Three members of the Irvine City Council are asking the city manager to begin discussions about adding Ranked Choice Voting to the city charter for the 2028 elections. They make an argument that RCV will results in candidates who win the majority instead of a plurality of voters and will result in clean, more honest campaigns.
Here’s the memo from Council members Melinda Liu, Kathleen Treseder and Betty Martinez-Franco:
I think this is a bad idea that overly complicates voting. And in some cases, a Republican who should have lost wins and vice versa. Until moving to district elections in 2024, plurality winners made it to city council. We got it. It was rare for a council candidate or a mayoral candidate with several competitors to get a majority. But the system worked then as it does now. Ranked Choice Voting always struck me as the solution for someone who lost the first round of voting but is convinced they’d win on a second or third round. Nice try.
Here’s my argument against RCV.
Ranked choice voting (RCV) is pitched as the electoral equivalent of upgrading from a flip phone to a smartphone—sleeker, smarter, and better. It fixes everything. Its proponents speak in glowing terms about “majority support,” “eliminating spoilers,” and “more civil campaigns.” Bullshit. Dig deeper and ranked choice voting starts to look less like a democratic innovation and more like a well-intentioned overcomplication that introduces as many problems as it solves.
For most voters, RCV is confusing. Yes, just because you just rank candidates in order of preference, doesn’t make it simple once votes are actually counted. The tabulation process—where the lowest-ranked candidates are eliminated in rounds and their votes redistributed—quickly becomes a procedural labyrinth. For the average voter, understanding how their vote ultimately contributes to the final outcome requires either a flowchart or blind faith. Neither is exactly a hallmark of transparent democracy.
Elections are supposed to be straightforward: the candidate with the most votes wins. You don’t need a background in statistics to grasp the result.
RCV outcomes can feel opaque and even counterintuitive. A candidate who leads in first-choice votes on election night can end up losing after multiple rounds of redistribution. That may be mathematically defensible, but politically, it’s a tough sell. When voters feel like the system is playing tricks on them, trust erodes—and trust, once lost is hard to regain.
Advocates claim RCV empowers voters by giving them more choices. There’s actually plenty of evidence it discourages engagement. Some voters simply don’t complete all the rankings, either because they’re unfamiliar with all the candidates or because they don’t want to inadvertently help someone they dislike. These “exhausted ballots” (votes that no longer count in later rounds) mean that the eventual “majority winner” may not actually have majority support from all voters who showed up—just from those whose ballots survived the process. So much for one voter one vote.
RCV also assumes that voters have both the time and inclination to carefully evaluate a long list of candidates. Expecting them to rank five or six candidates in a meaningful way is optimistic at best. At worst, it leads to arbitrary or poorly informed rankings, which undermines the very idea that RCV produces a more thoughtful electorate.
One of the selling points of RCV is that it eliminates “gaming the system.” I call bullshit again. Strategic voting doesn’t disappear—it just gets more complicated. Voters may still try to anticipate how others will rank candidates and adjust their own ballots accordingly. Campaigns, meanwhile, must navigate a bizarre hybrid of appealing for first-choice votes while also angling to be everyone’s second or third favorite. The result? Messaging that can feel watered down, overly cautious, or just plain confusing — and it gets much more expensive for campaigns to manage multiple messages to second and third or fourth choice voters. “Vote for me at #3!”
RCV’s ability to reduce negative campaigning is… aspirational at best. If you think that’s not true, may I sell you a bridge in Brooklyn? Politics is still politics. Differences in policy, ideology, and competence don’t magically disappear because voters can rank preferences. If anything, the need to appeal broadly can lead to vague, noncommittal platforms that prioritize likability over substance — a Tammy Kim campaign!
There’s going to be a high cost to add RCV. Implementing this process isn’t free. It often requires new voting equipment, updated software, voter education campaigns, and more complex ballot-counting procedures. Jurisdictions adopting RCV have had to spend significant sums to make the transition, all for a system whose benefits remain hotly debated. Can Irvine convice the ROV to pour money into a more complicated voting method thta other communities haven’t adopted? Or will Irvine bear the cost to do this.
