When voters cast their ballots in the upcoming April election, they will, in nearly all Illinois communities, select one candidate per race. That could change under legislation proposed in the Illinois General Assembly.
At a House Ethics and Elections Committee hearing this week, two bills were discussed that would bring ranked choice voting to the state. The format, where voters select a first, second, third, and so forth candidate, has gained traction recently in states such as Alaska.
Evanston, home to Northwestern University, became the first city in the state to adopt RCV. A November referendum passed overwhelmingly and would apply to municipal races.
The bills - House Bill 2807 from state Rep. Maurice West, D-Rockford, and House Bill 3749 from state Rep. Kam Buckner, D-Chicago - focus on presidential primaries, and municipal and township office races respectively.
Former Colorado House Speaker Terrance Carroll, now a senior fellow at FairVote, a national nonprofit promoting RCV and election reform, told lawmakers the system would benefit voters in Illinois and nationwide.
Carroll promoted RCV as a way to move past personal attacks commonplace in political campaigns and instead focus on the issues. He said assertions that the elderly and people of color would not understand the process were false and offensive.
"For someone who has been involved in party politics, probably far longer than I should have been in my life, it also helps promote more viable candidates who are running for office," he said, serving as the first Black House Speaker in Colorado from 2003 through 2011. "So, it tends to mitigate against the most extreme candidates in both parties."
Opponents have submitted more witness slips than proponents on both bills as of Wednesday. Among them is Andy Bakker, representing the Illinois Opportunity Project and Stop Rank Choice Voting Coalition in Illinois, who spoke to the committee on Tuesday.
RCV would be a "radical change" to the way Illinoisans vote, and he questioned the benefits Carroll mentioned.
"At the end of the day, rank choice voting is a scheme to disconnect elections from issues and allows candidates with marginal support to win," Bakker said. "It obscures true debate and issue-driven dialogues among candidates and eliminates genuine, true binary choices."
HOW DOES IT WORK?
Instead of one choice, voters in a ranked-choice system select their first choice among a list of candidates and then choose their subsequent second, third, and potentially fourth options.
Under RCV, a candidate automatically wins if they receive a plurality of votes as a first choice. However, in cases such as the recent Chicago mayoral race where no candidate secured a majority, an elimination process would begin.
The candidate with the lowest number of votes would be eliminated and each of their votes reallocated to their supporters’ second choice candidate. The process would repeat until one candidate secured more than 50% of the votes.
Amber McReynolds, a senior political strategist with Issue One, said that based on RCV data from states such as Alaska, New York, and California that already use RCV, voter turnout has improved while helping to manage a large field of candidates.
"This is a better voting model to ensure all voices and choices are reflected in the election results," she said, an Illinois native also visiting from Colorado.
WHAT COUNTIES ARE PREPARED TO IMPLEMENT?
Neither HB 2807 nor HB 3749 have effective dates nor have been moved out of committee, but McReynolds thinks if passed, the legislation could be quickly implemented.
More than 80% of Illinois voters live within a jurisdiction that has the systems and software to use RCV, she said. But more than a third of counties would require updates.
State Rep. Dennis Tipsword Jr., R-Metamora, raised concern about the expense of updating election systems for rural counties.
Julie Bliss, county clerk in Boone County, told committee members part of the increased expense is that ballots will be larger. It also depends on what voting software is used. Bliss added every Illinois county has a separate contract with voting companies.
States such as Vermont, Georgia and Rhode Island that have statewide contracts reduce costs and give voters a more uniform experience regardless of county, she said.
The expense estimated for Boone County, home to about 53,000 residents, ranges from $35,000 to $45,000 to purchase the needed software upgrade, she said.
Sangamon County Clerk Don Gray confirmed an upgrade to the county's Election Systems and Software would cost about $1.8 million. However, a system upgrade only would be part of the expenses, he said. Sangamon County also would need to account for increased printing costs due to larger ballots, certification with state and federal election authorities, a software update, and educating the public on what RCV means.
Aggregating election software at the state level could help with costs, but Gray said he would like to know what that means for security measures. He also noted that counties such as Cook which uses Dominion Voting Services for its tabulation, have different needs and financial abilities when it comes to elections.
"The decentralized factor of how we operate today is a great security feature, especially in the age of cybersecurity."
"Our opponents that would like to be nefarious to the system ... have to access multiple points instead of a single, universal centralized system."
With limited data on the expense, state Rep. Carol Ammons, D-Urbana, urged more research be conducted before the legislature moves forward with RCV statewide. Like Bliss, she also supported a statewide voting system.
"I understand the idea, I understand it works in other places, but I understand our process does not collect the proper data for us to analyze," she said.
12 notes
·
View notes
Something really amazing happened in France, and I think it'd help us in the US to learn about it. Forgive the long read, but I think this is genuinely great both because of what happened and how.
