October 31, 2024 • 22 mins
Welcome to the Emerging Issues Show - the show where we talking about topics that are popping up on the peripheries of society and public policy.
Today, we are talking about a proposed overhaul to our voting system called Rank Choice Voting. Supposedly, this new voting system will allow for better representation and result in fairer outcomes, but is this really the case? Or will Rank Choice Voting work to further cement into place the two party system while disenfranchising more voters along the way?
Our guest today is Brady Smith, a fellow in the American Journey Experience Freedom Rising Fellowship program and author of the article “Exposing the ranked-choice voting scam.”
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Donald Kendal (00:00):
Alright. Welcome to the Emerging Issue Show. I am
your host, Donald Kendall, andthis is the show where we're
talking about topics that arepopping up on the peripheries of
society and public policy.Today, we are gonna be talking
about a proposed, a proposedplan to overhaul the voting
system called rank choicevoting. Supposedly, this new
(00:21):
voting system will allow forbetter representation and result
in fair outcomes.
But is this really the case, orwill rank choice voting work to
further cement into place the 2party system while
disenfranchising more votersalong the way? Our guest today
is Brady Smith, a fellow in theAmerican Journey Experience
(00:43):
Freedom Rising Fellowshipprogram and author of the
article, exposing the rankedchoice voting scam. Brady, thank
you for coming on with me.
Brady Smith (00:51):
Hey. Thanks for having me. I'm happy to be here
and discuss this topic.
Donald Kendal (00:55):
Yeah, no doubt. And I will say that, and I've
told you this before, but thiswas a topic that was not on my
radar. And when it first cameacross my purview, I thought,
yeah, you know, I don't know.This doesn't seem like a big
deal. But, as I looked into itfurther, I was like, this kind
of seems like a big deal.
Brady Smith (01:13):
So
Donald Kendal (01:14):
I'm glad that you, you know, took part in in,
at least partial credit and kindof getting it to my attention
because I feel like this issomething that needs to be
discussed, to be sure.
Brady Smith (01:26):
Yeah. And what I found in in researching this too
that I is very interesting isthat for most people, this is,
oh my goodness, a new thing. Ineed to think about this. I need
to figure it out. It's actuallynot that new.
It's been tried. It's failed,and it's been repealed in
several different jurisdictions.And, so with that example, I I
don't know why it's still beingpushed. Other than that, I think
(01:49):
there's some nefarious purposesbehind it, which are definitely
are coming to light. So it'sinteresting how it it is
presented as this new solutionto the problem, but it's
actually just a repackagedfailed, process that that hasn't
worked and is not going to work.
Donald Kendal (02:06):
Right. Right. Yeah. I feel like I even recall
hearing about this, like, adecade and a half ago. But let's
before we get into any of thatand some of the nefarious stuff,
let's start off with the basics.
Why don't you just lay out whatis ranked choice voting for
anyone that's not familiar withit?
Brady Smith (02:22):
Yeah. It's definitely a good good starting
point. So it it's it's all inthe name. Ranked Choice Voting
is basically a different styleof voting. So instead of just
picking, I want this person tobe president, I want this person
to be mayor, and just choosingthe the person at the top of
your list that that you wouldlike to be in that position, you
actually rank the the thecandidates in in order of your
(02:42):
preference.
So you start with, you know,this is my first choice. This is
my second choice. This is mythird choice. So and then it
goes through multiple cycles,which is also often termed
instant runoff voting. So rankedchoice voting, instant runoff
voting, the same thing.
Basically, if no candidate getsthat 50% threshold, then the
lowest ranked candidate is takenoff the ballot and the votes are
(03:04):
redistributed based on thevoters' next preferences, until
you finally get to a spot whereone person is getting 50%. So if
that sounds complicated, it is,unfortunately. Right.
Donald Kendal (03:16):
Right. And, you know what? I'm just reading from
your article, and we'll get intosome of this. You know, even if
it doesn't sound toocomplicated, it gets kind of
complicated, and it kind of hassome potentially really negative
results. But, again, we'll getinto that.
But I guess, my follow-upquestion, just gonna set the
foundation, is what is thejustification for this? Why is
(03:39):
it even being proposed in thefirst place? Like, what's the
official kind of narrative as towhy this is being proposed?
Brady Smith (03:46):
Yeah. I think that's a great question because
I think it's it's very easy. Alot of time when you have
something that you disagree withor that doesn't sound right to
just be like, oh, no, that'sthis total junk. It's total just
ignore it. Basically, I thinkit's good to Steelman.
The argument as they say, whereyou actually present the
argument is like, why does thismake sense? Or why do do some
people think this makes sense?So I think it's it's very
(04:06):
obvious, when you look at ourcurrent political atmosphere.
There's so much money and somuch corruption going on in
elections. It seems like theperson with the biggest
pocketbook wins.
Often you have, you know,corporations and in different,
super packs and that sort ofthing, donating to campaigns,
getting people in office that itdoesn't seem like the people in
(04:26):
that area necessarily want thatcandidate. So the the the goal
so the stated goal behind rankedchoice voting is to help
eliminate that, to help make itmore democratic is a a word
often used by projects like,FairVote, and and others, that
are trying to implement rankedchoice voting. The idea being
that, hey. If we have this whereyou get to choose your your
first choice, you won't have todo the the politics. You won't
(04:49):
have to think about, does thisperson have a chance to win?