And please consider a real “what if” scenario. Close elections under RCV can and will trigger recounts that are even more complex (and expensive) than standard ones. Imagine trying to re-run multiple rounds of vote redistribution under intense scrutiny and tight deadlines. It’s not exactly a recipe for swift or universally accepted results. Election integrity is already under a microscope, and RCV just adds layers of complexity that taxpayers don’t need.
Proponents of RCV is that its hailed as a cure for polarization. By encouraging candidates to seek broader support, elections will become less divisive (hahahahahaha). Changing how ballots are counted doesn’t suddenly make people agree on key, critical issues. If anything, the frustration and confusion surrounding RCV outcomes jusy adds to political discontent.
Democracy works best when it’s simple, accessible and intuitive. RCV demands voters think like political analysts, ranking hypothetical preferences and anticipating outcomes. It’s a big ask for the general public.
RCV promises clarity, fairness, and consensus. Instead, it will delivers confusion, ambiguity, and unintended consequences. It asks voters to do more, understand more, and trust more—all while making the process harder to follow.
So yes, ranked choice voting sounds great in theory. But in practice, it’s a reminder that sometimes the simplest systems endure for a reason—and that adding complexity to something as fundamental as voting might not be the upgrade it’s cracked up to be. Irvine voters should hold on to the system we use now. I’m not interested in being represented by someone who was most voter’s second choice.
Lastly: In every city council election held, only one candidate was elected with more than 50% of the vote. And that was council member Mike Carroll with 57.94% in 2024.
What utter hogwash! You can’t have a system in which it’s possible for the winner to be the person the majority least wanted to gain office and call it a democracy. But that’s precisely what our current system allows.
RCV is not all the complicated. Understand ranking? Sure. Everyone ranks all the time. Understand runoff elections? Sure. They’ve been around forever. This is just a series of instant runoff elections. Only like a single candidate? Just vote for that one only. Only like two? Just rank those two.
The only reason anyone would prefer the current system is that they somehow benefit from minority rule. I find that intolerable. RCV gives the electorate the ability to speak in full sentences and ensure the best possible mandate for an election winner.
way more complicated than you think. I don’t benefit from any election. I call it as I see it and RCV is bullshit
maybe your candidate should have gotten the most votes on the first round
It’s not more complicated than I think. Eliminate the lowest 1st-round vote getter, those ballots then move to their 2nd picks, and so on. You’re over-complicating it.
And it most certainly isn’t bullshit. What’s bullshit — and intolerable — is a candidate “winning” with only a plurality of the vote. Or spoiler candidates causing a party with less support to eke out a win. There’s no argument for that.
And, frankly, as often as I see you nakedly shill for your political patrons, I’m inclined to think that you very much seek benefit from elections. What your arrangement is, I don’t know. But I’ve yet to see evidence in anything you’ve written that you ever argue anything in good faith.
what arrangements? And we’ve had plenty of elections where the candidate who wins doens’t get to 50%
Yes, we have had plenty of elections where candidates have won with less than 50% It’s a long-standing problem.
getting voters to show up to vote is a bigger problem
It’s a problem, true. But I wouldn’t say a bigger one. I might have been able to get 99% of voters to show up for a sham election in Soviet Russia. But so what? And have you considered the possibility that an electoral system that routinely produces undemocratic results and is insufficiently representative of the electorate is a bit part of the reason that people don’t show up? Political apathy and cynicism doesn’t come from nothing. It comes in no small part from the fact that people don’t feel like the system actually responds to them.
if all that is the case, RCV won’t solve that problem
By itself? Of course not. But it will help. It will help a lot. There are plenty of other reforms that we should enact. CA statewide offices should also have RCV (witness the potential consequences of not having it as our Democratic-majority state now faces the possibility of choosing between two Republicans come November because there are too many Dems splitting the vote). The CA legislature should be elected using a multimember proportional system. So should the US House of Representatives, for that matter. The Senate and the EC should probably be abolished. Citizens United should be repealed. And hell: I’m personally more partial to a parliamentary system than a presidential one.
But I’m content to start with RCV here in Irvine .
well, if people don’t show up to vote, they shouldn’t bitch about the result.
Good lord, man. You just said yourself in this very thread, “getting voters to show up to vote is a bigger problem.” We should want our system to inspire democratic participation. We should want an electorate that feels engaged and has good reason to believe that their votes actually matter. And yet you come back to me and dismiss the very people whose lack of participation you just lamented!
