Ranked voting

I would like to address the flawed assumptions in your Tuesday editorial against ranked-choice voting.

First, you claim that it would be “confusing to many voters.” The article lays out pretty clearly the process, so it’s not confusing at all. Further, the editorial claims that voters will be “disenfranchised” if they vote for one candidate and then that candidate is eliminated. That already is the case (see: primaries). Our two-party system already “disenfranchises” voters. How many of us vote for the “lesser-of-two-evils” candidate?

It may take some time to educate voters, but that’s OK if it allows us to break away from this wretched two-party system, in which both parties put forth horrible candidates.

This approach would not “discourage” turnout. It would increase it. How many people did not want either candidate in the past two presidential elections, for example? In ranked voting, one has an option to “rank” the candidates and not waste one’s vote.

Ranked-choice voting would allow voters to select the candidate who they really want and not feel as though they are “throwing their vote away” on the “lesser-of-two-evils” candidate. And I noticed the editorial fails to mention the “none-of-these-candidates” option. How does that help the process? People just throwing away their votes.

The current political system is a failure because it does not allow a range of different candidates a legitimate shot at being elected. It’s time to break the two-party system — or at least fracture it. Rankedchoice voting could help bring this about by allowing voters to cast a vote for the person they want. The one who will impact their lives. Ron Peltier

Las Vegas