In all my debates, (this expose') and interviews on my show about RCV the entire approach from proponents of RCV is that this opens the election process to more candidates, more parties, fairness. It removes the 'spoiler' affect. It removes the 'lesser of two evils' affect. In article after article in favor of this form of voting the claims are made that this is better for our 'democracy'. Fairvote.org and VoterChoice Mass publish examples of everyone jumping on board to this shell game. This movement has managed to convince Libertarians, even Tea Party Advocates that their candidates and votes will somehow change things for them.
It won't.
RCV will not solve the issue of low numbers of voters who show up for these third parties. But third parties are told that their voters now have a 'choice'. The voters can vote for you in the first rank but then vote again..err..Rank in the second/third choice some one you might be happy with. Essentially, your (third party) voters are asked to compromise their political position.
What makes our Republic strong IS the ability of any one from any party to run for any office. Meritocracy determines who rises to the top, not a muti tiered voting system where we elect a third party candidate simply because voters voted..(sorry).. Ranked 2 or 3 times to allow the second place loser to become the eventual first place winner. Imagine how that candidate must feel?...
" Oh yeah, I won by voters choosing me second or third.."
Imagine how the first place winner must feel? That candidate won the majority of votes from voters who bothered to show up in November. But he/she did not get the magical 51% according to RCV. No candidate in a multi candidate race wins 51% unless they run one hell of a campaign.
And so should it be!
The advent of RCV is much like the calls for a $15/hr minimum wage during economic downturns. When things are going against a segment of society that segment demands a change. Since 2010 over 1400 seats across the country have turned red. Trump won in 2016. Robert Reich and many 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates have called for a change to our election system. They are losing, so, demand a change. Change the system. Not, win on the merits of your ideas. Just adopt a new system where they win... Always.
I was challenged a few weeks back at a Tea Party event about RCV. I mentioned how RCV is a '..Democrat's dream come true..' It was mentioned why then California hasn't adopted RCV?
Well, it doesn't need to. California is already a Democrat hegemony, although San Fran does use RCV in it's Mayoral elections. But you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as California becomes a 'swing' state RCV will rear it's ugly head to convince voters (with help from Smart Campaigns, Arnold and Soros) to adopt a more 'fair' and 'open' system of voting.
Alaska is a perfect example.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/04/13/ranked-choice_voting__super_saturday_in_alaska_hawaii.html
"...RCV holds the potential to re-create our politics. Suppose you like Cory Booker, are intrigued by Pete Buttigeig and Kamala Harris, would settle for Joe Biden, and oppose Sanders. Do you cast your ballot for Booker even if the real battle seems between Harris and Sanders? With RCV, you could back Booker first, Mayor Pete second, Harris third and Biden fourth. If your top choices fall short of earning delegates, your vote isn’t wasted..."
Wait a second.. "oppose Sanders"? I thought my premise was wrong that voting for a candidate is a vote against a candidate? And, of course your vote isn't wasted. Even though your candidate lost RCV will 'harvest' your second, third, fourth vote..err.. Ranking..
And notice the language here; "..settle for...". Kenneth Arrow's Theorem is displayed here in this article. You ARE voting from best to worst.
Oh, it gets better!
The fractured primary field helps explain other expected uses of RCV. Democrats require early voting in caucus states, and those early voters will likely cast RCV ballots in two of the first three contests: Nevada and Iowa. RCV ensures more people can participate by voting early without losing the power that caucus attendees have to move to their second choice if their first choice can’t win delegates.
Vote 'early' so your vote can be 'harvested'. The "..expected uses of RCV.."
Equal Citizens is leading a campaign to bring RCV to the New Hampshire primary.
Here's another PAC that RCV doesn't tell you about. Equal Citizens..
https://equalcitizens.us/
Yep.. That guy.. Lawrence Lessig. Where have we heard that name before?
Lessig is the guy who advocates for an Article V to amend the Constitution so he (and others) can re-write it. He is also a staunch opponent of Citizens United. Basically he believes corporations ARE NOT people and therefore have no voting rights. But he is all in favor of taxing them at the maximum amount. I covered this years ago in blogs and on my podcast... Anyways..
"... In a democracy, all votes should count equally. In our democracy, when voting for the president, they do not. Because of the winner-take-all allocation of electoral votes, if you don’t vote for the candidate who wins your state, your vote counts for nothing. That violates the Constitution’s "one person, one vote" principle...."
Sorry Larry, it doesn't. Winner takes all means people voted for a winner! If you voted for the loser then you lost. Doesn't mean your vote '.. counts for nothing..' In fact many campaigns have been eventually won by candidates trying again.. And again. Nor does this violate the "one man, one vote" concept. Did you NOT vote? Are we to understand that if only your candidate wins then your vote counted? Also Larry, at no point, anywhere does the Constitution mention anything about a right to vote.
.... Oh, and Larry? America IS NOT a Democracy..
Harvard.. Go figure..
See, it is shit like this that assures me I am on the right path opposing Rank Choice Voting. This thing stinks! And everyone who backs it is a shill for it or a shill for their party and they have ZERO understanding of our electoral system or our system of government. They also depend on a dumb society to pass this Trogan Horse off to!
From the site above:
The ability to vote for a candidate who can represent you best is an essential part of a democracy. Yet, because of the two-party system in America, third party candidates are too often "spoilers," not choices. Voters who favor a third-party candidate face a dilemma: vote for the candidates they prefer, but help elect the candidate they like the least, or vote for the "lesser of two evils".
This is a wholly unnecessary problem for a 21st century democracy.
Equal Citizens is gearing up to launch a campaign to adopt ranked choice voting for the New Hampshire presidential primaries and for the presidential general election in battleground states.
There we go again with that 'spoiler' construct. At no point anywhere does RCV explain HOW third parties will see the day when they are represented in this 'open' and 'more fair' system of voting. All I have discovered in my research is that they are used for their second and third votes... err.. Rankings.. (I keep doing that!)
The only thing Lessig gets right here is in the first sentence:
"..The ability to vote for a candidate who can represent you best..."
Thank you Larry for inadvertanly supporting Arrow's Theorem.
We have a system that allows everyone to be a candidate for office. The Primaries weed out the candidates who just couldn't get the votes. There are no nefarious obstacles in the way. It all depends on your message and ability to get voters to the ballots stations. However, the idea that somehow spoilers or voting for the lesser of two evils is what is wrong with our elections is a ruse. These are constructs invented so you think this way.
Everywhere RCV is promoted and/or adopted is to change the system of voting where people can vote multiple times for multiple candidates convincing people they are given better choices. They are not. It uses parties. It uses voters. It manufactures a winner.
It ensures a Democrat hegemony. It is a Trogan Horse.
....And That Is The Diatribe....
No comments:
Post a Comment