The problem is that voting so often gives us cause to “bitch about the result” because the winner of an election has no clear mandate. And because legislatures that are supposed to be representative of the will of the people are kept from reflecting that will by systemic barriers to accurate representation. You should care about this. We all should.
And you’re saying RCV encourages voting. I disagree
I’m saying a system that produces the most credible democratic mandate possible discourages political cynicism and apathy. RCV is a part of how you achieve that. First past the post is a big part of how you undermine that.
Gosh, even the Woodbridge HS students understand that Ranked Choice Voting is a more democratic way to vote — they use RCV for their student government elections. 🙂 If students at the high school level can understand the advantages of RCV, I’m sure the greater Irvine voter population can too.
great; what is that? a couple of hundred votes? not representative of a citywide vote
Mari thinks Betty Franco is a qualified candidate for city council. Don’t waste your time responding to her. She is a member of the dingy broad squad. Kook alert in full effect. She is kooky!!
Eric Neshanian calling someone a kook! It’s like the thunder telling a peaceful meadow to stop making such a racket. How many people do you suppose you can find who would think you a qualified candidate for city council?
Thankfully life is not a popularity test.
That time pompous progressive putz Joshy encourage Irvine to ignore the electorate in violation of the California constitution. How progressive of him.
https://irvinewatchdog.org/opinion/opinion-the-city-of-innovation-needs-to-take-a-moonshot-in-oak-park/
Eric The Mad calling anyone “kooky” is pretty hilarious when his own reputation in the community is that of an angry, chauvinist, mad-at-everything town crazy.
Jeremy, you are part of the dingy broad squad also.
You support the most unqualified folks to be council members.
My reputation? Try practicing law bozo.
Yeah, while foreign interests were infiltrating city hall, you and the rest of the community were silent.
That’s why the council members like Treseder steal my ideas like Korematsu Day and the city steal my announcements like usmnt using great park to train. Because I’m kooky.
Nobody cares about what you say Joshy!
Oh, dear. Self-knowledge can be hard for some. Let’s try this: you’re the guy who’s known for — among other things — calling into city council meetings and slinging accusations of bigotry left and right. And here you are calling a group of councilmembers you disagree with “dingy broads.”
Josh,
Has Betty Franco ever lied to the city about her professional history?
Certainly not to my knowledge. Even if she had, though, it wouldn’t make your “dingy broads” comment ok. Nor would it change the fact of my initial comment.
Josh,
She is a liar.
She duped the city once with her claim of being a senior account executive for DEIXIS group to get considered for the city’s DEI committee. How will she dupe the city next?
https://irvine.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=68&event_id=1962&meta_id=125972
Do you know who created DEIXIS?? Officers of her former employer -FSB public affairs who was owned in part by Jeff Flint.
https://m.facebook.com/deixisgroup/
(No social media activity after late March 2022)
https://www.dnb.com/business-directory/company-profiles.fsb_public_affairs_inc.13a9b3d50f47c0644acc2d35d07324ef.html
Look at the statement of information for fsb public affairs, inc. And deixis group. Same players.
That’s odd Betty doesn’t list DEIxis on her linked in page. But she does list fsb public affairs and a pr firm she created after getting appointed to Irvine DEI.
Jeff Flint disappeared after Sidhu and Melahat got tagged.
She is further proof the DEI committee is a sham.
We obviously have different standards for politicians and critics.
She is worse than a dingy broad. She is a fraud.
Josh,
You display selective outrage just like a progressive.
Lol! You haven’t even given me the opportunity to be outraged yet, Neshanian. And come on, man! Do you really think “selective outrage” is more the province of one side of the political spectrum or the other? That’s silly. It’s a human vice. Also, sometimes differing priorities are mistaken for selective outrage. But I won’t disappoint you in this instance. Looking over this I’m struggling to figure out:
1) Why you’re so sure wasn’t a senior account exec for whatever the hell DEIXIS is.
2) Whether you’re claiming that DEIXIS didn’t exist, or that it existed and she wasn’t actually an account exec for it.
3) How you know this so-called claim had anything to do with her being appointed to the DEI Advisory Committee. It doesn’t have at-large members. Some CC member appointed her. How would you know why?
4) Why you’re latching onto this like it’s the gotcha of the century.
