Tonight, the Irvine City Council will hear from a well-organized effort from Democrats of Greater Irvine to call for the city to change the way we elect public officials — and the way 99.98% of all states, counties, cities, villages, towns and hamlets elect public officials — for Ranked Choice Voting which would guarantee the winner of any election somehow garners 50% of the vote even if it’s not the voter’s original choice.
This is like winning the March Madness pool even though the team you thought would win in all didn’t and no one else got the right team, but you have more points in the Sweet 16 than everyone else.
DGI’s Mari Fuji wrote a wonderful document of talking points for RCV and it’s compelling. I take issue with this one:
- We use RCV in everyday decision-making, constantly “ranking” priorities in our busy lives – what to eat, where to shop, what to buy. RCV is a natural extension of what we do when we have to “rank” choices with limited time or money.
One of the more creative arguments being used to sell Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is that it mirrors the decisions we make every day. You’ve probably heard the examples by now: You have a favorite restaurant, but it’s closed, so you choose another. Your preferred vacation destination is too expensive, so you book your second choice. Five of you want to see a movie, but no one can agree. Therefore, the argument goes, ranking candidates on a ballot is simply how life works.
It’s a clever talking point.
It’s also nonsense.
The problem is that voting in a public election is not remotely comparable to deciding where to get tacos on a Tuesday night.
When voters enter the voting booth, they are making a deliberate choice about who should govern their city, county, state, or country. They aren’t ordering from a menu. They aren’t selecting backup dinner plans. They are choosing the people who will spend public money, make laws, negotiate contracts, and set policy.
Life, of course, has a way of disrupting plans. Clients make impossible last-minute demands. Employers call with emergencies. Cars break down. Health crises arise. Flights get canceled. Kids get sick. Those are situations where circumstances force people to adjust.
But an election isn’t supposed to be a crisis-management exercise.
The entire premise of democracy is that voters make a choice. If they don’t get their preferred outcome, that’s because other voters made different choices—not because their first-choice candidate was somehow “out of stock” and they need to move down the list to Option B.
Imagine applying the same logic elsewhere.
Your favorite baseball team loses? Congratulations, you’ve automatically become a fan of your second-favorite team.
Your preferred college rejects you? No problem, we’ll assume you’re equally enthusiastic about your fourth-choice school.
Your spouse leaves you? Don’t worry, we’ve already ranked your next five preferred replacements.
Suddenly the “that’s how life works” argument doesn’t sound nearly as persuasive.
The irony is that many of the same people promoting RCV as a more democratic system seem remarkably uninterested in letting voters decide whether they want it in the first place. That’s where the real contradiction emerges.
If Ranked Choice Voting is such a superior democratic reform, why not put it on the ballot and let the public vote on it?
After all, local governments routinely ask voters to weigh in on taxes, bonds, infrastructure projects, public safety spending, housing initiatives, and countless other issues. Cities spend millions of dollars on projects that require voter approval. New parks, libraries, transportation improvements, and tax increases often go directly to the electorate. Yet somehow, changing the fundamental method by which citizens elect their leaders is treated as an administrative detail that can simply be imposed from above. That’s an odd definition of democracy.
Supporters frequently describe RCV as empowering voters. If that’s true, shouldn’t voters be empowered to decide whether they want the system at all?
Instead, the public is often told that experts know best. City councils know best. Consultants know best. Election reform advocates know best.
The voters? They’ll learn to love it later.
Nothing says “democratic reform” quite like skipping the democratic part.
What’s particularly amusing is that local governments often agonize over public outreach for relatively minor decisions. There are workshops, surveys, stakeholder meetings, focus groups, environmental reviews, and public hearings. Entire bureaucracies spring into action to gather community input on park benches, bike lanes, landscaping plans, and parking restrictions. But when it comes to redesigning the voting system itself, suddenly public consent becomes optional. Apparently democracy is critically important—right up until the moment voters might be asked what they think about changing democracy.
Supporters insist that RCV produces better outcomes, encourages civility, and gives voters more choices. Maybe those arguments persuade some people and maybe they don’t. Reasonable people can disagree. What shouldn’t be controversial is the idea that voters deserve a say before politicians alter the rules governing elections. That’s not an argument against Ranked Choice Voting. It’s an argument for actual choice.
Because if advocates truly believe RCV represents the future of democracy, they should have enough confidence in the idea to let voters decide.
And if the public chooses something else?
Well, according to the logic of ranked-choice advocates, there are always second choices.
Leave a Reply