"..freedom might be for the time destroyed by a single unfairly obtained popular vote.." John Stuart Mill
The origins of RCV date as far back as the 1850's in Europe but it is hard to pin point exactly where and when it was birthed and where the first form of an RCV election was held. This came at a time when the shackles of Monarchy were being dissolved and Parliaments gained significant power. The only problem was that the average citizen was still locked out of the process. Landlords, aristocrats, business owners, the bourgeois were the core contituency of the time. A head to head competition that includes the rank and file would destroy that control. This is what made the American system so unique. The 'people' could directly elect those representatives that closely related to the country's particular regions and population.
Fairvote.org /Krist Novoselic
In the early 1860's, the influential English thinker and member of Parliament John Stuart Mill found a way to accommodate majority rule while still give the minority a voice. He came across English barrister Thomas Hare’s pamphlet "On The Election Of Representatives, Parliamentary and Municipal."
https://www.fairvote.org/a-brief-history-of-ranked-choice-voting
John Stuart Mill insisted on two core principles for better government. 1; The full participation of citizens concerning voting. 2; Competent and enlightened candidates. We have neither today and RCV will do little change that.
Mill wrote in his book Considerations on Representative Government: "... Those who say that suffrage is not a trust but a right will scarcely accept the conclusions to which their doctrine leads. If it is a right, if it belongs to the voter on what grounds can we blame him for selling it (his vote), or using it to recommend himself to any one whom it is his interest to please.."
At what point do we sanction a voting system where our votes are 'sold' or (in this case) 'ranked'?
In Chapter 10 Mill explains in detail this very problem of aristocracy working hand in hand to solidify power. They devised a system where votes could essentially be horse traded to ensure that only the "proper people" gained their rightful seats.
''...the higher and richer classes were in complete possession of the government. Their power was the master grievance of the country. The habit of voting at the bidding of an employer or of a landlord was so firmly established that hardly any thing was capable of shaking it.."
http://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/wp-content/uploads/John-Stuart-Mill-Considerations-on-Representative-Government.pdf
Many voting rights activist groups insist that voting IS a right. Thus the term 'voting rights'. But it is not. No where is it codified in the Constitution that voting is a 'right'. Even the 19th Amendment simply expands legal suffrage to women where it once did not exist. Mill argues that voting is a trust between the people and those who they choose to represent them.
In plurality voting a stable system of government is obtained. Each side has a strong opposition. Coalitions are lauded over but are very weak institutions. Essentially nothing gets done because no one party has an upper hand in either chamber. There is always opposition to whatever idea is presented and it is very easy for a 35% minority to dissolve the coalition. Italy has had 65 'coalition' governments for the past 70 years because of this very problem. And the problem is exacerbated if voter turnout is dismal. Who actually is represented by that 35% which dissolves the coalition if only half the eligible voters voted?
Proponents of RCV will cite Mill as a supporter but I disagree.
Mill states; "....But does it follow that the minority should have no representatives at all? ... Is it necessary that the minority should not even be heard?... Unless they are, there is not equal government ... there is a part whose fair and equal share of influence in the representation is withheld from them, contrary to all just government, but, above all, contrary to the principle of democracy, which professes equality as its very root and foundation..."
The only problem with a two party system is what we are seeing today. A take over of one by extremists as is the case with the Democrat Party. Our current election system assures a short tenure for a representative should that person turn rogue. But if America adopts any form of proportional, single transferable, apportioned or rank choice then it is highly conceivable for a one party hegemony. The 12 US cities that use RCV are all Democrat controlled and show no signs of changing. The Republican reps in those cities are tiny in number (if they exist at all) and have little chance of gaining any more seats. Couple that with blue states experiencing a net loss of population it is a fair bet that those people moving out ARE registered Republicans.
Mill goes on to state; "...The majority of the people, through their representatives, will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives..."
Fairvote.org's Krist Novoselic has Mill mistaken. Mill wasn't trying to find a way to give the minority fair representation he was warning us of popular voting systems.
Duverger's Law
In the 1950's French Sociologist Maurice Duverger theorized that plurality voting in districts that hold seats between two opposing candidates essentially leads to one or the other winning by a simple model of who runs the best campaign.
Simple. Right? Not exactly.
Duverger explains how this system discourages third parties. Not by a doctrine that denies them a seat at the table but because there simply aren't enough voters to support these third parties. They simply don't have the numbers. It does not mean that these parties do not sway an election and it certainly does not imply these third parties have no right to put up a candidate. American history is repleat with third parties and in rare cases winning seats. This is a healthy thing.
A great example is Ross Perot in 1992. Although he won zero Electoral Votes he still garnered 19% of the popular vote.
This was a historical election. Historic for a couple reasons. 1; Ross Perot and 2; One of the lowest voter turnouts in Presidential Elections. Clinton garnered only a couple dozen million popular votes.
"...The second unique problem is both statistical and tactical. Duverger suggested an election in which 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters are voting for a single official. If two moderate parties ran candidates and one radical candidate were to run, the radical candidate would win unless one of the moderate candidates gathered fewer than 20,000 votes. Observing this, moderate voters would be more likely to vote for the candidate most likely to gain more votes, with the goal of defeating the radical candidate. Either the two parties must merge, or one moderate party must fail, as the voters gravitate to the two strong parties, a trend Duverger called polarization..."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
And polarization is the catchphrase of Rank Choice Voting Advocates.
"...A sharp increase in partisan rigidity in Americans’ voting patterns has led to less competitive state and national elections and more predictable outcomes based on which party is in the majority. Fewer legislators fear losing in general elections, and fewer still can win in the other party’s "turf.".."
https://www.fairvote.org/polarization#polarization_key_facts
Supposedly polarization has led to party hegemony with incumbents having no fear of losing seats. Some even run unopposed election year after election year. RCV claims to open up this process and creates an ".. elevated tone and civility that RCV rewards and recognition that voters can like more than one candidate." David Daly, Senior Fellow at Fiarvote.org
12 Cities in US Use 'Ranked-Choice Voting' | Newsmax.com
Oh does it? Then, can someone explain Cambridge Massachusetts and why for decades the city has only elected Democrats?
"... Fairvote is exploring how RCV might reduce legislative polarization by allowing space for moderate, conservative, liberal and other voters to elect candidates in proportion to their overall numbers in the electorate. Evidence in Cambridge Mass which uses multi winner RCV indicates that candidates and city councilors are not highly polarized there.."
https://www.fairvote.org/polarization_under_rcv_in_cambridge
You see it's all perfectly democratic as long as every one is on the winning side. I wonder how "proportional" the representation is in Cambridge for the handfull of Conservatives that live there? Fairvote contradicts itself on it's own website. It decries partisan hegemony and polarization then extolls the virtues of RCV in a city that has party hegemony!
"...If we truly want competitive choice, elections where the participation of all voters matters, we need to establish a national popular vote for president and some methods of proportional voting for legislative elections..." Paul Fidalgo 2007
https://www.fairvote.org/growing-polarization-the-roots-of-an-increasing-lack-of-competition-in-federal-elections
How does establishing a popular vote help the participation of voters? Every adult in Wyoming, Nebraska and Montana combined can vote Republican all they want and it won't make any difference because Democrat hegemony LA outnumbers them 10-1.
Talk about polarization!
And as Mill stated above the minority will always be represented by the minority never having any chance of a truly fair and proportional representation.
....And That Is The Diatribe....