Because even if you pick a firstchoice, that has zero chance of
winning, at least your voice washeard, and then you were able to
select the second choice, youknow, if that person didn't get
that 50% threshold there. So theidea, the the stated, goal of
ranked choice voting often isthat it will make it more,
you're make it so that you'reable to pick candidates that you
(05:10):
actually want instead of onesthat have a chance of winning.
That's definitely one, big partof it. There there's quite a few
other reasons, but I thinkthat's pretty pretty much the
main thing is that our currentsystem, you just have to pick up
this guy. You know, if if youhave for instance, president is
one that often gets brought up,where you've got Republican
versus Democrat.
That's always what it comes downto in a presidential race. You
(05:30):
know, forget the 3rd partycandidate. Even if you love
them, even if you want them toget elected, a lot of times they
just don't have a a chance. Sothe the goal the stated goal
again with ranked choice votingis that if even if they didn't
have a chance, you could rank,you know, Bobby Kennedy as your
your first choice. And even ifyou were actually Donald
Trump's, you know, supporter, ifBobby Kennedy wasn't in the
(05:51):
race, but you prefer BobbyKennedy, you could rank 12, and
therefore, your vote wouldstill, be counted in the end.
But, again, in practice is notexactly how it works.
Donald Kendal (06:02):
Right. Right. And and I feel like, you know, I
reference the idea. I seeminglyhave a memory of, you know, 15
years ago, like, hearing aboutthis for the first time and
thinking like, oh, yeah. That'sthat sounds like a great idea.
You're telling me that I couldput, like, Ron Paul number 1,
and then, you know, who was it?John McCain running in 2008 as
number 2, I guess, and then soforth. And it almost seems like,
(06:25):
yeah, that's great. Like, I canhave, like, a clear conscious
and not have to necessarily dothe, what's what's the term,
like, the lesser of 2 muscles orsomething. Right?
So it almost seems like whenyou're when it's just that sort
of elevator pitch for it, it'slike, okay. I get it. Yeah.
Maybe I could be on board withthis. And that's kind of where I
was when this issue first kindof floated across, my my purview
(06:48):
in more recent, you know,instances.
Where I'm just like, yeah. I'mnot really sure what the big
deal about this is. But but likeI said, once you start looking
into it a little bit more, it'slike, oh, yeah. That this
doesn't seem like a good idea.So so let's get into it.
The the actual drawbacks ofthis, I I you know, as you
described, some advocates ofranked choice voting suggest
(07:11):
that this is gonna help thosethat feel disenfranchised by
this kind of you know, you pickteam blue or team red, and
that's it. But you argue in yourarticle that, that this sort of
system will probably inevitablylead to more disenfranchisement
of voters. Can you explain that?
Brady Smith (07:31):
Yeah. Yeah. So there's something in ranked
choice voting called exhaustedballots. So basically, if you
fail to rank all the candidates,so say you you got 5 candidates
and you, like, look at theballot and say, I only know this
one and this one. And this guyis my first choice.
This guy is my second choice,and I don't really care about
the others. If you don't fillthat ballot in all the way, that
(07:53):
ballot can just get exhausted,which is another word for
disenfranchisement or justbasically silencing somebody's
vote. And we have data aroundthis where this is a common
occurrence, and it can be, I'veseen, 7%, 8%, 12% of votes that
got exhausted in an election. Soyou are further disenfranchising
(08:14):
people by silencing their vote.So if if I am confused about
what the ballot is supposed tolook like, if I do it wrong, if
I make a mistake, all thesethings can can lead to your
ballot being exhausted.
And when that happens, yourvoice is is is, effectively
silenced.
Donald Kendal (08:30):
Mhmm. Yeah. The well, I'll get to a next point
in a minute, but there's alsothe idea of this being proposed
as a way to encourage morepeople to come out, you know,
like, you know, people that arekind of disillusioned by the
binary choice of just the 2candidates. Maybe they're not
come out to vote, but if we havethis type of ranked choice
(08:52):
voting, maybe it'll encouragemore voter turnout. But you kind
of argue that, no, it's actuallyprobably opposite.
It's probably gonna end upreducing voter turnout that
we've seen how this is reducedin voter turnout. Can you
explain that?
Brady Smith (09:05):
Exactly. And it's it's again, it comes down to
data where, yeah, it might soundgood on paper, but in practice,
this is not how it turns out. Weactually have data that, shows
in several elections. There wasactually an 8% lower voter
turnout in in ranked choicevoting jurisdictions during off
cycle elections, compared to nonRCV locations. So what's going
(09:28):
on there?
A lot of it is because I'mhaving to rank the the number of
candidates, however many may bein this race. It actually takes
me longer to vote. So you gotlonger time at the poll, which
means longer lines, which means,you know, I've got I just got
off work at, you know, 5o'clock, and I'm I'm headed to
the poles. Oh my goodness.There's a long line.
Yeah. Forget it. I'm headed tohome to have some dinner. So you
(09:50):
you run into that. You run intothe fact that people get to, you
know, the polls and and and theand the lines long, and they
just don't wanna to mess withit.
But, yeah, the that lowering ofvoter turnout is actually it's
it's provable data that we have,to show. So you can say all you
want that, hey, This is gonnabring more people out. The fact
is that that's not what the datasupports. Mhmm.
Donald Kendal (10:11):
Yeah. And then one of the more eye opening
things for some of these, like,specific examples of, voting
systems that have been trying toutilize this ranked choice
voting, having really, reallycrazy outcomes. And this is, I
mean, some of these examples, Ithink, like, alone should be,
(10:32):
like, the the nail in the coffinto trying to apply this type of
new voting system across thecountry. Can you talk about some
of these, specific examples ofof how this has turned sour?
