Dear Editor: Clarifying Rank Choice Voting (Again)

Dear Editor,

I have read some opposition views on CI126, CI127, and Rank Choice Voting (RCV) in the Whitehall Ledger recently. One opponent cited Ballotpedia's explanation of RCV to support his opposition view. So, I compared Ballotpedia's explanation to the opponent's letter and found some discrepancies.

I believe the author of the most recent letter misinterpreted Ballotpedia's description of RCV. He implied in his letter that voters would have to go to the polls multiple times over a period of days or weeks until one candidate achieved a majority. He is mistaken.

If RCV is adopted, we will continue to vote only once for candidates in general elections to rank those candidates. As Ballotpedia describes, what will change is that for each RCV general election, there could be multiple tabulations or instant runoffs based on how we rank candidates until one candidate receives a majority.

Of course, all this is moot since the legislature has already banned RCV, forcing the state to adopt costly runoff elections. This assumes that CI126 and CI127 have been enacted and that the ban has not been rescinded.

Ballotpedia.org provides concise and easy-to-follow explanations and examples of Ranked Choice Voting. One of their examples allows participants to vote in a mock election with instant runoffs and results. Their examples helped me understand RCV. I recommend voters review nonpartisan explanations of RCV, like those on Ballotpedia, before casting their vote for or against CI126 and CI127.

In conclusion, if you are going to vote, be informed with accurate and reliable information. Be wary of misinformation and any chicken littles yelling the sky is falling.

Remember, informed individuals are more likely to vote, will decide elections, and will help protect our rights and freedoms in the future.

Voters are the unsung heroes of our Democracy. Don't take Democracy for granted. Vote!

Sincerely,

DON LEPINSKY

Whitehall, Montana