(Andrew Kelly/Reuters)
Traditional majoritarianism is good for parties and politicians. Sean-Michael Pigeon writes:
[On June 22], New Yorkers voted for mayor in the Democratic primary. This primary looks a little different, though, as the candidates are being selected through “ranked-choice voting.” Ranked-choice voting allocates votes to candidates based on how voters rank their first, second, third, etc., favorite candidates. Ranked-choice voting didn’t come out of nowhere, and it’s not going away. It’s part of the Left’s general hostility toward U.S. elections, the Electoral College, and our two-party system. Our traditional majoritarian election method is a far better system than the alternatives.
The New York City primary is one of the first uses of ranked-choice voting. The voting system has been championed by advocates as a “more inclusive” way of choosing representatives. Here’s how it works: If no one gets a majority when voters’ first preferences are tallied, the candidate who received the smallest number of votes is eliminated. The votes of the people who chose the eliminated candidate are then transferred to the other candidates, based on their second preference. This process is repeated until a candidate gets a majority.
Some want to enact ranked-choice voting across the U.S., but any change to our current system would be a mistake. Traditional majoritarianism reduces polarization, creates strong candidates, and gives voters a recognizable opposition that can be called upon when necessary.
[Sean-Michael Pigeon, "New York’s Ranked-Choice Voting Is a Mistake,” National Review, June 23]