But I’m perfectly willing to be outraged by her — if you can do a better job of explaining why any of this matters and how you know any of it to be true and what exactly it is you’re trying to say happened. Contrary to what you seem to think, we do eat our own on the left.
Lol! You haven’t even given me the opportunity to be outraged yet, Neshanian.
>>> Really, you are losing your ish over me referencing a quote from a 70’s sitcom. Dingy broad!
And come on, man! Do you really think “selective outrage” is more the province of one side of the political spectrum or the other? That’s silly. It’s a human vice. Also, sometimes differing priorities are mistaken for selective outrage. But I won’t disappoint you in this instance.
>>> Come on man! You are overlooking her lying about her qualifications because I called her a name.
Looking over this I’m struggling to figure out:
1) Why you’re so sure wasn’t a senior account exec for whatever the hell DEIXIS is.
>>>She doesn’t list it on her LinkedIn page as being past or current employment. It was formed by fsb public affairs operatives (this was a Republican lobbying outfit). The entity’s social media has been dormant since right about the time Betty got the job on the DEI committee – early 2022.
2) Whether you’re claiming that DEIXIS didn’t exist, or that it existed and she wasn’t actually an account exec for it.
>>> It appears to be a dummy corporation formed to among other things give Betty an air of credibility as a DEI expert. To go along with her claim of being a communications expert and public relations expert.
3) How you know this so-called claim had anything to do with her being appointed to the DEI Advisory Committee. It doesn’t have at-large members. Some CC member appointed her. How would you know why?
>>> She was an at large member whose primary purpose with Ms. Foo was to assist the committee form an rfp for a DEI consultant. It never materialized.
>>> She volunteered that she was a senior account executive at DEIxis specifically for the purpose of demonstrating she was a DEI expert like Ms. Foo who is a DEI expert.
4) Why you’re latching onto this like it’s the gotcha of the century.
>>> In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
>>> What else is she lying about?
But I’m perfectly willing to be outraged by her — if you can do a better job of explaining why any of this matters and how you know any of it to be true and what exactly it is you’re trying to say happened.
>>> I spelled it out for you already Joshy. Connect the dots and the dates including Jeff Flynt disappearing act that left Betty without gainful employment looking for an off ramp. You have selective comprehension to go along with your selective outrage.
Contrary to what you seem to think, we do eat our own on the left.
>>> She is a candidate for the cannibals on both sides.
So, some social media observations and “it appears to be…” Ok. So there’s a lot of speculation here.
Yeah, I was a Latin minor in college. I’m very rusty, but that’s not tricky to translate. But you lawyers think everyone else should give a damn about your doctrines well more than any of are inclined to. That’s a dumb way to approach a lie. People lie selectively, speak half truths, prevaricate, conceal, obfuscate, and omit. That almost never means you can’t believe a word out their mouths.
Even if were to accept the falsus in omnibus part, though, you’ve yet to really establish the falsus in uno bit. I don’t think the jury is going to give you your conviction, counselor!
As to, “you are losing your ish over me referencing a quote from a 70’s sitcom” — yeah, because nothing toxic or bigoted ever came out of the 70s, right?
Joshy,
You are confusing circumstantial evidence with speculation.
It’s really easy, drive to 2099 S. State College Blvd and find DEIxis Group’s office. This is the address provided on their dormant (4 years now) Facebook page. Or, better yet ask your buddy Betty to explain.
Face it, you know nothing about Betty Franco. And, you can’t handle the truth. Typical progressive b*llshit.
I’ve confronted her about this in open meeting and other means and she doesn’t deny it.
This is a woman that stated in open meeting that she can’t timely address council business because she has to make a living.
No, I’m not. Circumstantial evidence can only render speculation, because it cannot conclusively demonstrate anything. The best you can say is “this is a probable explanation for the evidence at hand.”
I can handle any truth. I’m not going to drop everything I’m doing and drive around town tracking down the accuracy of some claim, though, on the strength of Eric Neshanian’s word. If it is your aim in life to have earned that level of authority, I’m sorry to inform you that you still have quite a bit of work to do.
And again, trying to make this a “progressive” thing is just stupid. It tells me that your view of the world is basically a caricature.
Joshy,
Circumstantial evidence is often stronger than direct evidence because people lie, forget things, get confused. Evidence cannot be speculative. And leads to inferences and presumptions not speculation.
