Power is rarely relinquished voluntarily and organizations holding the power in our status quo election process appear to be worried. 

Concern that Question 3, which passed with 53 percent of the vote last November will pass again next November giving voters, rather than partisans and special interests, the most power in determining election outcomes, is beginning to surface. 

Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI) has started a major campaign, based on misinformation, to derail the effort that will give Nevada voters the opportunity to vote their conscience and truly hold elected officials accountable. The organization is arguing against allowing political parties to return to representing the interests of all their members rather than merely their bases, potentially regaining important voter share. 

In a September 22, 2023 opinion piece on the institute’s website, the author blames ranked choice voting (RCV) for the problems seen in New York City, Alaska, and Alameda County, California during recent elections. But all three examples have nothing to do with those jurisdictions adopting RCV.

In New York City, the elections board forgot to remove 135,00 test ballots prior to counting first choice votes. Once corrected, the tabulation went smoothly and, according to exit polls, NYC voters like the new system.

In Alaska as in Nevada, the timing of counting ballots is fixed by law. The delay in obtaining results during the last election was not the result of RCV. It was the result of mandatory counting deadlines already determined by law. If voters want faster results, they need to change the state’s deadlines. According to polling, Alaska voters, like those in New York, like the new RCV process. 

In Alameda County, the issue was the result of mismanagement, not with the voting process. Oakland, the city where the race took place, has been using RCV successfully since 2010.

The author of the NPRI piece tries to confuse voters first by falsely stating RCV “forces” voters to rank candidates, and then by presenting election “algorithms” that have no relation to the actual process used for counting votes in RCV elections. 

The top-five nonpartisan open primary process does not violate the First Amendment protection of freedom of association, and private political parties and organizations remain free to endorse or promote any particular candidate they wish. Local elections for nonpartisan offices in Nevada currently use a similar top-two primary process. 

Voters already have experience with this method of voting. In Nevada’s rural counties, voters are regularly asked to vote for more than one candidate; one person — one vote. Deciding on more than one candidate is something voters already do. 

Voters who have attended a party’s presidential caucus are familiar with vote reallocation; a single vote transferred; one person – one vote. Another name for this vote reallocation is ranked choice voting. 

In its 2020 caucus, the Nevada Democratic Party allowed members to vote early and mark their choices in order of preference (enabling them to reallocate their vote, depending) — and 17 other state parties have adopted RCV in their nomination systems. 

Also not mentioned by NPRI or other critics of RCV is that open-primaries and ranked voting lead to a more civil election season. Opposing candidates in a ranked-choice system have actually campaigned together, specifically asking for second or subsequent choice votes. This strengthens democracy, not weakens it. In approximately 90 percent of elections using RCV, the candidate with the highest number of first choice votes wins with a broader base of support.

Going into the last election, the Republican Party in Nevada had a voter share of less than 30 percent yet Gov. Joe Lombardo, Lt. Gov. Stavros Anthony, and Controller Andy Matthews (all Republicans) won with close to 50 percent of the vote. There’s little reason to believe the outcome would be different with RCV. 

The idea in Nevada has Republican roots. During the 2015 legislative session, a bill to implement a top three primary and RCV was introduced by Republican Senators Patricia Farley and James Settelmeyer, then chair and vice chair of the Senate Legislative Operations and Elections Committee. The intent of the bill, however, was changed prior to drafting to a modified top-two primary. In 2017, Settelmeyer introduced another bill for a top-two nonpartisan open primary. In 2021, Sen. Ben Kieckhefer (now Lombardo’s chief of staff and a Republican) introduced a top-two primary bill. The Democratic majority blocked the bills in 2017 and 2021. 

Is something we do as part of daily life too difficult to do at the ballot box? What happens if when getting dressed, you realize an item of clothing you want to wear is dirty? You make a second choice. What happens when dining out and the server tells you the dish you want is not available? You make a second choice. Do you make New Year’s resolutions? Do you rank them based on their importance to you? Does your job or membership in a group require you to help set and rank annual priorities? 

Do you watch the Oscars and eagerly await the naming of best picture? It’s chosen by votes listed in order of preference. Pay attention to the various sports awards, too. We frequently see posts online ranking things from “first to worst” with items listed in order of preference. We read and accept these simple lists without hesitation.

Voters are tired of the status quo. The largest segment of voters in Nevada are registered as nonpartisan. It is proven that ranked choice voting creates an environment that allows candidates to propose real solutions that appeal to voters beyond a party’s base and encourages lawmakers to collaborate on solutions that make our lives better without the fear of being primaried. 

NPRI and party leaders of both major political parties oppose Question 3 for one reason: It will dilute the power of the status quo. Voters, rather than political parties, will control the outcome and legislation will reflect what is best for the people, not political activists and special interests. Divisiveness that has overtaken many aspects of our lives could diminish when candidates are encouraged to appeal to a much larger and far more diverse group of voters throughout the entirety of the election process.

Isn’t this the type of government we want? One that is responsible to us, no one and nothing else.

The title of NPRI’s opinion piece is “Ranked-Choice Voting Undercuts Our Right to Choose Our Leaders.” In one respect this is correct, as RCV does undercut the right of NPRI, political parties and special interests to control the political discourse. Instead, it solidifies that right — in the hands of the voters. 

Agree or disagree with his politics, former New Mexico Gov. and U.S. United Nations Ambassador Bill Richardson summed it up best. “My candidate did not win, but I decided that I like the system because my third choice won so that meant my vote counted.”

Doug Goodman is the founder and executive director of Nevadans for Election Reform. Email Doug at [email protected]