The General Assembly is currently deliberating two bills – H7981 and H7788 – which would permit the introduction of ranked choice voting for elections in cities and towns in Rhode Island. This would make it possible for municipalities, including Providence, to opt-in to using the ballot-form of ranked choices in both general elections and primaries.
The use of a ballot which permits voters to rank their choices is a no-brainer. Ranking your choices brings a drastic improvement to the way we pick our representatives. In races with more than two candidates, you can put the candidates in the order of preference and your vote will be transferred to candidates in second, third, or fourth position if there is no majority winner. In a political system so rife with false and misleading advertising and deception, ranking the vote brings more truth to voting: truth about the real preferences of the voters.
A historical example from Maine helps to illustrate this. In Maine, many voters remember governors who won an election with a plurality – that is, with less than 50 percent of the vote. Angus King won as an Independent in 1995 with about 35 percent of the vote in the general election. John Baldacci won as a Democrat with 47 percent of the vote in 2002 and prevailed in a more contested election in 2006 with just 38 percent of the vote. Paul LePage was elected in 2010 with just over 37 percent of the vote, and won again in 2014 with less than 50 percent.
The effect of plurality winners was tangible: people began to question the legitimacy of their elected governor. Many were left with the feeling that they could have had a better outcome if they had been able to express all their preferences. With ranked choice voting, they can.
Voting is not just the expression of a preference. Voting is a means of finding consensus. With the introduction of ranked choice voting for federal elections in Maine in 2016, voters have found a way to vote for candidates not endorsed by either of the major political parties. This promotes independence and transparency and restores trust in our political system
For Providence, in particular, this way of recruiting candidates could attract talent that usually shuns the political machines of Rhode Island. We could end up with a more diverse and representative pool of candidates for both city council and the mayor’s office. And this could make our city both more dynamic and well-governed. A look to the recent Democratic primary in New York City’s mayoral race, which employed RCV, shows what this system cultivates: co-operation across difference and real innovation.
Some people argue that the system is complicated. But voters in Maine, at least, have no problem with it. They understand very well that it simply gives them more power – namely the power to rank candidates, not just tick a box.
What RCV-opposing organizations like the Heritage Foundation are afraid of is the discovery of convergences in the parts of the electorate they are trying to polarize. For the entrepreneurs of polarization, ranked choice voting is indeed dangerous; it helps people agree on things and discover common ground. Where could that lead? Perhaps to more empowered citizens with more choices? This makes it harder for big money to determine the outcomes of elections. And so RCV is also good against the big spending-driven corruption of our politics.
No aspirant to public office who wishes to really serve the public needs to fear this system. In my own experience as an educator, the introduction of ranked choice voting for determining finalists for job searches has made my department at Providence College more collegial and better at recruiting the best candidates. We have been able to discover things we agree on that we never would have otherwise known.
I wish the same for Providence and the state of Rhode Island.
Colin King is an Associate Professor of Philosophy at Providence College.
Want to comment? Click!