And it’s well within my prerogative to make caricatures of clowns. In fact, it is an artistic tradition.
Hah! Circumstantial evidence might be stronger than human testimony, sure. But direct physical evidence? Anyway, I never said evidence is speculative. I said it renders speculation. Inference is still conjecture. Presumption very much is.
And again — Eric Nashanian calling people clowns! Like a dog calling cats emotionally needy.
Joshy,
A hypothesis is not speculation and you have resorted to splitting hairs. Testimony is considered direct evidence. No one is accusing Betty Boop of murder.
Joshy,
After Betty Boop lied to the city about her qualifications, she helped divert almost $500,000 of the Irvine Recovery Plan Grant program money to organizations that were not qualified to accept charitable donations while acting as vice chair of the DEI committee and serving on an IRP advisory committee with the DEI committee chair.
So at a minimum almost 500k or 10% of the money allocated to the Irvine recovery plan grant program were disbursed to cor-cdc and naacpoc when neither cor-cdc and naacp were qualified to solicit charitable assets or accept grants because of their suspended status with Secretary of State or suspended or delinquent status with attorney general’s charitable organization’s division or both.
NAACP was suspended with sos from 2021
To late 2025 and delinquent with ag charities over same period but Irvine awarded their OC branch $172k in irp grant money on 11/22/2022
Corcdc (one of Farrah khan’s current employers) was suspended with ag charities from 2018 to 1/2025 and then revoked until late 2025 but Irvine awarded them $255k (second largest grant) in irp grant money on 11/22/2022.
Progressivism at work.
Correction: Betty became part of the IRP grant program after those funds were diverted to NAACP-OC and COR-CDC. But she was a member of the DEI committee when it happened and was on the subcommittee for the second round of fund distribution. She didn’t say squat about the misuse or misappropriation of public funds and charities fraud that transpired under the auspices of the DEI committee during her tenure. Now the city is experiencing a budget
deficit.
I don’t see Ms. Fujii denying her kookiness.
Oh Ms. Fujii is a kooky lil bugger. Talk about a caricature.
Jibjab would have a field day with the likes of her.
https://www.instagram.com/p/DU6RI39AbTA/
Hey Jeremy,
How is that gig with DHS going? Supervisory immigration services officer? Are you stationed at the new office in Irvine?
I bet you don’t talk about your current employment in certain circles in Irvine. Does Betty know she took money from a DHS officer?
It looks like she did. Cuz she is so anti Homeland Security and la migra. Mujajajajajaja
https://nf4.netfile.com/Pub2/RequestPDF.aspx?id=S1Jta2NzWFdvTGtTR3FFMWhOUnBMZz09&aid=COI
Reputation Jeremy?
You can’t even identify your employment with DHS in an article you wrote where you identify yourself merely as a home association board president and misidentify me as a donor when it was my firm that was the source of the donation.
https://irvinewatchdog.org/featured/city-council-candidate-campaign-donations-updated/
Jeremy Ficarola (Cypress Village HOA Board President)
I’m assuming you didn’t attend this event Jeremy.
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=122170586714875788&id=61576273646802
Jeremy,
You lack candor and credibility. I hope you appreciate your opinion about me is meaningless. Just another progressive phony!!! Who did you help kidnap today?!?
so let me get this straight; you’re saying Jeremy works for DHS?
Yup.
You notice he ain’t denying it.
well Betty is a qualified candidate
She may be able to run. But she shouldn’t.
She is a sham just like two name Tammy.
She made up false narrative as a DEI expert to join Irvine DEI committee.
Go back and watch her performance as a dei commissioner. It’s laughable.
And she doesn’t know Robert’s Rules of Order.
She is a special interest sponge. Her donor list is littered with special interests and the usual “progressive” suspects.
If she is the best d5 has got, it’s sad. Real, real sad.
I’m so mad I reported on Tammy two name being a sham and then she got charged for fraud and now she claiming to be kookoo. You are confused about who is mad and kookoo.
