Ranked-choice voting is being promoted as a remedy for candidates being elected with less than a majority. I have been voting regularly since 1952, and I am satisfied with the present arrangement, where the candidate with the most votes is elected without an artificial requirement of having 50 percent or more of the vote.

It seems to me that ranked-choice voting is a complication of elections that does not serve a useful purpose.

I see one of two possible results of applying ranked-choice voting rules:

 The candidate who had the most first-choice votes wins the election. This case has two possibilities.

The winner already had more than 50 percent, and ranked-choice voting has no effect, or the winner has 50 percent or more of the votes after the results are skewed by adding second- and third-choice votes.

The result is not changed, except to satisfy the artificial requirement of having 50 percent or more of the vote.

The candidate who had the most first-choice votes does not win the election after the results are skewed by adding second- and third-choice votes. I consider this to be unsatisfactory.

Ranked-choice voting is a method of complicating elections that does not provide a satisfactory method of deciding an election. It is a “feel good” idea that is not needed.

David W. Knudsen

Gray