Brady Smith (10:43):
Yeah. Yeah. For sure. So we've got, kind of what
what happens is as, you know,the less people are are voting
and stuff, because the the thethe polling time is long. You on
the other end of that, you havethe fact that, the actual time,
the onus on the poll workers isincreased.
So not only does it take longerfor people to vote, it takes
longer for people to actuallyfigure out what, what just
(11:06):
happened. So you're goingthrough these multiple cycles of
all this, you know, counting andback and forth. There is one
election in. I think it wasMinneapolis has one of their
mayoral races. It took, based onsome estimates about 30,000 man
hours to count the 70,000ballots that came through for a
mayoral race.
(11:26):
Like, this isn't even a nationalor statewide race. This is a
city race. Like, that is anCredible amount of time and
efforts. Idaho has ranked choicevoting on the ballot. It was a
ballot initiative that camethrough its extremely negative
thing.
Definitely hoping that anybodyfrom Idaho is voting. No on Prop
1, But, with with all thatthat's going on there, there's
(11:47):
actually a fiscal impactstatement that the the secretary
of state put out, and thenumbers on it are absolutely
insane. So not only are the pollworkers having to work more and
longer and more hours is gonnacost more money. Just everything
around it is going to cost thethe state and the voters,
ultimately, more money, moretime, more effort, and then the
confusion that results from thatis just absolutely catastrophic.
Donald Kendal (12:10):
Yeah. There's one, I don't know if it was in
this article or or somethingelse that, we were doing
research on, whether it was a itwas a New York race that went
to, like, 8 different stages ofrunoff, and it took forever. It
took, like, what, it was, like,weeks for them to figure it out.
But the worst example, and Ithink this was, like, a you can
(12:31):
correct me if I'm wrong, but Ifeel like it was, like, a school
board race in California orsomething like that where they
they did this runoff rankedchoice voting, and then they at
the end of the day, theyinstalled the wrong person.
Like, the the the confusionresulted in the wrong person
being awarded the election.
I mean, that that's like I Ifeel like that is impossible in
(12:53):
a normal voting system, but it'ssomehow possible in this.
Brady Smith (12:57):
Yeah. No. It's it's it's absolutely striking when
you see these differentexamples. And, again, this isn't
a new thing. We're notreinventing the wheel.
I mean, they're trying toreinvent the the voting wheel,
but it's already been attemptedto reinvent the wheel and it's
just not worked. We've got a lotof instances where a lot of
people are extremely, you know,turned off by the results that
(13:18):
end up coming. There was a 2018congressional race, where you
had one guy who the theRepublican actually ended the
first round of voting with morevotes than the other person, and
then he ended up losing theelection at the end of the day.
So you you got this this thiswas the first choice of of most
of the people, and he ends uplosing the election. So it's
(13:38):
things like that where they'rejust, it's confusing people.
They don't understand why theirvote wasn't counted. It's
interesting you mentioned thatmayoral race as well. Not only
that it's hit them 8 rounds andweeks weeks to to figure out,
you know, out of the 10candidates who had won, there
was a 140,000 ballots that endup getting exhausted, AKA thrown
in the garbage because peoplehadn't filled them outright or
(14:00):
got confused or what have you.And, Yeah. I don't I don't know
if, I don't know if morecomplexity is something that our
election system is in any needof at this point.
Donald Kendal (14:10):
No. Especially, you know, after the last couple
of, election cycles that we'vehad, I feel like the faith in
our election system is probablyat a near all time low, and
adding this and adding the, the,you know, reduced voter turnout
and the ballot exhaustion andthe potential for, you know,
(14:30):
abuse or even just mistakes ofthis, like, it's just going to
decrease the faith in ourelectoral system. And one of the
things that I was thinking aboutearlier, and I I kind of balked
at mentioning at the time, but II feel like I have to to bring
it up, is this idea that, like,oh, well, all those people that
are, you know, for the 3rdparties, and they don't want to
choose the lesser of 2 evils,and they can come in. They could
(14:52):
put their first person on top. Ialmost feel like that's just a
trick.
It's just like a trick to getpeople in the door that are
wanting to vote 3rd party sothat you could put your 3rd
party person at the top and thenthat'll be eliminated at the
first round. And now we've gotyour vote for 1 of the main two
parties. Like like I I I'vetalked to people about this
(15:12):
ranked choice voting ever sincethe issue has, you know, come
across, my desk, but, I I asked,one of these, like, experts in
this in this field. I asked,like, do third parties, like,
fall for this? Because it justfeels like a trap to to wrangle
their voters into one of theseother two parties.
Yeah. And they said, yeah.Unfortunately, they do. They do
(15:34):
feel, fall for it. That to meis, like, the most insidious
part of this entire thing.
Like, it's like tricking 3rdparty voters into casting their
vote for 1 of the 2 people thatthey think is evil. Like, that's
that's just that's the insanityof this ranked choice voting.
Brady Smith (15:49):
Yeah. Well and that's where I think it comes
down at the end of the day. AndI I kinda had a bit of a crisis
of faith as I was doing theresearch into this to to begin
with where I was like, yeah. Youknow, ranked choice voting is
obviously not the answer, but wecan't deny that our current
system isn't working super good.Like, we do have a lot of
corruption.
We do have a lot of candidatesto get elected, time after time
(16:13):
after time, and people hatethem. They don't want them in
office, but it just seems likewe can't get better choices.
