Alan Parry likes an NBA analogy when it comes to Utah’s ranked-choice voting and the Legislature’s sudden rush to abolish it before the trial period it so enthusiastically approved years ago was over.
Decades ago, when the 3-point shot was introduced, players and coaches didn’t know how to utilize it as part of their strategy. Most of the time, it was a desperate shot for a team that was trailing in the final minutes of the game. Now it has become an essential element of any attack.
“People have figured out what good strategy is in the game and gotten better at it,” he said.
Parry is more than just a basketball fan. He is the chair of the mathematics department at Utah Valley University. And although he is quick to point out that his opinions are his own, not those of the university, he has a strong interest in voter theory.
He also understands that strategy is as much a part of politics as basketball. Politicians and voters alike adapt it to the rules at hand. For example, while the Electoral College may seem complex and arcane, politicians develop strategies by focusing on battleground states or key constituencies that can deliver victory in a particular state.
Voters, on the other hand, often strategize that their vote for a third-party candidate will be wasted and settle for one of the top two candidates they dislike the most.
But when it comes to ranked choice voting, Utahns simply haven’t played the game long enough.
Rep. Katie Hall (R-South Ogden) is sponsoring HB290, which would end Utah’s ranked-choice voting experiment about two years early. She said it undermines voters’ confidence in elections.
Since 2018, cities have been able to choose ranked-choice voting in local elections, and lawmakers enthusiastically embraced the idea by a vote of 64-2 in the House and 22-0 in the Senate.
So what has changed in five years?
First, Sarah Palin lost the 2022 Alaska special legislative election to Democrat Mary Peltola. Alaska used a ranked selection method.
In ranked choice voting, people are asked to rank the candidates on the ballot according to their preferences. In this case, they had her three options. After all votes have been counted, if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first-place votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and that person’s second-place candidate is the other her second-place candidate. distributed to people. The person who wins 50% or more will be declared the winner.
This is often referred to as an instant runoff election because it accomplishes what a runoff election does without any additional cost.
As I wrote at the time, Palin split the Republican vote with Nick Begich III. However, she had become unpopular with Begic’s supporters, so few named her as their second choice. Palin would have lost under the traditional rules as she finished second to Peltola in the first round, but with Begich eliminated, she lost again.
Almost immediately, she denounced ranked choice voting. Republicans have seized on that fiction nationally. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, tweeted., “Ranked-choice voting is a fraud that rigs elections.” Donald Trump had already called the system “ranked-choice crappy voting.” The Republican National Committee joined in with a resolution opposing it and has since called on states to overturn the laws that allowed it.
Perhaps this is the real reason for Utah’s HB290, and why some members of the committee that recommended it favorably this week said they would vote yes on the bill out of concern for what is happening nationally. It is highly likely that this explains why.
Perhaps most galling was the claim made during the committee hearing that Utah has already learned everything there is to know about ranked-choice voting.
This goes back to the concept of strategizing like in the NBA. Similar to the early days of 3-point shooting, cities have not yet had the opportunity to adapt to the new strategies that ranked choice voting offers.
For example, among its more attractive attributes are that a candidate gains the most from saying good things about his opponent, and that his supporters rank him at least 2nd. The point is that they hope to probably secure victory if the election goes to a second round. . This could ultimately make the campaign more civil.
Parry likes that ranked-choice voting can capture more data about voter intent than straight voting. He said the best system would be one that ranks the pairs and pits each candidate head-to-head against the other.
However, America, which is convinced that the election was fraudulent without any evidence, is unlikely to accept that the election was fraudulent, no matter how convincing the data.
But Parry points out what should be an obvious concern about HB290. “It’s the people we just elected who get to choose how we elect people again.”
That doesn’t give you much motivation to change things.