Did 'Rank Choice Voting' Get a Second Wind?
Contributed by Katherine Baker
Everything I've been hearing lately from the defenders of 'Rank Choice Voting' relates to how much money it is going to save the State of Alaska due to no more costly 'run-off' elections. (After the laughter stops and everyone gets serious again, let's examine that).
The winning candidate in Alaska must get, not simply a majority of the vote, but over 50% of the vote. 50% plus 1. (Remember when that went into effect?
Isn't that the real reason for costly 'run-off' elections? And not our actual voting system? In fact, we could say lawmakers created a costly problem themselves of 'run-off' elections where no problem existed before. Then they tried to solve it by throwing out our established voting system and now are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole as a solution, by blaming the voter system!! All the while crossing their fingers and hoping the people of Alaska won't notice!
WHEW! That is stenchy!
And it doesn't appear they are willing to stop until they completely destroy our entire voting system.
Now I wonder 'why' they didn't just go back to the drawing board and re-think their '50% plus 1'. Maybe tweak it or even consider whether the majority vote of the people, whatever that percentage works out to be depending on the number of candidates and/or write-ins, is itself sufficient? Do we need '50 % plus 1'? Can Alaska afford '50% plus 1'. In their words that would save Alaska a lot of money-'millions of dollars'.
But wait! How dumb do they think we are? Do they believe the people of Alaska are gullible enough to believe the lawmakers didn't know 'run-off' elections were going to cost the State money? Stenchy.
This is starting to look like a con game. A shell game where the hand is quicker than the eye. They create a problem (EX: costly 'run-off' elections) and then they pretend to be helping us (EX: saving Alaska money) while they are actually hurting us (EX: using 'rank choice voting' to take away our direct, single choice, free and fair election voting rights) Then they garnish it with a big RED cherry on top strategy known as 'Management By Confusion'.
'Management By Confusion' is a real and widely used strategy. In fact, it is a global strategy. We've all witnessed it. Some characteristics of 'Management By Confusion' are loud, continuous, repetitive, nonstop noise narratives designed with a particular end in mind. They use falsehoods, emotional button pushing, etc. and anything we can empathize with to persuade us to agree. And if we don't see it their way then they label and cancel us! 'Management By Confusion' is not a management strategy although they call it such. The name is misleading and could be called misinformation and/or propaganda. In other words, it is another redefinition that resides far from the reality it conveys. 'Management By Confusion' is a strategy designed to usurp power and control from individuals, groups, companies and governments. It is used locally, nationally and globally. It is therefore by factual definition a coup strategy and not a management strategy at all. Now who would put a covert coup strategy in our workplaces, government offices and politics?
Take a few minutes out of your day to sign the petition to put 'Rank Choice Voting' on the ballot. Everyone now knows by experience how it really works. Let's put it on the ballot, vote it out and go back to the direct, by the people, single choice voting. Your signature and your vote matters. Preserve your voting rights and the voting rights of your children and grandchildren.