting Ranked Choice Voting in Massachusetts.
Fun fact. In 2018, there were 276 races on the November ballot. Only one race had a winner with less than 50% of the vote. That race was for the 19th Middlesex State Representative seat in Tewksbury and Wilmington. Here are the results:
David Allen Robertson (D) 9,153 (48.2%)
Pina Prinzivalli (R) 8,247 (43.4%)
Patricia W. M. Meuse (Unenrolled) 1,569 (8.3%)
171 out of 276 races on the 2018 ballot (62%) were uncontested.
If you don’t believe me, here’s the data:
https://electionstats.state.ma.us/elections/search/year_from:2018/year_to:2018/stage:General
Again this is NOT about the uncontested races; it’s for the ones that ARE very contested. Primaries can also be done this way. It could increase competition by making third parties more palatable. Nobody said the courts were elected or that it would eliminate the EC, but I know a few states in 2016 where the vote for Stein exceeded the Clinton-Trump difference.
Too bad we don’t know how many of those third-party votes were from first-time voters.
The comparison of the Jill Stein vote to the difference between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump only matters if we assume that the Jill Stein voters would voted for either Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton had Ms. Stein not been in the race.
Given the campaign run by all three candidates, I’m not sure how many Jill Stein voters would have chosen either front-runner as their second choice even if they had had the option.
I hope that we get more and better candidates in our elections if Q2 passes. I fear that the problem is much bigger than the proposed solution.
We would know for sure under ranked choice voting. Why not give the voters the option and see if they go for it rather than shame them for selecting first choices we disagree with? Under a ranked choice campaign, Hillary and Stein have a greater incentive to cooperate together for the center left anti Trump vote rather than attack one another.
Similarly, Sanders could have explicitly run in the general urging his supporters to rank Hillary second and that could have changed the dynamics of the campaign instead of having their supporters attack each other. Same with Bernie and Warren in this primary.
Compare the debate from the other night and the debates in 2016 and 2020 primaries to this lovely ad from Maine Democrats working together to appeal to one anothers supporters. Imagine this across the country and you see the Balkanization polarization causes start to dissipate.
https://stateandcapitol.bdnblogs.com/2018/05/23/how-ranked-choice-voting-is-changing-maine-campaign-strategy/
The outcomes you describe are certainly present. The point remains that there are others that you remain silent about.
You don’t know that those Jill Stein voters would have even turned out in an RCV system. You don’t know that Jill Stein WANTED to cooperate with Hillary Clinton or vice-versa.
It isn’t at all clear to me that Bernie Sanders would have urged his supporters to rank Ms. Clinton second. That kind of coalition building has never been part of his schtick. At least some have argued that Donald Trump was the second choice of a great many of Mr. Sander’s supporters. There is some evidence that many Republicans pulled ballots in Democratic primaries in order to vote for Mr. Sanders rather than Ms. Clinton because they thought he’d be easier to beat in the general.
One more time: Donald Trump is our president because:
I don’t think RCV is going to change the underlying systemic issues that produced these symptoms. I think it’s more likely that those underlying systemic issues in our culture will cause a change like RCV to be used to further advance their deplorable attitudes.
That’s what I meant by my “deck chairs” comment.
Too many American voters are racist, sexist, ignorant, and violent. RCV is not going change that.
I did not argue it solves those problems, I have merely pointed out that while Pablo says there are no problems with first past the post they are in fact several local and national elections we can point to where the winner won without a majority of voters, where third parties played a spoiler role, and where extremely divisive won primaries appealing to their narrow base instead of a broader electorate.
I do not doubt there are racist and sexist voters but I also believe they are a minority of the electorate, a minority that is overrepresented in our system that rewards plurality victors and has many unrepresentative features. Ranked choice voting solves one of those issues, and lays a foundation to solve the others.
I don’t share your optimism about American voters today, and perhaps that’s an underlying reason for the dissonance between us about this.
I agree with you that RCV will make our candidates more closely reflect the attitudes and demographics of the electorate. You are optimistic that this will, in turn, produce more progressive candidates. I think it’s likely to instead produce candidates that are less progressive.
I’m reminded of a lie that has been a mainstay of US propaganda about the Middle East — the lie is that we seek to expand “democracy” in the region.
The truth is that we’ve used our substantial economic, diplomatic, military, and political resources to keep corrupt monarchs and tyrants in power. We do that because we know that two steps will immediately follow genuine representative democracy anywhere in the Middle East:
Even here in MA, I suspect that after RCV becomes law we will see a right-ward turn of our candidates before we’ll see stronger progressives.
I think we’re in a culture war, and I think we’re losing. I think politics follows, rather than leads, culture. I also think there’s going to be bloodshed, perhaps even here in MA.
I hope I’m mistaken about all this.
There’s Paul LePage to consider. He was a racist xenophobic right wing nutjob who won two plurality elections. His successor and endorsed candidate for Congress lost when a majority of voters had all their choices heard and counted. It turns out there was an anti-LePage majority, just as there is an anti-Trump majority in the US.