Another example of Betty’s lack of qualifications to be a council member. What a nimcompoop. Your kind of people Joshy.
https://www.reddit.com/r/irvine/comments/1sruq5y/councilmember_compares_keeping_oak_creek_golf/
Omg one of Betty’s daughters works for tic.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/paola-kosmicki-6b5998109
https://www.ocregister.com/2025/05/15/betty-martinez-franco-sworn-in-as-irvines-first-latina-councilmember/ (Find Paola kosmicki, use your reader to get behind paywall)
Betty can’t stop The Irvine Company, how exactly does DGI contend she is going to stop MAGA.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2025582327949827&vanity=DemsofIrvine&http_ref=eyJ0cyI6MTc3NzE3OTQzNzAwMCwiciI6Imh0dHBzOlwvXC93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbVwvIn0%3D
Are you suggesting that the system can’t scale to a municipal election? Utter nonsense. It’s already been done. You’re going to pull a muscle reaching that hard, Chmielewski.
a student council vote versus a city council vote? How stupid. Be mad at me. Its stupid
Again, Irvine wouldn’t be the first city to adopt this by far. It’s almost impressive how many words you wasted above without having a remotely compelling case. “It’s stupid. Be mad at me. It’s stupid” — you should have just printed that from the start. Like your article, it’s childish, unconvincing, and unbelievably misguided. But at least it’s pithy.
Yes, let’s defer to High School students. They have a huge amount of voting knowledge and experience considering very few if any are 18. This is a Democrats of Greater Irvine launched platform by 3 women who are up for re-election and will probably lose their seats. Liu will lose to Kang, Martinez-Franco will lose to anyone who isn’t stupid, and Treseder would lose to any sentient being who isn’t a horrible person. So what do they do? Manipulate the voting system!
But the move to RCV would be 2028
“Isn’t a horrible person,” eh? Because you sound like a real gem. What High School kids lack in experience they can make up with open-mindedness in spades. How many of us experienced adults have frog marched society into disaster guided by no greater insight than “that’s just the way it is” or “this is the way we’ve always done it”? Do you have an argument to make against RCV on the substance of it?
Wow Dan, you REALLY tortured that weak argument. That was a pretty unconvincing rebuke of RCV. It’s as simple as 1…2…3. Not hard to rank your top choices. RCV empowers voters to make a more precise voting decision in accordance with their values. Quit simply, it’s more Democratic.
I’m really sorry Jeff Kitchen didn’t win; but his campaign pitch combined first person and third person writing and any candidate that can’t edit a pitch to voters shouldn’t be in office
Uhhhh. You imagine that any of us are advocating RCV out of regret that Kitchen didn’t win? Kitchen? Really? You think there’s a dedicated cadre of Kitchenistas who suffered his loss, looked toward RCV, and swore to themselves “never again”?
We support RCV because it’s right. We believe in the democratic mandate as the instrument of popular sovereignty. We believe in giving an electorate the ability to speak in full sentences and fully express their collective preference.
only 9 cities in California use RCV; I’ve stated my reasons why I think its a bad idea.
There was a time when only nine states had adopted women’s suffrage. The implementation of progress can be slow. But the point is that it scales. It’s been done. You’re saying “a city is a not a high school.” But a city is a city.
It’s not weak. I laid it out. Its designed for candidates who don’t get the most votes on the first ballot. It adds complexity and cost. Sorry your candidate did not win in District 2, but RCV is a bad argument
No. It’s designed for voters. Not candidates. It gives us the ability to ensure that the fullest extent of our preferences are heard. Imagine you and some buddies were discussing what bar you wanted to hang out at on Saturday night. You’re the only one who wants to drink at MacLaren’s Pub. So that’s out. But then you think you’d like to chime in to support the The Regal Beagle. Oh, but no: Barney Gumble tells you that your bar should have gotten more votes in the first round and you should just shut up. A lot of you would have opted for The Regal Beagle as your second pick, but only 2 of the 10 of you had it as their first choice. With those second-choice votes, The Regal Beagle would have had a majority! But loudmouth Barney won’t have it. So, Barney, Lenny, and Carl — only 3 out of 10 — win the day and you’re all heading down to Moe’s Tavern. Don’t be Barney Grumble, Dan.
