October 30, 2024
Confusion as a political strategy is all too common from pro-abortion and left-wing activists. The pro-abortion ballot initiatives in numerous swing states create confusion and rely on vague language to garner support. Additionally, the entity with more money usually defines what is at stake – see our most recent article about how much this election has cost solely on the issue of abortion.
Ranked choice voting is no different – but you may not be familiar with why. After all, who doesn’t love having more options? It’s not that simple.
But summed up, all ranked choice voting does is prop up bad candidates by making the good candidates fight each other, as the bad ones sneak up the middle.
As the Washington Examiner explains, “Ranked choice voting is best known for being ridiculously and unnecessarily complicated. Ranked choice voting jurisdictions have higher rates of voter error compared to traditional plurality elections. In practice, this tends to discourage first-time and low-information voters from completing their ballots correctly or from ranking all the candidates on their ballots, meaning that many votes will not actually be counted.”
The Heritage Foundation had another great way to simplify it, saying, “Not only is ranked choice voting too complicated, it disenfranchises voters, because ballots that do not include the two ultimate finalists are cast aside to manufacture a faux majority for the winner. But it is only a majority of the voters remaining in the final round, not a majority of all of the voters who actually cast votes in the elections.”
To see it in action, look no further than Lisa Murkowski’s existence as a U.S. Senator that is paid with taxpayer dollars to do her “job.”
Ranked choice voting is largely credited with having saved Sen. Murkowski’s job in the Senate. According to analysis from The Alaska Beacon, “For Murkowski, an unusual Republican who is now more popular with Democrats than Republicans and reviled within her own party, that feature saved her, Moore said. “If she had run in a Republican primary, she would have been, ‘You’re toast,’ he said.”
Her record as senator has been marked by countless pro-abortion votes and indifference towards the plight of the preborn. In fact, in SFLAction’s second Pro-Life Generation Report Card, scoring the 118th Congress on key pro-life votes, legislation co-sponsorships, and stances in defense of the preborn so far this Congressional cycle, Sen. Murkowksi ranked dead last among Republican senators.
It’s also worth noting that Maine, the home of equally terrible and pro-abortion Sen. Susan Collins, has embraced ranked choice voting. Form your own conclusions.
The bad news is that six other states including Washington are voting on this system. According to an article from Rank The Vote, “Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon and Washington, D.C., will vote on propositions to adopt ranked choice voting for primaries, local, state and federal elections. Missouri will vote on an amendment to pre-empt and effectively ban ranked choice voting.” The same report also notes, thankfully, that Alaska is voting on repealing ranked choice voting a mere four years after trying it.
If that doesn’t tell you everything about buyers remorse, nothing will.
Now imagine what could be if bad senators who wreck critically important pro-life legislation by imposing bad compromises to get pro-abortion laws passed, aren’t able to get elected in the first place? America’s preborn babies deserve better outcomes than half-measures because one or two so-called moderates have outsized influence.
That’s why given the choice, ranked choice voting should be stopped. Vote against ranked votings implementation, and vote to remove it from the system.