State needs ranked-choice voting system

Whom did Nelson “Oz” Griebel hurt most with his minor-party candidacy for governor in 2018 when he drew nearly 4 percent of the vote — Democrat Ned Lamont or Republican Bob Stefanowski?

It’s hard to tell. Griebel, a smart and decent guy, often seemed better informed and more articulate than his major-party rivals. He had been a Hartford-area business leader and a Republican and sought the Republican nomination for governor in 2010, losing the primary in part because he had little campaign money and declined to participate in the public campaign financing system. But despite his Republican and business background, the positions Griebel took two years ago made him hard to distinguish from Democrat Lamont.

Now, the New Haven Independent reported last week, Griebel is chairing the Connecticut chapter of a new national party calling itself the Serve America Movement. Maybe a third party will have a chance if the Republicans renominate President Donald Trump and the Democrats nominate ... well, almost anyone now seeking their nomination. Griebel is advocating three election-related proposals. One is compelling. Two are anti-democratic.

Griebel’s compelling idea is ranked-choice voting, under which voters designate a second-choice candidate who would get their votes if their first choice did not win the initial count. Ranked-choice voting diminishes the chances of extremists in elections that have more than two candidates.

Lacking ranked-choice voting, Connecticut in recent decades has proved the need for it with several elections for governor and U.S. senator where the winner did not achieve a majority and well might not have won if second-choice votes could have been registered and transferred. Because of Griebel’s nearly 4 percent two years ago, Lamont fell a point short of 50 percent.

Griebel also advocates letting all voters, regardless of party membership, participate in primaries. This would weaken the parties as well as the political system’s philosophical coherence. Open primaries make it harder for like-minded people to organize politically and place their candidates on the ballot. They also facilitate political mischief, enabling supporters of one party to influence another party’s choice of candidates by voting for the weaker candidate in the other party’s primary.

There is no good argument for open primaries. Unaffiliated voters can register with a party and qualify to vote in its primaries a day before a primary. Voters changing from one party to another must wait only three months, the delay minimizing mischief.

Griebel’s other anti-democratic idea is term limits, restricting the number of consecutive terms elected officials can serve. But of course voters already can impose term limits by defeating incumbents in elections, and much of the clamor for term limits is hypocritical. For while people disparage Congress or state legislatures in general, they tend to like their own representatives.

The democratic route to more competitive elections is not to impose term limits but to broaden campaign financing.

Chris Powell is a columnist for the Journal Inquirer in Manchester.