Word: Why the GOP opposes ranked choice voting

Ben Chin, Maine Beacon - My support for ranked-choice voting, which also seeks to eliminate the effect of “spoiler” candidates that draw votes away from the top finishers, is not because of some perceived political advantage. It’s simply about fairness. Majority rule is axiomatic with democracy. Our elected officials should represent most voters in their district. And if they aren’t those voters’ first choice, then at least they represent the majority of their preferences.

I really don’t think that perspective needs to be partisan. Democracy is democracy. Fairness is fairness. Further, ranked-choice voting isn’t even going to be implemented during the general election in 2018. Republicans can’t be worried that it hurts their chances this November, so perhaps there is a negative impression about what it does for their candidates in June.

Ranked-choice voting would seem to advantage underdog candidates that might typically fail to gain a plurality of votes in the first round. Yet, oddly, some of the most conservative Republican gubernatorial candidates seem most interested in resisting Ranked Choice Voting implementation. For example, Sen. Garrett Mason, simply by virtue of having been a Republican for the whole of his political career, is one of the only legitimately conservative Republicans running for governor. Despite this, he has failed to achieve front-runner status, with former Democrat Mary Mayhew and former independent Shawn Moody running ahead of him, according to the data we have so far and what seems to be conventional wisdom about the race. One would therefore expect him to support ranked-choice voting in the hope that, when Rep. Ken Fredette is eliminated in the first round of voting, Mason would earn enough of his supporters to consolidate a big enough conservative base to outdo either Mayhew or Moody. But he isn’t doing that.

Maybe Republicans have some kind of ideological opposition to Ranked Choice Voting, more powerful than immediate political interest. If that’s the case, it’s not clear what it is. The GOP has done a very poor job articulating an argument against the system outside of legal minutiae. The new system does not seem to pose any threat to “free markets,” gun ownership, the well-being of the wealthy, the over-policing of women’s bodies, or ensuring the exclusion of immigrants from society—the top priorities, near as I can tell, of the conservative agenda. Ranked-choice voting is about…ranking candidates. It’s hard to see why it makes sense to go to the mattresses.

What, then, is the explanation? Here’s the best I can come up with: One’s conservative credentials no longer depend on adherence to an ideology, or even partisan advantage. Conservatism now is just about backing the craziest person in the room, whoever most wants to watch the world burn. It’s worth noting that this is a completely anti-conservative notion. In the long tradition of conservative politics, stretching from Machiavelli through Hobbes to Kissinger, conservatism has been about conserving the existing social order—not pushing it to the edge of chaos by, for example, trying to undermine the legitimacy of elections a few months before important votes.