Why not make ranked-choice voting the norm?
Why Not? Is a bi-weekly newsletter from Post Opinions written by columnist Daniel Pink, who will explore bold, surprising ideas to improve our world. Click the “subscribe” button above to make sure you receive every edition of this newsletter.
By Daniel Pink, Contributing Opinion columnist
Each week, readers across the country send our Why Not? project hundreds of ideas for improving American life. The suggestions span many topics, but at the top of the list is a proposal for remaking how Americans vote: ranked-choice voting.
Under such a system, voters don’t just choose one candidate for an office. They list the candidates from their first choice to their least favorite (hence the “ranking”). Why Not? readers and other fans of ranked choice say this approach has two key virtues. It more accurately reflects voter’s true preferences. And it incentivizes candidates to appeal to broader swath of the electorate.
“It could mitigate our problems with extremist and unpopular candidates winning party nominations as well as general elections,” wrote a reader in Fort Worth.
Many readers home in on primaries as a major cause of electoral dysfunction because candidates can eke out modest pluralities by appealing to the most zealous partisans on the far left or right.
“Why not adopt open primaries with the first four going to the general election and instant runoff (ranked-choice voting) for all general elections?” asked another reader from Waynesville, N.C.
领英推荐
This steady stream of suggestions got me wondering: Why not see if readers are onto something? If polarization is what ails the body politic, could ranked-choice voting offer, if not a full cure, at least a powerful analgesic?
This is an excerpt of Daniel Pink's "Why Not?" column from Post Opinions. Read the full article by clicking this link.
Share your bold, unexpected idea for improving our country, our organizations or our lives. We read every submission and will select the most intriguing ideas to explore in future newsletters.
Analista de Sistemas pós-graduado em Gest?o Pública pela Universidade Católica de Brasília
4 个月Fight! Fight! Fight! Every vote counts! Let's vote! Go out and vote for Kamala! Go, Kamala! The whole American is with you! I'm proud of you!
Interesting topic!?
Hello
4 个月Why not have Federal financial support provided to cover any additional costs which states may incur ONLY to the states which adopt this logical choice. Perhaps include a gate for such funding to also require that in order to receive said federal funding the states electoral votes must be split as Maine's and Nebraska's currently all, e g. not a winner take all, first past the gate plurality. None of which would require a constitutional amendment or be mandatory.
Independent Writing and Editing Professional
4 个月Whenever viewing research always look for who's funded it.