Voting

“The Shell Game Debunked” A Pro Rank Choice Voting Rebuttal

John

Recently, we at the Worcester Tea Party sent our monthly newsletter riddled with misinformation about Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), otherwise understood as the Fair Vote.  

Therefore, a rebuttal is prudent:

Claim #1:“The problem is people DO NOT participate!”
We do not need further turnout of voters who are ignorant of the issues and simply vote based upon the identity of the candidates.  RCV DOES turn out the vote of more people, but not just any voters as implied by the prior author.  RCV increases the turnout of educated people who understand the issues because now they have an opportunity to vote for the candidate they truly support as opposed to only the lesser of two evils.  

So in this respect, RCV does turn out more people to vote, but unlike today, these people are activated because they now have an opportunity to cast a ballot based upon the candidate they truly want as opposed to the lesser of two evils.  RCV allows people to make a logical decision without a concern they are throwing away their vote.  

The idea that we simply need more people to vote with no regard for their ability to make a rational decision will only lead to more bad leadership in Massachusetts.

Claim #2: “. . . under RCV the other candidates could rank up their votes until  a second place loser overtakes the original winner.”  
When people rank their votes, they rank them based upon their value system.  Therefore, the idea that someone would rank, say, Donald Trump first and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or any set of candidates that are complete opposites in political disposition) shows a complete lack of understanding of the very premise of RCV.  Therefore, no matter how “candidates could rank up their votes,” if the people do not share in the disposition of those candidates they simply will not rank them.  

Claim #3:“What is a proven fact is in elections you are choosing a winner over a loser.  A vote for candidate A is a vote against candidate B.  This is how elections work!”  
The idea that it is better to have to choose between an actual democrat over a slightly less democrat-like republican than to be able to actually vote one’s conscious is truly silly.  

To most honest voters, the choice in any election between, say, Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, John McCain, George Bush, or John Kerry are all bad options, and this is how the Establishment wants it to be.  Why?  Because no matter who loses, the Establishment wins.  Ranked voting breaks this paradigm and places the power back into the hands of the voter because it is then impossible to make the options for office a choice solely between the lesser of two evils. 

Simply stating the elections are about picking a winner over a loser without consideration as to whether either option really represents the will of the people is dangerous.  With Rank Choice Voting, people can truly vote their conscious knowing that if their first choice is eliminated from the race their vote will still count. When such a mindset is put in place, elections become about ideas and not about money and parties, something the Establishment fear more than anything.

John Niewicki
Dean of Information Technology
Worcester Tea Party

The Shell Game-Rank Choice Voting

Christopher Maider

The interesting turn in the 2018 midterm elections wasn’t Democrat control of our House of Representatives, but rather how many of them came to be by a narrow margin and a lack of voter participation.  The recent recall and re-win of indicted Fall River Mayor Corriea underscores this.  Then again Massachusetts has a history of indicted, on trial and imprisoned Governors, Mayors and other representatives serving time while serving in government.

In the election of Cortez only 27,744 out of 214,750 registered Democrats showed up on election day.  In Fall River roughly 13,000 showed up to vote for five candidates.  Advocates of Rank Choice Voting (RCV) claim this will be avoided with RCV in elections.  Well, that’s all well and good if people actually showed up to vote.

The problem isn’t the system or a ‘plurality’ of parties.  The problem is people DO NOT participate!  RCV does not address this 800 lb gorilla in the room.  The Cortez and Corriea election victories  do not represent the majority of all voters.  It just represents who bothered to show up.  How does RCV solve this issue?  It doesn’t.  In fact, under RCV the other candidates could rank up their votes until  a second place loser overtakes the original winner.  In the case of Corriea the eventual winner would have won by even lesser numbers than the Mayor himself.  The entire thing is a shell game.

