In March, 2023, the AZ Legislature passed HCR 2033; an amendment to the Arizona State Constitution to “determine that a Legislature-enacted direct primary law supersedes any contrary or inconsistent provision of any charter, law, ordinance, rule, resolution or policy of any city and modifies nominee requirements for a direct primary election.”

What does that mean? 

Basically, the “Senate Republicans voted to send HCR 2033 to the 2024 ballot to give voters a voice in protecting Arizona’s primary election system and prohibit ranked choice voting.” – AZSenateRepublicans (@AZSenateGOP) March 28, 2023.

You will be voting on RCV in the AZ 2024 election.

Traditionally, Americans have voted in “winner-takes-all”, also known as a “first-past-the-post” or “plurality” electoral system elections.  The candidate who receives the most votes (a plurality) wins the election, regardless of whether the winning candidate has an absolute majority (more than 50% of the total votes).  This system is proven and easy to understand. 

This system is now under attack by the progressive Left.  They claim this system can sometimes lead to outcomes where a candidate wins with a minority of the vote, especially when multiple candidates split the majority vote.  This leads to situations where the elected candidate does not have broad based support among the electorate.  In addition, there is a tendency for two major political parties to dominate the political landscape making it difficult for third-party candidates to gain traction.  In other words, it does not lead to an equal playing field.  

To address these problems and elect candidates they support, the progressive Left is pushing a radical voting system called Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) also known as “Instant Runoff Voting”.  By changing how Americans vote, they can manipulate who wins elections.  The RCV movement is gaining momentum and without an explicit ban, every state is vulnerable.

What is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)?

• RCV is an electoral system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots.  
• If a candidate wins a majority (51%) of the first-preference votes, then that candidate is declared the winner.
• If no candidate wins a majority of the first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest first preference votes is eliminated.  
• First preference votes cast for the failed candidate are eliminated, lifting the second-preference choices indicated on those ballots.
• A new tally is conducted to determine whether any candidate has won a majority of the adjusted votes.  
• If still there is no majority winner, this process is repeated until there is a majority winner.

Proponents of RCV say:

1.     RCV is great because it gives voters a broader range of choices and allows them to express their preferences more accurately.  It empowers voters to support candidates who align more closely with their values.

2.     RCV eliminates the spoiler effect. Traditionally, third-party candidates divert votes from a major party candidate and influence the election’s outcome.  RCV encourages a more diverse political participation and fosters a more representative political landscape.

3.     RCV promotes fairness and reduces negative campaigning. Candidates have to appeal to a broader cross-section of the electorate because the need to earn second and third-choice rankings to secure victory, they have an incentive to campaign positively and avoid alienating potential supporters.  This promotes more civil and issue based campaigns.  

4.     RCV promotes Majority Support.  The winning candidate has the support of the majority of the voters, ensuring that the elected officials have a more significant mandate to govern, fostering greater legitimacy and representation of the will of the people. 

5.     RCV saves resources and streamlines the electoral process. The RCV instant runoff process ensures that a candidate eventually emerges as a clear majority winner, reducing the need for costly and time-consuming runoff elections.

6.     RCV encourages greater inclusivity in the political process.  Often potential candidates do not enter the race if they believe they will be labeled as radicals or spoilers.  RCV removes that barrier allowing candidates of all backgrounds and affiliations to compete without fear of splitting the vote.

Sounds great, doesn’t it?

Not so fast.  Let’s analyze these “benefits” one at a time. 

1.     RCV gives voters a broader range of choices. Ranking candidates in order of preference adds complexity to the process.  This leads to confusion, especially for less politically engaged citizens.

2.     RCV eliminates the spoiler effect.  RCV can still lead to outcomes where the candidate with the most first-choice votes loses because their supporters did not rank other candidates.  This creates confusion and dissatisfaction among voters who expected their first-choice candidate to win. 

3.     RCV promotes fairness and reduces negative campaigning. RCV’s effectiveness in reducing negative campaigning hinges on the behavior of candidates and campaigns.   It does not eliminate a candidate’s inherent sense of competition.  Furthermore, media coverage and campaign strategies may continue to sensationalize negative aspects or engage in divisive tactics, regardless of the voting system in place. 

4.     RCV promotes Majority Support. In traditional winner-take-all systems, candidates campaign to differentiate themselves and persuade voters their platform is better than the opposing platform.  The RCV process deters candidates from taking stances on important issues, giving candidates who campaign on very little substance an unfair advantage.   