And, really, I think what itcomes down to is it's very easy
to try to find the easy way out.You're trying to look for, okay.
This will solve it, instead ofbeing, more introspective and
thinking, no.
Maybe I need to go do some work.Maybe I need to mobilize people
(16:34):
in my community where we'reactually putting people on the
ballot. That's the beautifulthing of living in the
constitutional republic is, therepublic the whole the side of a
republic is that we get to electrepresentatives. They have to
represent us, and that is thethe whole thing about it. We're
not just given choices if wechoose to go make a choice, if
that makes sense.
(16:54):
So you you can't just expect theparty to to give you the perfect
candidate every time. You haveto get involved. Each individual
citizen has to get involved andtake that action. And it's it's
it's not fun. It's notnecessarily fun to go to a GOP
meeting or or a, you know, alocal county meeting or
something like that.
They're not particularly funtype of events to go to. Sure.
(17:15):
But if you actually care aboutthis country and if you actually
care about the future wherewe're headed, that's the type of
effort. That's the type ofsacrifice that's that's
required. And, honestly, it it'snot that big of a sacrifice.
I was, listening to a podcastthe other day. They were
talking, quoting Thomas Paineand the the whole, American
crisis and then the whole thingabout the sunshine patriot. I I
(17:35):
can't quote it, but I I highlyencourage everybody go look that
up. The the the contrast of whatthose patriots went through
versus us having to go to, alocal, party meeting. But that's
that's no there's no contrast.
There's no comparison betweenthose two things. So I would
highly recommend people to tostop looking for solutions to
something that works and insteadtry to, you know, go go a step
(17:59):
back. Go a step fur back fromthe from the where the actual
election takes place. Figure outhow we can get some good
candidates on the ballot. That'sthe starting point.
That's really, I think, whatpeople need to focus on.
Donald Kendal (18:09):
Yeah. No. I think you're absolutely right. I mean,
there are so many times where Ifeel, you know, like somebody
that's completely opposite of mewhen it comes to the kind of
political makeup, where they Icould agree with them on an
issue, like a problem. I mean,like, yep.
I agree. That's a terribleproblem. It needs to be solved.
We need to do something aboutit. But then the solution that
(18:30):
they're proposing is is as, tofix that problem that I agree
with.
No. No. That's the wrongsolution. So, yeah, like, we can
totally acknowledge that thereare problems with the system. Is
this the right, solution to thatproblem?
No. It is not. So last question.This this seems like it's
(18:51):
getting a little bit moretraction. Is that the case?
Is this proposed system kind ofcatching on across the country,
or is it just some isolatedcases? What's the current kind
of makeup of this ranked choicevoting?
Brady Smith (19:02):
Yeah. So currently, there's actually 2 states that
are voting on, banning orrepealing, ranked choice voting.
So the I would say the themomentum is is kind of 5050,
maybe actually a little bit moretoward getting rid of ranked
choice voting. There's actuallyquite a few states currently
that that ban ranked choicevoting throughout the state
(19:22):
completely. It's just not evenallowed on the state level, and
that trickles down to all thelocal municipalities, counties,
and and cities, etcetera.
So there's Alaska and Missouriare actually, Alaska is going to
repeal it potentially here inthis upcoming November 5th
election. Missouri is looking atbanning it completely, which
Missouri would join. I thinkit's 10 at least 10 other states
(19:44):
that have ranked choice votingban throughout the state. So
that that's good. You know,we're we're looking at Alaska
was one of the, one of theforebearers of ranked choice
voting.
They've actually have it forquite a bit. There's been a lot
of dissatisfaction with theresults that have come through
that. So it's very interestingto see them. 1 of the the the
initial ranked choice votingproponents, now going back and
(20:05):
repealing it potentially. Sowe'll see how that election
goes.
We got Oregon, Idaho, Nevada,and Colorado, that are all kinda
looking at I I believe it'sColorado. Don't quote me on
that, but I'm pretty sure, butthey're they're looking at at
implementing ranked choicevoting. So we've got 4 states
where it's on the ballot ofwhether or not they want ranked
choice voting. So it's reallyimportant if you live in in
(20:27):
those states, and it that thatthat's just on on a state level.
I'm sure there's municipalities,on a smaller level that are
potentially looking at this too.
So if this is on your ballot,make sure that you get educated
about it, educate your friends,because it's it's one of those
things that especially you get,you know, flyers in the mail
from the proponents of this,which is another whole aspect of
this where we've got, it's verylopsided. The the proponents of
(20:49):
ranked choice voting arespending 1,000,000 and 1,000,000
of dollars. The the anti rankedchoice voting is under a
1,000,000, so it's around$600,000 that's had been spent
on this sort of thing. So it'sit's just pitiful, the the anti
ranked choice voting. The theamount of push is going for
ranked choice voting is verydisturbing because, like I said,
it's all lopsided.
It's all coming from one side ofthe aisle, and I think it's
(21:10):
pretty obvious which side of theaisle that is. So it's very
important to get educated, getout there, and and vote if this
is something that's on theballot in your area.
Donald Kendal (21:18):
Yeah. Yeah. So it's ranked choice voting.
Brady, I wanna thank you againfor not only coming on the show,
but just making this an issue inmy mind. Because it's like I
said again, when when I firstheard about it, I was like, yeah
what's the big deal?
But after working on it with youand reading your stuff, it's
become very clear that this isdefinitely an emerging threat
(21:40):
when it comes to our votingsystem. But Brady Smith, like I
said, author of that Blazearticle, exposing the ranked
choice voting scam, and also afellow of the, Freedom Rising
Fellowship program, the AmericanJourney experience. Thank you
for coming on with us today.