Under Arrow’s Theorem you pick your choices from best to worse.  You ‘manufacture’ the winner by taking second and third choices and running them up the scale. Essentially, you choose the steak.  But you would be happy with the pork if steak loses out.  In the final round you settle for the chicken in case you get niether steak or pork.  According to a Stanford U. paper published;   

“Nothing is necessarily wrong with that; the decision process can be perfectly democratic, and one person simply turns out to be on the winning side on all issues. “
(Hylland 1986: 51, footnote 10) 
Aanund Hylland 

Then there is Occam’s second Razor.  In order to claim something as fact it must be proven.  Any and all questions, deviations, secondary statements to such must also be proven.  Rank Choice Voting does not ‘prove’ this.  It simply says so.

RCV isn’t a better system; It is just another system.

What is a proven fact is in elections you are choosing a winner over a loser.  A vote for candidate A is a vote against candidate B.  This is how elections work! The concept of ‘spoiler’ candidates is a construct.  What the hell does that mean?  Is RCV insinuating others SHOULD NOT run for office?  How can RCV claim to open the process to better candidates, more parties, more openness while using such language?

Speaking about language; On  RCV sites you will constantly see the word ‘Democracy’.  Politicians who want to adopt this shell game will read from the script.  While local elections are based on a majority vote our Federal  Government is a Constitutional Republic.

If RCV cannot get our most basic form of government straight then how can we believe them to institute and ensure a more fair and equitable voting system?

And That Is The Diatribe….

Christopher Maider
Dean of Journalism
Worcester Tea Party

The Shell Game-Rank Choice Voting

Christopher Maider

The interesting turn in the 2018 midterm elections wasn’t Democrat control of our House of Representatives, but rather how many of them came to be by a narrow margin and a lack of voter participation. The recent recall and re-win of indicted Fall River Mayor Corriea underscores this. Then again Massachusetts has a history of indicted, on trial and imprisoned Governors, Mayors and other representatives serving time while serving in government.

In the election of Cortez only 27,744 out of 214,750 registered Democrats showed up on election day. In Fall River roughly 13,000 showed up to vote for five candidates. Advocates of Rank Choice Voting (RCV) claim this will be avoided with RCV in elections. Well, that’s all well and good if people actually showed up to vote.

The problem isn’t the system or a ‘plurality’ of parties. The problem is people DO NOT participate! RCV does not address this 800 lb gorilla in the room. The Cortez and Corriea election victories do not represent the majority of all voters. It just represents who bothered to show up. How does RCV solve this issue? It doesn’t. In fact, under RCV the other candidates could rank up their votes until a second place loser overtakes the original winner. In the case of Corriea the eventual winner would have won by even lesser numbers than the Mayor himself. The entire thing is a shell game.

Under Arrow’s Theorem you pick your choices from best to worse. You ‘manufacture’ the winner by taking second and third choices and running them up the scale. Essentially, you choose the steak. But you would be happy with the pork if steak loses out. In the final round you settle for the chicken in case you get niether steak or pork. According to a Stanford U. paper published;

“Nothing is necessarily wrong with that; the decision process can be perfectly democratic, and one person simply turns out to be on the winning side on all issues. ”
(Hylland 1986: 51, footnote 10)
Aanund Hylland

Then there is Occam’s second Razor. In order to claim something as fact it must be proven. Any and all questions, deviations, secondary statements to such must also be proven. Rank Choice Voting does not ‘prove’ this. It simply says so.

RCV isn’t a better system; It is just another system.

What is a proven fact is in elections you are choosing a winner over a loser. A vote for candidate A is a vote against candidate B. This is how elections work! The concept of ‘spoiler’ candidates is a construct. What the hell does that mean? Is RCV insinuating others SHOULD NOT run for office? How can RCV claim to open the process to better candidates, more parties, more openness while using such language?

Speaking about language; On RCV sites you will constantly see the word ‘Democracy’. Politicians who want to adopt this shell game will read from the script. While local elections are based on a majority vote our Federal Government is a Constitutional Republic.

If RCV cannot get our most basic form of government straight then how can we believe them to institute and ensure a more fair and equitable voting system?

And That Is The Diatribe….

Christopher Maider
Dean of Journalism
Worcester Tea Party