Ranked-choice voting is nothing more than judging, be it someone’s character, an animal, fish, movie, or inanimate object, and perfectly acceptable for events such as who gets the blue ribbon for the best-tasting apple pie at the county fair. It has no place in political elections.

Primary elections usually have several candidates seeking an office. There is no proof that ranked-choice voting brings greater participation and more civil discourse, as its proponents are claiming. What it will do, unfortunately, by marking them in a numerical order rather than voting with unmitigated support for a particular candidate, is practically guaranteeing the seat goes to one possessing less and even dubious qualifications, through the concept that if none of the contenders receive 50 percent of the boxes marked “1,” those garnering the fewest “1’s” will be eliminated and the tally of the second choices added to the original total “2” votes received, which in all likelihood then outnumbers the “1’s.”

Another negative factor in utilizing ranked choice for voting is the additional and unnecessary cost to taxpayers for the time spent tallying the numerical marks when no one receives 50 percent and even more dollars should the initial balloting require a run-off.

Bad enough that the public occasionally seats a less than qualified candidate to an office under the current elective system and subsequently bear with their appointing someone of equally questionable qualifications to head key departments.

People should not be fooled into installing a system that enables it to occur regularly.

John Davis, South Paris


Only subscribers are eligible to post comments. Please subscribe or to participate in the conversation. 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.