A final plea: Go with top-two, not ranked choice
The duopoly of the two major parties is ripe for reform in Arizona, but reformers are headed in the wrong direction.
The criticism of the current system of electing public officials by proponents of ranked choice voting is valid and important. The duopoly of the two major parties over general election candidates results in distorted democratic governance.
Unfortunately, the criticism of ranked choice voting by Republican legislators is also generally valid. It is excessively complicated and asks too much of voters. It also would produce suboptimal democratic governance, although arguably not as distorted.
In ranked choice voting, voters rank general election candidates in order of preference. If no candidate gets a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and the votes of those who made that candidate their first choice are reallocated to their second choice. The process is continued until a candidate passes the majority threshold.
GOP lawmakers have passed a law (House Bill 2552) prohibiting ranked choice voting, but Gov. Hobbs is expected to veto it. They have also referred to the ballot a measure (House Concurrent Resolution 2033) purporting to outlaw ranked choice voting, but doesn’t really.
HCR 2033, if approved by voters, would guarantee that the nominees of recognized political parties, selected in a party primary, would be on the general election ballot. But that wouldn’t preclude an initiative or law that makes it easier for others to also get on the general election ballot. And to require that general election ballots be cast and counted, and the winner determined, by the RCV methodology. Competence in policy-making hasn’t been a MAGA hallmark.
The legislative frenzy has been triggered by a serious effort in formation to put RCV on the ballot in 2024, which MAGA Republicans think, probably correctly, would threaten their disproportionate influence.
It’s the right timing. But it’s the wrong reform. The right reform would be a nonpartisan, top-two primary system.
The current system no longer fits, or properly serves, the Arizona electorate. Over a third of Arizona voters decline to affiliate with any political party. In Maricopa County, independents are now the plurality.
With such a configuration in the electorate, there is no rationale or justification for giving political parties preferential ballot access and other electoral benefits. They are private organizations. They have a right to exist, choose candidates to support, and advocate for their election. But, when more than a third of the electorate is opting out of the partisan duopoly, taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for their nominating process.
A nonpartisan top-two primary system best fits the configuration of today’s Arizona electorate. The rules for getting on the primary election ballot would be the same for every candidate. All candidates would compete in the same primary, open to all voters. If no candidate wins a majority, the two candidates with the most primary votes would run off in a general election.
An equal playing field for all candidates, equal participation for all voters. And a winner chosen directly by a majority of voters.
It is true that Arizona voters overwhelmingly rejected a top-two primary system in 2012. But that was not a truly nonpartisan top-two proposal. Party labels could still be on the ballot, although the parties would have no say over who got to use their brand. In fact, candidates could make up their own party names and have it printed on the ballot, a particularly goofy feature.
But what is most different today is the extent to which both major political parties have become unrepresentative of the broader electorate. The Democratic Party wasn’t as fully woke in 2012. The Republican Party hadn’t been taken over by Donald Trump and his MAGA movement.
More centrist candidates could make it through party primaries. That’s clearly no longer true in the Republican Party. In fact, pragmatic conservatives in the mold of John McCain, Jon Kyl, and Doug Ducey, no longer have a realistic path to the general election ballot through a Republican primary. And the Democrats just chased Kyrsten Sinema, who still leans considerably left, out of their party.
A nonpartisan top-two primary system would leave the election system as it currently is in place, just remove the disproportionate influence Democratic and Republican partisans have over the selection of general election options. The resulting election system would remain familiar and comfortable.
RCV would be a radical departure for voters and, I suspect, a highly unwelcome one. Ideally, RCV advocates want to see four or five candidates on the general election ballot, for voters to rank in order of preference.
In 2022, there were 13 races on the ballot that presumably would be subject to RCV for all voters: U.S. Senate, U.S. House, governor, secretary of state, attorney general, treasurer, school superintendent, mine inspector, two Corporation Commission seats, state Senate, and two state House seats. So, a voter had 13 decisions to make.
Under RCV, if there were four general election candidates for each office to rank, that would be a total of 52 decisions to make. If five general election candidates, a total of 65 decisions to make.
That’s asking too much of voters. And, realistically, most voters aren’t going to deliberate much beyond their first and possibly second choices. Yet it is the reallocation of their less considered preferences that could determine the winner. That’s why democratic governance under RCV, although not as distorted as under the current system, would be suboptimal.
Yet, RCV, not top-two, is what reformers are hoping to put on the ballot. Supposedly, this is because there is national money potentially available for RCV but not for top-two.
I can’t imagine voters, if they understand what RCV will ask of them, signing up for it. Top-two – which leaves the system with which they are familiar in place, just removes the disproportionate influence of partisans – would seem a significantly easier sell. And result in more optimal democratic governance.
The existing system will ultimately yield to reform. Giving political parties a stranglehold on the selection of general election candidates when more than a third of the electorate has rejected party affiliation is, in the long run, unsustainable.
Top-two addresses that directly in a way in which RCV does not. It’s the right reform.
If there’s no national money available for it, surely enough local money can be raised to give it a go. If there is sufficient persistence, top-two will ultimately prevail. Not sure the same can be said for RCV.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.