You’re mistaken in thinking that RCV is complicated. But fairness is simple. Any kid on a playground would know that Barney’s win isn’t right. And it isn’t democracy.
only nine cities in California have adopted RCV
There was a time when only nine states had adopted women’s suffrage. The implementation of progress can be slow. But this is your answer to my illustration of the unfairness of first-past-the-post? Can you explain to me how it’s right that Barney, Lenny, and Carl get their way in that scenario? I suspect you can’t.
nice strawman argument; district elections were suposed to make thnigs more fair. Neighbors electing neighbors. If you think politics aren’t nasty in Irvine no matter what, just look at Tammy Kim’s last run for office. She could have been elected Mayor with RCV. No thank you.
It’s not a straw man argument. It’s an illustration of the fact that only a small number of polities having yet adopted something doesn’t mean that that something isn’t progress.
I think District Elections were an improvement. But that doesn’t mean they were a silver bullet. I’m not wiling to hang my hat up after “a little more democratic, but still not very democratic.”
As to Tammy. Maybe. Maybe not. Agran has been a bit of a mixed bag at best from my perspective. I’d almost certainly have had my problems with Kim, too. But the point isn’t that the system always should produce the outcome that *I* want. It’s that it should always produce the outcome that best reflects what the *electorate* wants. You know, democracy. That thing that’s supposed to be one of the highest organizing principles of our society.
total strawman. Agran ==throughout his career — has been an exceptional elected official
Yeah — to quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.” I’m not making a straw man argument. What argument do you think I’m fabricating for you?
Anyway, we can agree to disagree on Agran. I think he has done some good. I think he can be a thoughtful leader at times. I also think he can be wrong-minded and pig-headed.
But you’re avoiding my challenge. Explain to me how it can be fair for a plurality to win an election that might well be the least-favored choice of the majority.
way more complicated than you think. I don’t benefit from any election. I call it as I see it and RCV is bullshit
RCV is a timely ploy to require programmable computers to tabulate elections with no accountability. We need:
1) Voter ID required
2) Proof of residency (electric bill, etc)
3) Precinct polling zones
4) One Day elections (except for requested out-of-towners or military)
5) No mass mail-out ballots
6) Paper Ballots counted in one day
We did this in the old days and can do it again. The 2020 election was manipulated. According to Joe Hoft, (& Seth Ketchel, David Clements, etc) the OC 2024 election was uncertifiable. Here is Clements movie:
https://rumble.com/embed/ucfsd.v4g2wn6/
Joe Hoft’s link:
https://joehoft.com/reminder-elections-in-californias-orange-county-should-never-have-been-certified-in-2024/
The proven international set-up of Dominion software scanned Venezuela, China and Cuba. If our elections were accurate, why is John Eastman Denied: Disbarred? Why is 70 year old Gold Star Mom Tina Peters suffering with cancer in a Colorado prison? Leftists will stop at nothing to guarantee their cheating.
Orange County already has voting equipment that is “programmable computers.” And the vendor with those programmable computers is Hart Intercivic, not Dominion (see this list from the Sec of State’s office showing all CA counties and the voting equipment used in each https://votingsystems.cdn.sos.ca.gov/oversight/county-vsys/vot-tech-by-counties-2025-1.pdf). The Hart equipment, Verity 3.2, is the same equipment used by Redondo Beach last year to count its election using Ranked Choice Voting. That equipment has already gone thru extensive testing and certification by the SoS. So if Irvine switches to RCV, your voting equipment can already count those ballots and the cost to Irvine to use that built-in capability would be minimal.
https://stolenelectionsfacts.com/voting-district/
Hart Verify feeds OC’s data to Dominion, our State’s official outsourced voting counter. The source codes for Dominion and Smart Matic were and are controlled and altered by the CCP, Venezuela, Cartels and Cuba.
Why would Bill Gates want to upgrade Hart InterCivic in 2021 if it was so secure?
https://cyberscoop.com/electionguard-microsoft-hart-intercivic/
Here is a 16 minute overview of the corruption of our voting soft and hardware:
https://rumble.com/v5jw5lx-whistleblower-trying-to-warn-us-about-election-interference.html?e9s=src_v1_cw&playlist_id=watch-history
Outsourcing our elections is a bad idea.
Never try to to make a bad idea work.
Complete fiction. And software and hardware upgrades are always a good idea
John Eastman was disbarred for being a deceitful, unethical loon. Stop drinking from the propaganda hose, Pam.
Don’t make me thirsty. Only a scaredy cat doesn’t stand behind their comments with their real name.