The county’s most prominent ranked-choice voting advocates – Kelly Haughton and Richard Anderson-Connolly – were also in to see us today. They were arguing against the proposed Pierce County charter amendment that would repeal RCV elections.
The stakes are high for ranked-choice supporters nationwide. When Haughton, Anderson-Connolly argued for RCV’s adoption here in 2006, they pointed to a handful of other U.S. jurisdictions (such as San Francisco) that seemed happy with the system. Their counterparts elsewhere would love to point to its acceptance in Pierce County.
But if Pierce County voters reject the system in November, RCV opponents elsewhere will be crowing, “It flopped in Pierce County after a single election!”
“There are people in King County who want to have RCV,” Haughton said, “and they’ve working hard with the King County Council. If this passes here, you can be sure that the people in King County will have a tough time.”
“People will be be running their first RCV races in Minneapolis. It’s being actively considered in Los Angeles, Long Beach, New York City and St. Paul. This (a rejection in Pierce County) would be a setback to the movement.”
“This (a rejection in Pierce County) would be a setback to the movement.”
And that is a good reason for continuing to saddle Pierce County with this idiotic system?
× Flag comment
RCV can sound great in theory, which is why the academics love it. We’ve tried it in the real world now, though, and learned that when there is a large field of candidates with no primary winnowing process, an unqualified candidate can slip through even in a field of highly qualified ones. The transition process is also very expensive, and relies too heavily upon the mystery of computer algorithms. If the RCV proponents are reduced to arguing that we should continue this disfunctional system just so King County and others won’t be discouraged from making the same mistake we did, then that tells you something about the strength of their argument. They tricked the electorate into adopting RCV in the first place with a misleading campaign that played upon the anger about the loss of the state-wide open primary, and now they are trying to trick the voters by falsely claiming that November’s opportunity to repeal RCV is somehow “rigging the system”. RCV should be relegated to the trash heap of history and if Pierce County can help in that regard, so much the better.
× Flag comment
jimkingjr and paper,
Nowhere in this blog post does it say Haughton or Anderson-Connolly used this as an argument for RCV. It is merely a statement of fact. Please read more carefully next time.
For actual arguments on why you should reject Amendment 3, please visit: protectvoterchoice.com
× Flag comment
In 2006, there were five county level races with five incumbents running for re-election. Four of the incumbents were unopposed. The fifth had only token opposition.
In 2008, there were seven county level races. Due to the combination of term limits and ranked choice voting, there were 22 candidates for these positions. The three incumbents running for re-election all had opponents. Yes, there were more choices in November. For example, the County Executive race was the most competitive race in the county in quite some time. This was a good thing.
This year, the incumbents on the county council want to see a re-run of 2006 where voters had no choices. They want to rig the system so that they can be in office for over a decade with little to no competition.
Democracy means selecting from a list of candidates. Plural.
No rigging the system. Reject all 3 charter amendments.
× Flag comment