Voters rejected historic election reforms across the US, despite more than $100M push

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

Updated 12:03 AM EST, November 23, 2024


JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Two weeks before Election Day, activists from across the country gathered for an online rally heralding the historic number of state ballot initiatives seeking to change the way people vote. Hopes were high that voters would ditch traditional partisan primaries and embrace ballots with more candidate choices.

Instead, the election reform movement lost almost everywhere it appeared on a statewide ballot. “It turns out, in retrospect, we weren’t yet ready for prime time,” said John Opdycke, president of the advocacy group Open Primaries, which organized the rally. In Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, Oregon and South Dakota — a mixture of red, blue and purple states — voters rejected either ranked choice voting, open primaries or a combination of both.

The open primary proposals sought to place candidates of all parties on the same ballot, with a certain number of top finishers advancing to the general election. Under ranked choice voting, people can vote for multiple candidates in order of preference. If no one receives a majority of first place votes, then candidates who receive the fewest votes are eliminated and their votes redistributed to people’s next choices.

Election reform advocates raised about $110 million for the statewide ballot measures, vastly outpacing their opponents, according to an Associated Press analysis of campaign finance figures that could grow even larger as post-election reports are filed. Still, their promotional push wasn’t enough to persuade most voters.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/ranked-choice-voting-open-primaries-election-reform-bc797f209e5f98a18afb2e5f784e63b6

[Lonestarblue]

1. Their money might have been better spent working to end partisan gerrymandering.

Low-attention and low-information voters may not understand ranked choice voting or think it somehow undermines their votes.

[Nasruddin]

2. Maybe they're right

If our elections are decided by low-attention, low-information, and low-frequency voters - they are right.
It is confusing to them and it does undermine their vote.

I think possibly one mistake in RCV marketing is thinking it's the solution to some social problem (like gerrymandering). Instead it's a tool to solve mostly technical problems. If we had a proportional system of representation in place (which we do not almost everywhere) RCV is much more attractive.

It's also useful for referendums where choices are offered. We had a local election where a primary and RCV were both on the ballot, and RCV would have been the perfect choice for deciding this!

I don't like primaries. They're a progressive era solution to a 19th century problem, or a '70's solution to a mid-20th century problem depending on how you look at it. Their time has passed. We don't need to run multiple election campaigns. I know there are various pluses and minuses to primaries but that's my main objection.

[NEOBuckeye]

3. Americans are too-dumbed down by two-party politics. n/t

[OrwellwasRight]

5. Meh. Disagree.

DC put the two things together, ranked choice and open primaries. I’m a registered Democrat. But I’m happy to do Ranked Choice, because for local seats I often voted DC Statehood Green Party over Dems because DCSG works harder for Statehood than the Democratic Party ever has and it is important for Democrats to understand that we need more than lip service. We need congressional representation like every other American.

Point is that DCSG is purely a message vote and I’d be happy to have my second choice for city council be recorded as the Democratic Party.

The problem with open primaries in DC, however, is that something close to 90% of registered voters are Dems. An open Democratic Primary means the Republican minority will get into our primary and mess with it, throwing their weight behind the least progressive Democrat. Why invite that?

If RCV would have been a standalone, I would have supported it, and so would many of my politically active neighbors. But inviting Republican influence in our party primary? No, no and no.

[Blue_Tires]

4. This country is too dumb to save itself

We already saw that during COVID-19

[aurora the great]

6. Yes

Sadly, and with all due respect, It does appear that way!

[FakeNoose]

7. If we allow ranked choice voting, there's no need for a primary election

Is that what American voters want? It doesn't sound like it.

[BumRushDaShow]

8. In AK

they did ranked choice for what was an "open primary".

A summary about what happens - https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-in-2024-presidential-primaries/

I believe at the end of that primary process, the top "x" vote getters move on to the general election.