Brady Smith (21:58):
My pleasure, Donald.
Donald Kendal (21:59):
And everyone else, we will talk to you on the
next episode.
Alright. Welcome to the Emerging Issue Show. I am
your host, Donald Kendall, andthis is the show where we're
talking about topics that arepopping up on the peripheries of
society and public policy.Today, we are gonna be talking
about a proposed, a proposedplan to overhaul the voting
system called rank choicevoting. Supposedly, this new
(00:21):
voting system will allow forbetter representation and result
in fair outcomes.
But is this really the case, orwill rank choice voting work to
further cement into place the 2party system while
disenfranchising more votersalong the way? Our guest today
is Brady Smith, a fellow in theAmerican Journey Experience
(00:43):
Freedom Rising Fellowshipprogram and author of the
article, exposing the rankedchoice voting scam. Brady, thank
you for coming on with me.
Brady Smith (00:51):
Hey. Thanks for having me. I'm happy to be here
and discuss this topic.
Donald Kendal (00:55):
Yeah, no doubt. And I will say that, and I've
told you this before, but thiswas a topic that was not on my
radar. And when it first cameacross my purview, I thought,
yeah, you know, I don't know.This doesn't seem like a big
deal. But, as I looked into itfurther, I was like, this kind
of seems like a big deal.
Brady Smith (01:13):
So
Donald Kendal (01:14):
I'm glad that you, you know, took part in in,
at least partial credit and kindof getting it to my attention
because I feel like this issomething that needs to be
discussed, to be sure.
Brady Smith (01:26):
Yeah. And what I found in in researching this too
that I is very interesting isthat for most people, this is,
oh my goodness, a new thing. Ineed to think about this. I need
to figure it out. It's actuallynot that new.
It's been tried. It's failed,and it's been repealed in
several different jurisdictions.And, so with that example, I I
don't know why it's still beingpushed. Other than that, I think
(01:49):
there's some nefarious purposesbehind it, which are definitely
are coming to light. So it'sinteresting how it it is
presented as this new solutionto the problem, but it's
actually just a repackagedfailed, process that that hasn't
worked and is not going to work.
Donald Kendal (02:06):
Right. Right. Yeah. I feel like I even recall
hearing about this, like, adecade and a half ago. But let's
before we get into any of thatand some of the nefarious stuff,
let's start off with the basics.
Why don't you just lay out whatis ranked choice voting for
anyone that's not familiar withit?
Brady Smith (02:22):
Yeah. It's definitely a good good starting
point. So it it's it's all inthe name. Ranked Choice Voting
is basically a different styleof voting. So instead of just
picking, I want this person tobe president, I want this person
to be mayor, and just choosingthe the person at the top of
your list that that you wouldlike to be in that position, you
actually rank the the thecandidates in in order of your
(02:42):
preference.
So you start with, you know,this is my first choice. This is
my second choice. This is mythird choice. So and then it
goes through multiple cycles,which is also often termed
instant runoff voting. So rankedchoice voting, instant runoff
voting, the same thing.
Basically, if no candidate getsthat 50% threshold, then the
lowest ranked candidate is takenoff the ballot and the votes are
(03:04):
redistributed based on thevoters' next preferences, until
you finally get to a spot whereone person is getting 50%. So if
that sounds complicated, it is,unfortunately. Right.
Donald Kendal (03:16):
Right. And, you know what? I'm just reading from
your article, and we'll get intosome of this. You know, even if
it doesn't sound toocomplicated, it gets kind of
complicated, and it kind of hassome potentially really negative
results. But, again, we'll getinto that.
But I guess, my follow-upquestion, just gonna set the
foundation, is what is thejustification for this? Why is
(03:39):
it even being proposed in thefirst place? Like, what's the
official kind of narrative as towhy this is being proposed?
Brady Smith (03:46):
Yeah. I think that's a great question because
I think it's it's very easy. Alot of time when you have
something that you disagree withor that doesn't sound right to
just be like, oh, no, that'sthis total junk. It's total just
ignore it. Basically, I thinkit's good to Steelman.
The argument as they say, whereyou actually present the
argument is like, why does thismake sense? Or why do do some
people think this makes sense?So I think it's it's very
(04:06):
obvious, when you look at ourcurrent political atmosphere.
There's so much money and somuch corruption going on in
elections. It seems like theperson with the biggest
pocketbook wins.
Often you have, you know,corporations and in different,
super packs and that sort ofthing, donating to campaigns,
getting people in office that itdoesn't seem like the people in
(04:26):
that area necessarily want thatcandidate. So the the the goal
so the stated goal behind rankedchoice voting is to help
eliminate that, to help make itmore democratic is a a word
often used by projects like,FairVote, and and others, that
are trying to implement rankedchoice voting. The idea being
that, hey. If we have this whereyou get to choose your your
first choice, you won't have todo the the politics. You won't
(04:49):
have to think about, does thisperson have a chance to win?
Because even if you pick a firstchoice, that has zero chance of
winning, at least your voice washeard, and then you were able to
select the second choice, youknow, if that person didn't get
that 50% threshold there. So theidea, the the stated, goal of
ranked choice voting often isthat it will make it more,
you're make it so that you'reable to pick candidates that you
(05:10):
actually want instead of onesthat have a chance of winning.
