RCV: A Cautionary Lesson for Nevadans this November

Nevadans have a pivotal choice this November regarding the future of elections and Nevada’s prosperity and integrity. Question 3 on the ballot this year establishes a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) Initiative that showcases itself as an improvement to Nevada’s democratic process. However, several states have adopted RCV in the past and have undergone adverse effects.

Let’s uncover the past cautionary tales of RCV in other states as Nevadans head to the voting booths this fall and choose between continuing the state’s current electoral process or adopting an overly complex and logistical tribulation that so many other states have fallen victim to.

The Promise of RCV

RCV is rallied as an enhancement to the democratic process by offering the opportunity for voters to rank their top candidates, thereby giving them more of a choice in terms of who they want as their elected officials. This is what the voters of Burlington, Vermont, thought going into voting yes on RCV in 2005, a measure that was approved at the time, 64% to 36%.

When RCV Backfired

However, soon after, in the mayoral election of 2009, due to RCV’s highly confusing vote redistribution process, an unpopular incumbent won even though, for a lot of voters, the candidate wasn’t their first choice. Due to the confusion and disappointment in the new electoral process, this caused a public outcry among voters, leading to RCV’s repeal in 2010.^[1] This complexity highlights the possibility that, for Nevadans, RCV would prevent voters from electing their preferred candidate and stir up confusion in the electoral process.

RCV’s Logistical Failures

RCV aims to streamline an efficient election process that facilitates a logistically smoother outcome. However, this was not the case for the citizens of Aspen, Colorado, as in 2009, they learned an invaluable lesson on the consequences of adopting RCV. The new electoral system was adopted, then quickly forgone in only a year as outrage poured out of Aspen’s citizens on the confusion of the newly adopted system and the costly and unnecessary long campaign period that RCV requires.

The turbulence caused the candidate leading in the first round to go on to win all of the municipal elections after, as “the candidate who received the most votes in the first round won the run-off every time, making the month of campaigning seem like a money-sucking (…) waste of time” an editor at the Aspen Daily News told.^[2] Think of it like picking a team captain in dodgeball at recess, but with a longer and more confusing voting method that leaves the same captain that would have been voted in the first place, but because of the lengthy process, all the time meant to play dodgeball has been used up, and recess is over!

RCV: Not a New Experiment

These examples show that RCV not only does not create a more efficient electoral process, but also undermines it. RCV creates confusion and disillusionment among voters when they are required to rank multiple candidates, as showcased in another real-life example from Ann Arbor, MI, in the mid-70’s.

From 1974 to 1976, Ann Arbor briefly experimented with RCV to counteract vote splitting on the left; after the 1975 mayoral election, the system was repealed due to the voters’ dissatisfaction and how it left Ann Arbor politically fragmented.^[3] Another warning is that if Nevadans do not heed, it could lead to the erosion of freedom of association and undermine the traditional party structure already in place.

A Cautionary Tale for Nevada: Vote No on Question 3

Ranked Choice Voting is usually presented as a progressive reform initiative that pushes to enhance the democratic engagement of voters in the electoral process. Consider these examples as we see a cautionary tale being told to Nevadans this November on Question 3. The complexities of RCV disenfranchised voters who found the system too difficult to navigate, which led to limiting the democratic participation it intended to enhance and causing confusion and logistical nightmares.

Do not let that happen to Nevada, as voters consider Question 3 this fall, weigh the failings of RCV that have already occurred in other states, and vote No on Ranked Choice Voting.