Ranked choice voting is no way to pick a candidate

So apparently seven individuals or their foundations have donated $4.25 million of the $5.6 million raised by “Yes on 2” to help the rest of us reach consensus and “take big, corrupt money out of politics.” Really?

Bear in mind that this initiative is essentially unopposed. Seems like quite a lot of money to spend on such a self-explanatory idea.

Call me naïve, but redistributing ballots by ranked choice seems to give certain voters two or more votes.

If their first vote is for a last place finisher, it is reassigned to the voter’s next choice – a do-over.

Fairness requires one vote per voter, not one election per voter.

Consider this: In 1992, Bill Clinton received 43% of the votes, George Bush 37% and Ross Perot, 19%.

It’s quite likely Perot voters preferred Bush to Clinton, so that if a ranked choice scenario were applicable Bush would have been re-elected. (Presidential elections are not covered by this initiative, but Congressional elections are.) Changing our voting system is no small thing!

In addition, ranked choice requires computer technology to implement an accurate vote count in multiple rounds within an acceptable amount of time. Given our concerns regarding hacking, is this the time to be increasing the vulnerability of our voting systems to outside interference? And what does this system offer much in the way of immediate transparency? How long do we have to wait for the “black box” to tell us who won? What happens if there is a “bug,” a “glitch?” What is the integrity of this system?

— Nathan Zielonka

Roslindale