That's definitely one, big partof it. There there's quite a few
other reasons, but I thinkthat's pretty pretty much the
main thing is that our currentsystem, you just have to pick up
this guy. You know, if if youhave for instance, president is
one that often gets brought up,where you've got Republican
versus Democrat.
That's always what it comes downto in a presidential race. You
(05:30):
know, forget the 3rd partycandidate. Even if you love
them, even if you want them toget elected, a lot of times they
just don't have a a chance. Sothe the goal the stated goal
again with ranked choice votingis that if even if they didn't
have a chance, you could rank,you know, Bobby Kennedy as your
your first choice. And even ifyou were actually Donald
Trump's, you know, supporter, ifBobby Kennedy wasn't in the
(05:51):
race, but you prefer BobbyKennedy, you could rank 12, and
therefore, your vote wouldstill, be counted in the end.
But, again, in practice is notexactly how it works.
Donald Kendal (06:02):
Right. Right. And and I feel like, you know, I
reference the idea. I seeminglyhave a memory of, you know, 15
years ago, like, hearing aboutthis for the first time and
thinking like, oh, yeah. That'sthat sounds like a great idea.
You're telling me that I couldput, like, Ron Paul number 1,
and then, you know, who was it?John McCain running in 2008 as
number 2, I guess, and then soforth. And it almost seems like,
(06:25):
yeah, that's great. Like, I canhave, like, a clear conscious
and not have to necessarily dothe, what's what's the term,
like, the lesser of 2 muscles orsomething. Right?
So it almost seems like whenyou're when it's just that sort
of elevator pitch for it, it'slike, okay. I get it. Yeah.
Maybe I could be on board withthis. And that's kind of where I
was when this issue first kindof floated across, my my purview
(06:48):
in more recent, you know,instances.
Where I'm just like, yeah. I'mnot really sure what the big
deal about this is. But but likeI said, once you start looking
into it a little bit more, it'slike, oh, yeah. That this
doesn't seem like a good idea.So so let's get into it.
The the actual drawbacks ofthis, I I you know, as you
described, some advocates ofranked choice voting suggest
(07:11):
that this is gonna help thosethat feel disenfranchised by
this kind of you know, you pickteam blue or team red, and
that's it. But you argue in yourarticle that, that this sort of
system will probably inevitablylead to more disenfranchisement
of voters. Can you explain that?
Brady Smith (07:31):
Yeah. Yeah. So there's something in ranked
choice voting called exhaustedballots. So basically, if you
fail to rank all the candidates,so say you you got 5 candidates
and you, like, look at theballot and say, I only know this
one and this one. And this guyis my first choice.
This guy is my second choice,and I don't really care about
the others. If you don't fillthat ballot in all the way, that
(07:53):
ballot can just get exhausted,which is another word for
disenfranchisement or justbasically silencing somebody's
vote. And we have data aroundthis where this is a common
occurrence, and it can be, I'veseen, 7%, 8%, 12% of votes that
got exhausted in an election. Soyou are further disenfranchising
(08:14):
people by silencing their vote.So if if I am confused about
what the ballot is supposed tolook like, if I do it wrong, if
I make a mistake, all thesethings can can lead to your
ballot being exhausted.
And when that happens, yourvoice is is is, effectively
silenced.
Donald Kendal (08:30):
Mhmm. Yeah. The well, I'll get to a next point
in a minute, but there's alsothe idea of this being proposed
as a way to encourage morepeople to come out, you know,
like, you know, people that arekind of disillusioned by the
binary choice of just the 2candidates. Maybe they're not
come out to vote, but if we havethis type of ranked choice
(08:52):
voting, maybe it'll encouragemore voter turnout. But you kind
of argue that, no, it's actuallyprobably opposite.
It's probably gonna end upreducing voter turnout that
we've seen how this is reducedin voter turnout. Can you
explain that?
Brady Smith (09:05):
Exactly. And it's it's again, it comes down to
data where, yeah, it might soundgood on paper, but in practice,
this is not how it turns out. Weactually have data that, shows
in several elections. There wasactually an 8% lower voter
turnout in in ranked choicevoting jurisdictions during off
cycle elections, compared to nonRCV locations. So what's going
(09:28):
on there?
A lot of it is because I'mhaving to rank the the number of
candidates, however many may bein this race. It actually takes
me longer to vote. So you gotlonger time at the poll, which
means longer lines, which means,you know, I've got I just got
off work at, you know, 5o'clock, and I'm I'm headed to
the poles. Oh my goodness.There's a long line.
Yeah. Forget it. I'm headed tohome to have some dinner. So you
(09:50):
you run into that. You run intothe fact that people get to, you
know, the polls and and and theand the lines long, and they
just don't wanna to mess withit.
But, yeah, the that lowering ofvoter turnout is actually it's
it's provable data that we have,to show. So you can say all you
want that, hey, This is gonnabring more people out. The fact
is that that's not what the datasupports. Mhmm.
Donald Kendal (10:11):
Yeah. And then one of the more eye opening
things for some of these, like,specific examples of, voting
systems that have been trying toutilize this ranked choice
voting, having really, reallycrazy outcomes. And this is, I
mean, some of these examples, Ithink, like, alone should be,
(10:32):
like, the the nail in the coffinto trying to apply this type of
new voting system across thecountry. Can you talk about some
of these, specific examples ofof how this has turned sour?
Brady Smith (10:43):
Yeah. Yeah. For sure. So we've got, kind of what
what happens is as, you know,the less people are are voting
and stuff, because the the thethe polling time is long. You on
the other end of that, you havethe fact that, the actual time,
the onus on the poll workers isincreased.
