Ranked Choice Voting (RCV): The Promises and Realities

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), also known as Instant Runoff Voting, is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference. Suppose no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes. In that case, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their voices are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on the next preference on each ballot. This process continues until a candidate receives a majority. While RCV has been praised in the mainstream, it also has troubling consequences. 

What RCV Promises

The idea of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is that the winner is backed by most voters, leading to decisions that more people agree on. Instead of focusing on real issues, candidates must adopt a broad-scope agenda to help them appeal to a broader range of voters, which doesn’t really showcase the candidate’s true ideals, ethics or ability to problem-solve. RCV also claims to stop third-party candidates from ruining the chances of popular candidates. It claims to save money by avoiding extra runoff elections, which might result in more drawn-out lawsuits. 

What RCV Actually Brings

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) can confuse voters since they must rank candidates instead of just picking one. If voters don’t rank all candidates and their top choices are out, their vote might not count in the final results. Switching to RCV can be expensive and take time because of the need for new equipment and voter training. Also, some voters might game the system by ranking less popular candidates higher to help their favorite candidate.

The Ugly

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is new to many, so people might get the wrong idea about it or be misled by false information, leading to mistrust. Sometimes, RCV can result in unexpected winners, like a candidate who’s everyone’s second choice. Also, there might be legal issues when introducing RCV, including debates about whether it’s allowed by the law or disagreements over election results.

Ranked Choice Voting brings new challenges, including voter confusion, implementation hurdles, and the potential for unexpected outcomes. As with any electoral reform, the drawbacks of RCV should be carefully considered before adoption.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) can have distinct implications for rural and underrepresented populations. Its effects on these groups can be negative, depending on various factors such as voter education, ballot accessibility, and the specific political dynamics of a region.

Potential Negative Effects in Our Areas

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) can be tricky, especially in rural areas with less voter outreach. This can lead to more mistakes on ballots. If rural or minority voters don’t rank all candidates and their top choices are out, their votes might not count. Introducing RCV could also mean needing new voting machines. If these aren’t given to all areas equally, rural places might face longer voting lines or other issues. There’s also a worry that if political experts think rural or minority groups don’t get RCV, they might only focus on cities or bigger groups, leaving the smaller ones out.

The impact of Ranked Choice Voting on rural and underrepresented populations is multifaceted. There are new battles to consider, primarily regarding voter outreach, education, and accessibility. 

The Native Americans for Sovereignty and Preservation (NASP) do not support Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). RCV is confusing and might discourage people from voting. NASP wants to make sure elections are transparent, fair, and honest. We suggest changes like showing a photo ID to vote, limiting absentee ballots, and using safe voting machines. We also want to make sure voter lists are up-to-date, and that election information is accurate.

Help NASP ensure our elections are trustworthy and straightforward. Say no to Ranked Choice Voting and support changes that make voting clear and secure. Let’s work together for fair elections!