So as some of you might have seen, in a decision historians will debate for years (mostly to figure out just WTF he was thinking, even though he is alive right now and can be asked), the French president, Emmanuel Macron, currently in power and THREE YEARS before the scheduled election, seeing the far right rise in popularity decided to dissolve the assembly and hold snap elections.
577 seats were up for grabs. Remember that number. Since half of that is 288.5, 289 seats are needed for a majority.
The first round happened last week and boy, was it bad. The far right made HUGE gains. It won or was in first place in so many races. And Macron's party ended up third!
Overall, this is how things ended up after the first round:
Far right bloc: 33%
Left bloc: 28%
Macron's centrist party: 20%
Conservatives: 7%
The way the French system works is that if a candidate gets over 50% of the vote, they win outright, and some of the far right did manage that. But, many races went to a runoff.
Immediate projections after were that the far right bloc might win anywhere from 240 to 310 seats, a catastrophe.
A shameful swing to the far right leading to the first time they'll be in power since the 1940s? Yes, but maybe not??
This is where things get interesting.
Unusually, a lot of these runoffs are 3-way, instead of a simpler 2-way choice. And in pretty much every case, that helps the far right.
So on June 30th, the night of the first round, this is how things went down:
Immediately, the left parties put out the call: anywhere they were third, they withdrew and their voters would go over to whoever was running against the far right candidate. Their goal: form a "republican front" to block the far right. The far right cannot get 289 seats.
Macron's bloc was not so...motivated. Different people put out different instructions: in some places, if they were third, they should drop out, but only to help the center left, not far left, in other places, see how far you are, only then drop out, that kind of thing.
The conservative party simply said they won't drop out and won't give their voters instruction either way in races they're not involved in.
Late night developments:
More people in Macron's party are now beginning to realize the situation and starting to coalesce around whichever candidate can beat the far right one. Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, from Macron's party, says clearly the priority is to block the far right. BUT, some Macron spokespeople on TV say they'll form a coalition only with the center left and conservatives, splitting the left bloc if needed. Some individual Macronists still saying they won't drop out, even if there's no hope of winning.
Lol.
So, now July 1st:
Only half so far. In one race, where the sister of Marine Le Pen (the far right leader and the face of their movement) was leading, the third place Macronist refused to bow out.
Excellent quote from another Macronist:
Perhaps realizing the same thing, that Macronist in the race against the Le Pen sister now drops out.
In some places, third place Macronists are dropping out DESPITE Macron bewilderingly telling them NOT to?
Halfway through the day:
Of the 311 3-way or 4-way runoffs, the number is down to 135 because of these candidates dropping out: 121 Left, 56 Macronists, 1 conservative.
Oh, there was this, in case people had any doubts about how terrible the far right are:
And to show the selflessness of the left:
July 2:
The deadline to decide if they want to stay in a runoff is today.
A dozen new third place Macronists who said they'd stay in have now dropped out. One got a call from both the PM Attal AND Macron to drop out, signalling the dawning understanding of the importance of this moment.
Even some conservative party members are now backing the left candidate who faces the far right.
A Macronist who had 30.55% of the vote in the first round and came in third to the far right's 33.11% and left's 32.73% and who would have been tempted to stay has dropped out.
The deadline to stay in or not has now passed.
Look at these far right shenanigans!
Macron still being a freaking loser:
July 3rd:
In the end, of the 311 3- or 4-way run offs, only 91 left. Some polls come out that have the far right getting between 190 to 220 seats.
July 4th:
New polls say the balance of the voting itself isn't transferring between the left and center and predictions have risen for the far right, now predicted to get between 210 and 250 seats.
July 5th:
New polls again, left voters now predicted to do better transferring vote to the centrists, decreasing the far right projections again.
However, scandalous reporting emerges: while Attal was trying to fend off the far right, Macron was not only NOT taking the far right seriously, he was undermining efforts to defeat them. His team shrugged off the first round results and celebrated a BIRTHDAY as the results were still coming in?
July 6th:
A few runoffs happened yesterday, nothing much unexpected, some left and center wins.
July 7th:
The day of reckoning. At this point, the expectations are that the far right won't come close to that 289 number but could still easily have the most seats.
GUYS.
It's over and the left are in the lead!
A LOT of cases where a leftist or centrist was 2nd in the first round and now won.
Amazing:
SO many lessons to take from this.
First, you have to vote! You have to. You can't do anything without voting. The freaking French, who'll protest for anything, are showing up to vote. If you're trying to achieve any kind of result and it's not going to happen by January 2025, you have to vote now.
But just as importantly, the left and center (and even conservative) parties made very key decisions. They were all lucky that Attal, who Macron chose, saw the big picture, bigger than indeed Macron could. A stupid selfish centrist leader could have still ruined everything if it were up to him.
TL;DR: After a disastrous first round in the national French elections where the far right was on the cusp of taking power, the left and center formed a strong coalition and through the power of voting and unity, overcame the far right AND their selfish centrist president to win.
15K notes
·
View notes