So not only does it take longerfor people to vote, it takes
longer for people to actuallyfigure out what, what just
(11:06):
happened. So you're goingthrough these multiple cycles of
all this, you know, counting andback and forth. There is one
election in. I think it wasMinneapolis has one of their
mayoral races. It took, based onsome estimates about 30,000 man
hours to count the 70,000ballots that came through for a
mayoral race.
(11:26):
Like, this isn't even a nationalor statewide race. This is a
city race. Like, that is anCredible amount of time and
efforts. Idaho has ranked choicevoting on the ballot. It was a
ballot initiative that camethrough its extremely negative
thing.
Definitely hoping that anybodyfrom Idaho is voting. No on Prop
1, But, with with all thatthat's going on there, there's
(11:47):
actually a fiscal impactstatement that the the secretary
of state put out, and thenumbers on it are absolutely
insane. So not only are the pollworkers having to work more and
longer and more hours is gonnacost more money. Just everything
around it is going to cost thethe state and the voters,
ultimately, more money, moretime, more effort, and then the
confusion that results from thatis just absolutely catastrophic.
Donald Kendal (12:10):
Yeah. There's one, I don't know if it was in
this article or or somethingelse that, we were doing
research on, whether it was a itwas a New York race that went
to, like, 8 different stages ofrunoff, and it took forever. It
took, like, what, it was, like,weeks for them to figure it out.
But the worst example, and Ithink this was, like, a you can
(12:31):
correct me if I'm wrong, but Ifeel like it was, like, a school
board race in California orsomething like that where they
they did this runoff rankedchoice voting, and then they at
the end of the day, theyinstalled the wrong person.
Like, the the the confusionresulted in the wrong person
being awarded the election.
I mean, that that's like I Ifeel like that is impossible in
(12:53):
a normal voting system, but it'ssomehow possible in this.
Brady Smith (12:57):
Yeah. No. It's it's it's absolutely striking when
you see these differentexamples. And, again, this isn't
a new thing. We're notreinventing the wheel.
I mean, they're trying toreinvent the the voting wheel,
but it's already been attemptedto reinvent the wheel and it's
just not worked. We've got a lotof instances where a lot of
people are extremely, you know,turned off by the results that
(13:18):
end up coming. There was a 2018congressional race, where you
had one guy who the theRepublican actually ended the
first round of voting with morevotes than the other person, and
then he ended up losing theelection at the end of the day.
So you you got this this thiswas the first choice of of most
of the people, and he ends uplosing the election. So it's
(13:38):
things like that where they'rejust, it's confusing people.
They don't understand why theirvote wasn't counted. It's
interesting you mentioned thatmayoral race as well. Not only
that it's hit them 8 rounds andweeks weeks to to figure out,
you know, out of the 10candidates who had won, there
was a 140,000 ballots that endup getting exhausted, AKA thrown
in the garbage because peoplehadn't filled them outright or
(14:00):
got confused or what have you.And, Yeah. I don't I don't know
if, I don't know if morecomplexity is something that our
election system is in any needof at this point.
Donald Kendal (14:10):
No. Especially, you know, after the last couple
of, election cycles that we'vehad, I feel like the faith in
our election system is probablyat a near all time low, and
adding this and adding the, the,you know, reduced voter turnout
and the ballot exhaustion andthe potential for, you know,
(14:30):
abuse or even just mistakes ofthis, like, it's just going to
decrease the faith in ourelectoral system. And one of the
things that I was thinking aboutearlier, and I I kind of balked
at mentioning at the time, but II feel like I have to to bring
it up, is this idea that, like,oh, well, all those people that
are, you know, for the 3rdparties, and they don't want to
choose the lesser of 2 evils,and they can come in. They could
(14:52):
put their first person on top. Ialmost feel like that's just a
trick.
It's just like a trick to getpeople in the door that are
wanting to vote 3rd party sothat you could put your 3rd
party person at the top and thenthat'll be eliminated at the
first round. And now we've gotyour vote for 1 of the main two
parties. Like like I I I'vetalked to people about this
(15:12):
ranked choice voting ever sincethe issue has, you know, come
across, my desk, but, I I asked,one of these, like, experts in
this in this field. I asked,like, do third parties, like,
fall for this? Because it justfeels like a trap to to wrangle
their voters into one of theseother two parties.
Yeah. And they said, yeah.Unfortunately, they do. They do
(15:34):
feel, fall for it. That to meis, like, the most insidious
part of this entire thing.
Like, it's like tricking 3rdparty voters into casting their
vote for 1 of the 2 people thatthey think is evil. Like, that's
that's just that's the insanityof this ranked choice voting.
Brady Smith (15:49):
Yeah. Well and that's where I think it comes
down at the end of the day. AndI I kinda had a bit of a crisis
of faith as I was doing theresearch into this to to begin
with where I was like, yeah. Youknow, ranked choice voting is
obviously not the answer, but wecan't deny that our current
system isn't working super good.Like, we do have a lot of
corruption.
We do have a lot of candidatesto get elected, time after time
(16:13):
after time, and people hatethem. They don't want them in
office, but it just seems likewe can't get better choices.
And, really, I think what itcomes down to is it's very easy
to try to find the easy way out.You're trying to look for, okay.
This will solve it, instead ofbeing, more introspective and
thinking, no.