5.     RCV saves resources and streamlines the electoral process. Implementing RCV is expensive and requires significant changes to election infrastructure.  Jurisdictions need to invest in new voting machines, voter education campaigns, and additional staff to handle the complexities of RCV. The costs do not justify the “benefits”.  

6.     RCV encourages greater inclusivity in the political process.  

Districts using ranked-choice voting have lower voter turnout rates. During each round of RCV election ballot counting, some voters’ choices will be discarded and silenced while others are counted more than once.   

Additional negatives to RCV:

RCV leads to “Ballot Exhaustion” – Every Vote does not count.

When voters do not rank all candidates, or rank candidates improperly, or only rank a few candidates, their ballots become exhausted and do not contribute to the final outcome.  Ballot exhaustion leaves voters and voices uncounted – ballots are literally thrown in the trash because the RCV voting process renders their votes meaningless.  Legitimate ballots are discarded through RCV’s multiple counting cycles. 

RCV diminishes voter confidence.  

RCV’s complexity discourages voter participation and leads to errors in ranking candidates.  It is overly complicated and confusing.  It forces people to cast a ranked vote for candidates they may disapprove of or lack sufficient information about.  Misunderstandings and/or suspicions about RCV’s mechanics have been shown to fuel skepticism and distrust. Also, because of the intricate, time-consuming process, it often delays the announcement of results, raising doubts and the perception of mistrust in the ballot counting process.

RCV threatens fast and accurate ballot counting.

This system’s complicated tabulation process, multiple runoffs and choice rankings is slow, time-consuming and expensive, especially in large elections with many candidates and voters.  Ensuring the accuracy of each round of counting leads to errors and missteps and makes an audit almost impossible. RCV stains resources and often, delays the announcement of results.   

To illustrate and simplify how ridiculous RCV is, picture it being applied to the issue of water and not a candidate.  The issue you are voting on, do you want a) very clean, b) kind of clean, c) dirty, or d) very dirty water.  Now rank those choices. 

Or, suppose you are confronted with the issue of the economy of your state.  Candidate A is a socialist; Candidate B, a fascist; Candidate C, a Marxist; and candidate D, a capitalist.  Are you going to rank your votes or are you going to be 100% behind candidate D, the Capitalist.  If so, RCV will punish you.  If you only vote for Candidate D, unless your candidate receives more than 50% of the vote on the first round of counting, your vote falls out of the rankings and your voice has been silenced while voters who ranked their votes get to choose the winner.   

As of September 2023, RCV has been prohibited in 5 states (ID, MO, SD, TN and FL).  RCV is used state-wide in two states (AK and ME).  RCV is allowed by state law; but not in use in one State (VA).  RCV is used (or scheduled for use) in some localities in thirteen states (WA, OR, CA, UT, CO, NM, MN, MI, NY, VT, MA, MD, DE).  – Ballotpedia (https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV))

Many jurisdictions and states are now trying to repeal RCV or have already done so.  Places that have tried it and since repealed it due to voter discontent include Aspen, Colorado, Pierce County, WA, Burlington, VT (in 2010), North Carolina (2013).  Alaska is likely to repeal it next year.  It was so unpopular, that citizens overwhelmingly signed the petitions to repeal RCV and were able to schedule the initiative for their 2024 ballot six months early.   The dislike of RCV is not only a Republican issue.  Notably, recently, Washington, DC Democrats sued to block RCV, saying it is not in the best interest of voters and candidates in the District of Columbia. By the way, I challenge you to google where RCV has been successful and where voters have not liked it and either have repealed it or are in the process of repealing it.  Google searches always bring up rosy pictures of RCV.

In short, RCV is an election system being pushed by the progressive Left and political consultants in an effort to diminish the voice of voters, make it easier to manipulate elections, and “moderated every candidate into bland nothingness” as Kari Lake War Room stated on Twitter on March 28, 2023. 

Every American should trust that, when they cast their sacred vote, the process is a fair and open one in which everyone who is legally entitled to vote has the opportunity to cast ONE ballot and have that ballot counted properly.  RCV, as an election process, is the antithesis of this.  It is anti-voter, confusing, misleading, slow, and open for manipulation.  Our current “winner-take-all” system has worked for 245 years.  Let’s not change it now.

Again, RCV will be on the AZ ballot in 2024.  Be clear on how you choose your voting system.  RCV proponents are asking you to be willing to accept mediocrity.