Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Investing

A Setback for Election Reformers?

by November 20, 2024
November 20, 2024
A Setback for Election Reformers?

Walter Olson

Voters in ten or so states this month turned down proposals to change the way elections are held, and reformers will be taking time to absorb the lessons. But I’d caution against treating this, as some headline writers have done, as a general rejection of ranked choice voting (RCV), which figured in many of the proposed ballot measures. 

Start by distinguishing between two kinds of reform: 1) RCV standing by itself, and 2) the ambitious kind of reform pioneered by Alaska, which abolishes party primaries and then employs RCV in a general election held among the top several finishers. I’ve outlined in several posts why I like the Alaska idea, but voters in five Western states declined, by narrow or wide margins, to adopt versions of it. Meanwhile, Alaska voters themselves appear to be narrowly voting to retain the reforms against a repeal attempt, if current trends hold.

Should we be surprised? For all the promise of the Alaska model as a way to reduce polarization and clear a path for candidates with cross-party support to make it onto the general election ballot, it can seem like a great leap into the unknown, to say nothing of complicated. It’s been road-tested only in one unusual state that isn’t very populous, and only for a few years. No one is quite sure how it will affect the role of political parties, or what strategies candidates may devise to get around the competitive forces the reform is meant to unleash. 

Add in communication and messaging problems, and it’s surprising how well the proposal did —losing by only a 49–51 margin in Montana, 47–53 in Nevada (where it had been on the ballot once before), and 46–54 in Colorado. It’s common for far-reaching reforms to lose at first and eventually start winning as designs are refined and voters grow more comfortable with the idea. That’s what happened with citizens’ redistricting commissions, which started in Arizona and took many years to spread to California and eventually elsewhere.

What about stand-alone RCV, a more familiar reform idea with a much longer track record? Well, despite being turned down by Oregon voters, it continued to gain ground overall, as it has been doing for years. Continuing a long streak of municipal wins, it passed by a convincing 73–27 in Washington, DC, population 680,000, and Oak Park, Illinois, population 50,000.

The politics also differ. In every state where there has been an attempt to introduce the Alaska-style universal primary, it has drawn sustained fire from establishments of both parties. (To their credit, some elected Democrats in Colorado, led by Gov. Jared Polis, did support it this year.) Political machines like that of Harry Reid in Nevada detest these ideas, and so these days do both standard movement conservatives and interest groups that power the Democratic Party, such as progressive clubs and unions. 

All prize the leverage of being able to take down candidates in the party primary if they don’t toe the desired line. On the whole, RCV finds more of a footing in places where politics is dominated by one party—large cities are the model case—and where reformers can pitch it as a way to make primaries work better.

This year, RCV played a crucial role in San Francisco voters’ repudiation of far-left governance, enabling more moderate Democrats to unite through second and third choices against socialist Supervisor Dean Preston, who had led in the first round. That’s just one of many pieces of evidence that reforms of this sort are not somehow stacked in favor of the left side of the political spectrum, but rather, if anything, tend to empower normie voters against obsessives. 

0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
RFK Jr’s abortion ‘issue’: Senate GOP plans to scrutinize Trump HHS pick’s position
next post
AppLovin’s 1,303% Rise: The Hidden Power of the SCTR Report

You may also like

Hawley Wants to Restrict Funding of Political Speech

November 3, 2023

Sun Shines on the Federal Reserve’s Expansionary Powers

December 21, 2023

The Islamic Moses in the Times of Israel

March 21, 2025

Friday Feature: Institute for Catholic Liberal Education

July 21, 2023

Trump’s Cuts to Federal Science Budget Are Justified,...

May 2, 2025

CDBG: A Ripe Target for DOGE

December 5, 2024

FEMA’s Role in Hurricanes

October 10, 2024

WSJ Ed Board Knifes Fourth Amendment, Betrays Journal’s...

March 27, 2024

Six Ways to Understand DOGE and Predict Its...

March 17, 2025

Prioritize Marijuana Licenses for Past Offenders? No, Just...

December 22, 2023

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Marco Rubio holds first meeting with families of hostages held by Hamas

      June 28, 2025
    • Trump’s NATO Turnaround: From threatening to pull US out to ‘daddy’ of the alliance

      June 28, 2025
    • Week Ahead: As NIFTY Breaks Out, Change Of Leadership Likely To Keep The Index Moving

      June 28, 2025
    • Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill’ faces Republican family feud as Senate reveals its final text

      June 28, 2025
    • Senate shuts down Kaine’s attempt to check Trump’s war powers

      June 28, 2025
    • 3 Stock Setups for the Second Half of 2025

      June 28, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,329)
    • Investing (2,081)
    • Politics (15,845)
    • Stocks (3,177)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved