Despite being an expert on constitutional law, Gordon Weil misrepresents how ranked-choice voting works in his recent Another View (“ ‘One person, one vote’ at risk if ranked-choice voting approved,” May 27). He thinks the person who picks the ultimate winner in the first round of voting is effectively robbed of his/her vote in the subsequent rounds, since other people’s second, third, fourth choices start being counted. But clearly that person is, in fact, voting for the winner in every round.
The whole point of ranked-choice voting is to come to a majority decision, which is impossible without the votes of the first round. I don’t see how one can make the argument that their votes are diminished in any way. If anything, they are more important, since the winning candidate wouldn’t proceed without them.
It seems a curious complaint. Using the popular ice cream analogy, would you rather that the store is out of your first choice, or your second, third or fourth choice?
Dan Kolbert
Portland
Send questions/comments to the editors.
Success. Please wait for the page to reload. If the page does not reload within 5 seconds, please refresh the page.
Enter your email and password to access comments.
Hi, to comment on stories you must . This profile is in addition to your subscription and website login.
Already have a commenting profile? .
Invalid username/password.
Please check your email to confirm and complete your registration.
Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or login first for digital access. Here’s why.
Use the form below to reset your password. When you've submitted your account email, we will send an email with a reset code.