With all due respect, it is our political system that elevates the 40% who supported Trump over the 60% who opposed him in both the primary and the general election. He has never won an election with a majority of voters voting for him. Anti-majoritarian institutions like the electoral college, the Senate, and plurality voting elected him and keep him in power. Ranked choice voting is just one way to fight back and let the majority rule again, but it’s the only way on the ballot in November.
Paul LePage did not run in Massachusetts. He ran in Maine.
Maine has a track record of splitting moderate & progressive votes between a Democrat and an independent vote. Eliot Cutler placed second in 2010, and third behind Democrat Mike Michaud in 2014.
And Massachusetts has a track record of splitting the moderate and progressive vote within the Democratic primary. This solves for that. It also helps make our one party state into more of a multiparty democracy like Maine. I think that’s good. I also think it’s just the right thing to do and is an example we can set for the country to keep this ball rolling. Since I ultimately think every election in every state should use ranked choice, I support it in my own state. I do not see what that’s an issue.
Also didn’t you say and predict it would not work in Maine? Now you are defending it in Maine and opposing it here. Seems like every day you have a different reason to oppose this reform that contradicts one from before.
No, I don’t recall saying it wouldn’t work in Maine. I did discuss how long it took to tabulate ballots.
Which beyond the desire for instant gratification on election night (and don’t get me wrong – I like a good election night party as much as the next guy), that’s not a reason to oppose it.
We agree. Question 2 is not about uncontested races. It is a solution in search of a problem, and the problem is this solution doesn’t address the biggest problem facing Massachusetts voters. It’s like taking antibiotics for a sprained ankle.
Tell that to the voters of the CD4, CD3, and CD5. You have yet to refute this.
Let’s go back in time.
In 2016, NO Massachusetts candidate was elected with less than 50% of the vote.
159 out of 236 races (67.3%) were uncontested.
2014 three candidates were elected with less than 50% of the vote
140 out of 254 races (55.1%) were uncontested.
2012 three candidates were elected with less than 50% of the vote.
167 out of 261 races (64.0%) were uncontested.
2010 five candidates were elected with less than 50% of the vote.
102 out of 249 races (41.0%) were uncontested.
Looking ahead, in 2020, 160 of 218 races (73.4%) will be uncontested.
TOTAL:
In the past decade (2010-2018), twelve candidates were elected with less than 50% of the vote. 738 out of 1274 races (57.9%) were uncontested.
Massachusetts has a problem with a plethora of uncontested elections. There were 12 general elections in which the winner received less than 50% of the vote. 738 races were uncontested. Ranked Choice is the wrong choice for Massachusetts.
I think the deck chairs looked very nice after they were painted. Too bad about the iceberg.
So our democracy is in danger and we should reject the only reform on the ballot we can vote on this cycle? That makes zeros sense. Voting no on 2 ensures more Donald Trumps get elected with a minority of the vote. Voting Yes on 2 is a vote for forward progress to fix our broken election systems. Trump would have lost a ranked choice primary since he won the GOP nomination with only 40% of the vote. Extremist candidates like Trump benefit from a first past the post system that allows them to capture a plurality victory of a major party primary and then exploit our two party system and the polarization it causes to consolidate the vote.
Lee Drutman has a whole book and recent podcast with Ezra Klein, another polarization expert, on how RCV and other reforms will fix this process. Notice I said other reforms. This is not a silver bullet, but its the first round of what I hope is a continuous reform of our election system including public finance, term limits, and killing the electoral college and anti-majoritarian rules like the filibuster and lifetime appointments to the supreme court.
Pablo is being intellectually dishonest in his attacks. He wants the Mass Democratic Party to continue to have a one party monopoly which is why he prefers a jungle primary, which has far more problems than Ranked Choice Voting. Now Californians are pushing for RCV as Reform 2.0. Why make the same mistake they did and just skip that step this November and pass the reform they wish they had passed first? He has yet to mount a defense of the status quo, which is neither his preferred reform or mine.
Here are some questions for pablo:
Why is first past the post fair?
Why is a winner of an election with less than 50% of the vote more legitimate than a winner with greater than 50% of the vote?
Why is encouraging more multicandidate elections and more competitive elections bad for democracy?
Why is preserving the spoiler effect good for democracy?
Why is a system that Bill Galvin is ready to implement, that has already worked for 70 years in some Massachusetts municipalities not going to work?
Why is a Franklin election under first past the post proof that ranked choice election will not work?
These are all warrants that have yet to be refuted by evidence. Pablo is a much smarter, kinder, and better person than Donald Trump by leaps and bounds but they are awfully similar at throwing irrelevant information in debates to distract you from the actual questions at hand. Like Burisma and antifa and vote fraud, millionaires and Franklin have nothing to do with whether or not ranked choice voting is a fairer system than first past the post. Jungle primaries are not on the ballot in Massachusetts and are irrelevant to this debate. Happy to debate why they suck on a different forum, and if he spent any of the time and energy pushing his reform and knocking on doors like we did to get the signatures maybe his reform would be on the ballot too.
Yes lets. CD$ last month, CD3 in 2018, CD5 in 2014, 2014 MA Dem gubernatorial primary, and 2010 MA Gubernatorial election. All winners who won with less than 50% of the vote. My races are major races, you are cherry picking the least contested races to highlight.
