‘Choice ranking’ is worth a try
Representatives who follow the dictates of their party’s leadership don’t truly serve districts, state, or the nation. They reduce respect for government. Yet, we don’t know if it is candidates, voters, or unknown factors that have produced current dissatisfaction.
Ideally, elections are meant to reflect public preference for public office. But, when four or more contenders thin out tallies, a “win” by 30 percent carries a 70 percent rejection. This long-ignored predicament masks the public will.
A new way of voting is being suggested: “1-2-3” or “choice ranking,” whereby voters choose their first, second and third choices for each office. It is being recommended to prevent expensive runoff elections following a tie, but its better use is to clarify public preference. If third-choice tallies indicate strong rejection of a questionable first-choice winner, another first – or stronger second-choice – wins.
Trial runs of 1-2-3 for campus elections at universities are feasible. Computer programming majors could devise mathematical formulae to interpret ranked-choice percentages and determine winners. If successful, it’s worth a try in public elections. It also could end distortion of primary results by cross-party voting for weak opposition candidates.