Indeed, it was our very democracy that defeated Question 2
Your grieving post-mortem on ranked-choice voting (“A voting setback: Massachusetts rejects ranked choice,” Editorial, Nov. 4) ignored the fact that COVID-19 didn’t impact only the efforts of its advocates to get their word out; it affected our side, too. However, we somehow informed voters without the $10 million that the pro-RCV side had at its disposal. Indeed, they spent $7.41 per vote; we spent less than a penny per vote.
I was amused that while proponents of Question 2 also mentioned they hadn’t had ample opportunity to explain the system to voters, they did not add that they chose — at the last minute — not to take part in a Boston Globe Op-Talk in which we agreed to participate. (The event subsequently was canceled.)
Advertisement
Further, the system was explained right on the ballot. Could it be that the system is too confusing?
Curiously, while the editorial lists the places where ranked-choice voting has been implemented, it fails to mention those where it has been repealed, including Aspen, Colo.; Ann Arbor, Mich.; Burlington, Vt.; and North Carolina.
And while the editorial bemoans what it refers to as a lost opportunity to better our democracy, it ignores the obvious fact that it was our very democracy that dealt RCV a resounding rejection.
Anthony Amore
Boston
The writer was a spokesperson for the No on 2 Committee, and is a former Republican candidate for Massachusetts secretary of state.
This issue is a job for the Legislature
I voted against ballot Question 2 because the issue is too complex to be decided by a simple yes or no vote. This is an issue that should be debated by the state Legislature, with input from the public and careful consideration of all the issues.
If the Legislature felt that ranked-choice voting would add some value to the electoral process, let it pass the measure, with supporting rules, and send the bill to the governor for his signature.
Advertisement
This is the same process that should have been applied to the marijuana question.
Art Layton
Mattapoisett
Mass. missed an opportunity here
With nearly 100 percent of the votes counted, the residents of Massachusetts have rejected ranked-choice voting, 54.75 percent to 45.25 percent. Currently, Maine is the only state that has had ranked-choice voting for two federal elections.
I think that Massachusetts has missed an opportunity to have elections that truly express the wishes of voters, rather than contests that empower third-party candidates to throw the election to a candidate who is not the first choice of the majority.
Governor Charlie Baker thought that ranked choice was too complicated for the people of Massachusetts. Maine seems to have done just fine with the process.
Genevieve Coyle
Cambridge
Picture could have been worth a thousand words (and a few hundred thousand votes)
Your editorial provided an excellent summary of what happened, and could someday happen, with ranked-choice voting. I have found that, in discussions with friends, the deciding factor was if the person saw the chart. The visual representation of what the ballot would look like suddenly makes all that confusing verbiage crystal clear.
Melanie Magee
Shrewsbury
Too complicated? If anything, the proposal was too simplistic
The ranked-choice ballot question was not “too complicated,” as your editorial suggests. The proposal was thoughtlessly simplistic.
It said that when no candidate received a majority of the votes, the last-place candidate would be stripped away. Only those who preferred that candidate would then have their votes recast, and their second-place votes would become first-place votes for another candidate.
Advertisement
Therefore, a conservative voter could elevate a second- or third-place conservative; a progressive voter could elevate a second- or third-place progressive. Only those who voted for the “loser” could potentially determine the “winner.” That’s uncomplicated, foolish, and unfair.
I voted for ranked-choice voting on principle, and then urged my legislators to study how elections elsewhere replace a series of runoffs with well-designed ranked-choice voting. The Legislature, or the next proponent of ranked-choice voting, needs to create a logical, fair-minded plan that voters will support.
Hugh Fortmiller
Boxborough
Tripped up by a two-sided ballot
I learned, when discussing the issue with my mother last week, that I did not see this ballot question, nor vote on it, because it was on the reverse side of my ballot. Of course I blame myself, but I was never told at my polling place to flip the ballot over. I wonder whether other Globe readers experienced this as well, and whether that could have contributed to the question’s failure.
Remy Trahant
Cambridge
"choice" - Google News
November 09, 2020 at 02:32PM
https://ift.tt/2JRPifF
For now, just one answer on ranked-choice voting: No - The Boston Globe
"choice" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2WiOHpU
https://ift.tt/3c9nRHD
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "For now, just one answer on ranked-choice voting: No - The Boston Globe"
Post a Comment