What if you could vote for your first choice candidate without worrying about vote-splitting?
What if candidates had to have broadest possible support of voters to win elections?
And how about more civil campaigning, or saving money on unnecessary runoff,s or higher turnout? Who wouldn’t want those much-needed improvements?
In a column for The Oklahoma Observer, Mark Y.A. Davies, a professor and social reform advocate, heralds ranked choice voting as the solution to the problems plaguing state elections: low turnout, especially among young voters; lack of diversity in elected officials; a partisan atmosphere dominated by the two major parties; and of course, the unnecessary and expensive primary runoffs that decided a whopping number of nominees in 2018.
Answering the question of his aptly-named piece “Who wouldn’t want ranked choice voting?” Davies characterizes RCV opponents as those “satisfied with the status quo.”
“These would be the people who are not particularly concerned whether elected officials can garner a majority of the votes to win an election, who are not particularly concerned about hegemony of the two major parties in our political processes, who are not overly concerned about the lack of civility in our political discourse in the two-party system and the bifurcation of our society that such incivility fosters…”
After laying out the absurdity of this illogical rationale, Davies poses a call to action, urging voters to follow in Maine’s footsteps and bring ranked choice voting to Oklahoma. They should listen to him.
Read Davies’ full column here.