Also any races that are uncontested is a point for my side. RCV is statistically proven to increase competitive races.
Link: (notice how Pablo never has any)
It increases competition, civility, and turnout. Links to peer review studies. Where are yours?
Thanks for the link. There’s nothing here about enacting Ranked Choice Voting in a state with a plethora of uncontested elections. Next time, you might supply a peer reviewed study that addresses the situation we are facing in Massachusetts.
Meanwhile, here’s a Massachusetts link from a Massachusetts professor about the evil of big money funding ballot questions.
http://www.masspoliticsprofs.org/2020/08/17/one-of-mapolis-biggest-influencers-is-john-arnold-of-texas/
How many out of state millionaires are funding the Mass Fiscal Alliance which is supporting your side of this debate? Focus on the issues. This is as relevant to this debate as Burisma and Hunter Biden were to Tuesday’s.
Would Question 2 be on the ballot if John Arnold didn’t spend $3,038,850 on it? If that money didn’t pay $274,356.81 to collect 111,268 certified signatures
Yes! It has hundreds of thousands of surplus signatures! It’s been a four year grassroots campaign I’m proud to be a part of endorsed by politicians from across the political spectrum and staffed by awesome volunteers. That’s chump change compared to the overall money the campaign raised from small donors and the overall signatures it collected during a pandemic. So again, your harping on this since you have no other leg to stand on.
It’s also proof your reform, which is not on the ballot because it lacks the popular support of ranked choice voting, does not work and the people backing it now want ranked choice voting in California instead. Unlike you, I think we can learn from what other states do well and what they do not do well and adapt it to our state. Our state does not exist in a vacuum, it’s part of a very divided country that this reform can help heal.
Lack of support of lack of a billionaire with $3 million to spare?
So start circulating the petition to get your preferred reform on the 2022 ballot, but that would not be mutually exclusive to RCV. Why is this so stuck in your craw? Do you have reason to believe RCV will do something negative?
Pablo we’ve been around and around on this…yes it is not the most powerful reform, but it is the reform on the ballot. It will have positive outcomes…maybe not has positive as others, but they are not on the ballot.
So give me one reason why to vote no, other than it doesn’t do as much reform as you would like?
All I’m hearing from you is that it’s not a cure all, that you don’t like how it was funded (neither do I). But I’m not hearing any reasons why RCV is bad.
“Given that Massachusetts elections are generally decided in the Democratic primary, ”
a) The last three open congressional primaries were won by nominees who garnered less than 25% of the vote. One went to a recount. So this is a patently false statement. The winner of the 2014 gubernatorial primary had less than 50% of the vote. So was the winner of the 2010 gubernatorial general election. I’ve stated these facts many times before and you have never addressed them so they hold for my side until you do.
b) RCV will also help make sure that they are NOT just decided in the Democratic primary but that we have more viable choices in the general election. As I’ve stated elsewhere in this argument, again without refutation from you, the third party spoiler effect creates a negative feedback loop damaging the viability of third party candidates even in two person races. In a ranked choice system we will have more non-partisan candidates contesting elections and a viable multiparty democracy.
c) All your counter arguments are parochial and MA specific. This system helped Democratic candidates win despite the presence of non partisan and third party candidates in Maine. A variation of this system has helped elect Green party candidates to local office in Cambridge. This system has helped elect more diverse candidates in the Twin Cities and other municipalities where it has been enacted. More women too. It also helps end partisan divisions by ensuring the candidate the majority of the voters want is elected. It restores civility and legitimacy that is missing from the present process. We can be an example for the country as Maine is, and even if you do not find the need for this system to be that great for Massachusetts, it is desperately needed nationwide and we might as well lead by example here.
None of these main arguments or the examples and evidence I provide have been refuted, like Trump looking for missing ballots in West Virginia you’re just shouting ‘what about Franklin?’, like Trump you shout about out of state millionaires like he shouts about antifa. This is not how honest debates work. Your strawmen have the effect of proving our point instead of yours. That the status quo is not working and needs to be reformed.
This is turning to the thread of irrelevancies so I guess I’ll join in. Something has been eating all the tomato plants in my garden. Why the hell, Conway, are we pushing this ranked choice voting stuff when it doesn’t do anything for my tomato plants?
Second, I have to agree with Pablo. RCV will have no effect on elections that have taken place in previous years. Why this guy from Texas didn’t include a time machine with his ballot question is something I’ll never know.
Maybe, if we institute RCV future elections will be different from past elections. Maybe third party candidates and independents will have a better chance to make a positive impact when they are not automatically viewed as spoilers for the other side.
If that’s all it does. it’s good enough for me.
Maybe if you plant cucumbers, you wouldn’t have so many tomatoes.
Cucumber in October. Thanks a lot.
Glad to help.
Well, yeah. This is a Massachusetts ballot question. We’re not being asked to apply Ranked Choice to Texas.
We’re also not being asked about jungle primaries so maybe focus on first past the post or ranked choice voting?
Also if it passes here it’ll pass elsewhere and then maybe all 50 states have this.