Maybe I need to go do some work.Maybe I need to mobilize people
(16:34):
in my community where we'reactually putting people on the
ballot. That's the beautifulthing of living in the
constitutional republic is, therepublic the whole the side of a
republic is that we get to electrepresentatives. They have to
represent us, and that is thethe whole thing about it. We're
not just given choices if wechoose to go make a choice, if
that makes sense.
(16:54):
So you you can't just expect theparty to to give you the perfect
candidate every time. You haveto get involved. Each individual
citizen has to get involved andtake that action. And it's it's
it's not fun. It's notnecessarily fun to go to a GOP
meeting or or a, you know, alocal county meeting or
something like that.
They're not particularly funtype of events to go to. Sure.
(17:15):
But if you actually care aboutthis country and if you actually
care about the future wherewe're headed, that's the type of
effort. That's the type ofsacrifice that's that's
required. And, honestly, it it'snot that big of a sacrifice.
I was, listening to a podcastthe other day. They were
talking, quoting Thomas Paineand the the whole, American
crisis and then the whole thingabout the sunshine patriot. I I
(17:35):
can't quote it, but I I highlyencourage everybody go look that
up. The the the contrast of whatthose patriots went through
versus us having to go to, alocal, party meeting. But that's
that's no there's no contrast.
There's no comparison betweenthose two things. So I would
highly recommend people to tostop looking for solutions to
something that works and insteadtry to, you know, go go a step
(17:59):
back. Go a step fur back fromthe from the where the actual
election takes place. Figure outhow we can get some good
candidates on the ballot. That'sthe starting point.
That's really, I think, whatpeople need to focus on.
Donald Kendal (18:09):
Yeah. No. I think you're absolutely right. I mean,
there are so many times where Ifeel, you know, like somebody
that's completely opposite of mewhen it comes to the kind of
political makeup, where they Icould agree with them on an
issue, like a problem. I mean,like, yep.
I agree. That's a terribleproblem. It needs to be solved.
We need to do something aboutit. But then the solution that
(18:30):
they're proposing is is as, tofix that problem that I agree
with.
No. No. That's the wrongsolution. So, yeah, like, we can
totally acknowledge that thereare problems with the system. Is
this the right, solution to thatproblem?
No. It is not. So last question.This this seems like it's
(18:51):
getting a little bit moretraction. Is that the case?
Is this proposed system kind ofcatching on across the country,
or is it just some isolatedcases? What's the current kind
of makeup of this ranked choicevoting?
Brady Smith (19:02):
Yeah. So currently, there's actually 2 states that
are voting on, banning orrepealing, ranked choice voting.
So the I would say the themomentum is is kind of 5050,
maybe actually a little bit moretoward getting rid of ranked
choice voting. There's actuallyquite a few states currently
that that ban ranked choicevoting throughout the state
(19:22):
completely. It's just not evenallowed on the state level, and
that trickles down to all thelocal municipalities, counties,
and and cities, etcetera.
So there's Alaska and Missouriare actually, Alaska is going to
repeal it potentially here inthis upcoming November 5th
election. Missouri is looking atbanning it completely, which
Missouri would join. I thinkit's 10 at least 10 other states
(19:44):
that have ranked choice votingban throughout the state. So
that that's good. You know,we're we're looking at Alaska
was one of the, one of theforebearers of ranked choice
voting.
They've actually have it forquite a bit. There's been a lot
of dissatisfaction with theresults that have come through
that. So it's very interestingto see them. 1 of the the the
initial ranked choice votingproponents, now going back and
(20:05):
repealing it potentially. Sowe'll see how that election
goes.
We got Oregon, Idaho, Nevada,and Colorado, that are all kinda
looking at I I believe it'sColorado. Don't quote me on
that, but I'm pretty sure, butthey're they're looking at at
implementing ranked choicevoting. So we've got 4 states
where it's on the ballot ofwhether or not they want ranked
choice voting. So it's reallyimportant if you live in in
(20:27):
those states, and it that thatthat's just on on a state level.
I'm sure there's municipalities,on a smaller level that are
potentially looking at this too.
So if this is on your ballot,make sure that you get educated
about it, educate your friends,because it's it's one of those
things that especially you get,you know, flyers in the mail
from the proponents of this,which is another whole aspect of
this where we've got, it's verylopsided. The the proponents of
(20:49):
ranked choice voting arespending 1,000,000 and 1,000,000
of dollars. The the anti rankedchoice voting is under a
1,000,000, so it's around$600,000 that's had been spent
on this sort of thing. So it'sit's just pitiful, the the anti
ranked choice voting. The theamount of push is going for
ranked choice voting is verydisturbing because, like I said,
it's all lopsided.
It's all coming from one side ofthe aisle, and I think it's
(21:10):
pretty obvious which side of theaisle that is. So it's very
important to get educated, getout there, and and vote if this
is something that's on theballot in your area.
Donald Kendal (21:18):
Yeah. Yeah. So it's ranked choice voting.
Brady, I wanna thank you againfor not only coming on the show,
but just making this an issue inmy mind. Because it's like I
said again, when when I firstheard about it, I was like, yeah
what's the big deal?
But after working on it with youand reading your stuff, it's
become very clear that this isdefinitely an emerging threat
(21:40):
when it comes to our votingsystem. But Brady Smith, like I
said, author of that Blazearticle, exposing the ranked
choice voting scam, and also afellow of the, Freedom Rising
Fellowship program, the AmericanJourney experience. Thank you
for coming on with us today.
Brady Smith (21:58):
My pleasure, Donald.
Donald Kendal (21:59):
And everyone else, we will talk to you on the
next episode.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com