Who is driving ranked-choice voting initiatives?

Democracy is not “heads I win, tails you lose”, but some left-wing reformers want it that way. When they disagree with election results, they call for general changes to the process. Ranked Choice Voting, or RCV, is the latest example.

Regular elections are “one person, one vote”: each voter casts one vote in each race, with a single, simple vote-counting process. But in RCV elections, voters can rank multiple candidates, and there can be many rounds of recounting, adjustment, and vote counting.

The mess this creates is not theoretical. This summer, Arlington County, Virginia experimented with RCV in a primary election. The Washington Post pointed out “Emerging backlash” ahead of Election Day, with “frustration…centered on the cutthroat and hard-to-follow way in which votes are counted.” Civil rights groups raised concerns on deprivation of rights. After the election, Arlington officials announced the county would return to regular elections.

RCV has historically been rejected. The system was invented in Victorian England, but did not gain traction there. Was tested in several American cities in the early 20th century^th century, but each of them subsequently repealed it. Most recently, Utah created a pilot program for local governments to use RCV. Half of those who tried have already done so finished the experiment and returned to a normal process.

So who really wants RCV? And why? Most of the push comes from a network of advocacy organizations on the political left. They claim RCV will reduce partisanship, make campaigns less negative and give voters more choice. None of this seems likely. In fact, the system has flipped two congressional seats, in Alaska and Maine, from Republican to Democrat.

The main supporter of RCV is FairVote. The Maryland-based think tank identifies itself as “the driving force behind RCV.” Founded in 1992, the group promotes RCV at the local and state level. The fans are a who’s who far left donorsincluding George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, other Soros-linked foundations, the Arnold Foundation, and the Tides Foundation.

Another group pushing RCV is Unite America. Despite claims of bipartisanship, its leadership leans to the left. For example, its board has three former members of Congress: two Democrats and one Republican. The latter is former deputy Carlos Curbelo, who was the more liberal Republican in Congress at the end of his term, seconds in the rankings of the American Conservative Union.

The founder of Unite America, Charles Wheelan, ran unsuccessfully for Congress as a Democrat and has contributed to numerous Democratic Party causes. Unite America’s board co-chair and one of its principals financiers, is Kathryn Murdoch. It also gives almost exclusively to Democratic candidates and campaign committees. In 2019, The New York Times reported that Murdoch and her husband “had already invested millions” in Unite America. Since then, Unite America has pushed RCV in at least 17 states.

Another big proponent of RCV is Katherine Gehl, who advocates a more comprehensive and radical change to elections called “final vote-five.” She previously worked for Chicago Mayor Richard Daley and was appointed by Obama. He has served on the board of directors of Unite America and directs his own national non-profit organization, the Institute of Political Innovation.

Gehl’s “final-five” proposal incorporates the VRC into a scheme that would also remove political parties from the nomination process. Instead, the primary election would include all candidates regardless of party. It would be open to all voters, with a single vote each, and then the five candidates with the most votes would move on to the final RCV election.

A version of this plan became law Alaska in 2020. Voters in snowfall passed it as a state constitutional amendment in 2022, with supporters outspending opponents by more than ten to one. Gehl, the top donor, gave more than $6 million. Kathryn Murdoch gave $2.5 million. Because Nevada requires amendments to pass in two consecutive general elections, it will only go into effect if passed again next year.

RCV is often part of the wider agenda to reduce or eliminate the role of political parties. Gehl says the parties have “affected and perverted” our politics and is working hard to fund a shift to a system where top donors have even more power.

Ranked-choice voting is a particularly dangerous proposition. By making elections more complicated and less transparent, RCV threatens to accelerate distrust in democratic processes. This can only reduce turnout and fuel suspicions, held by voters on both sides, that elites are rigging the game. And in RCV’s case, those suspicions may be close to the mark.

Trent England and Jason Snead are co-authors The case against ranked choice voting from which this article is adapted.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Latest messages from Trent England and Jason Snead (see everything)

We have zero tolerance for comments that contain violence, racism, profanity, profanity, doxing, or rude behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it, click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for engaging with us in a fruitful conversation.

JOIN OUR NEW COMMENT SYSTEM! We love hearing from our readers and invite you to join us for feedback and good conversation. If you’ve commented with us before, we’ll need you to re-enter your email address for this. The public won’t see it and we won’t share it.