Leftists not only want to radically change the country’s policies, now they are going after institutions like voting. Some leftists apparently have a problem with whoever gets the most votes wins the office, because they have a problem with plurality winners as opposed to majority. If there are more than two candidates, a winner might not get an outright majority of the vote, but so what, that’s just the way logic and the system works, and it’s worked since the founding of the country in 1776. Abraham Lincoln was a plurality winner in 1860, in the popular vote. Lincoln was far from the only American politician, even presidents, that won his election without a majority, but just a particularly famous one. Not to mention that Washington’s “Top 2” voting system vanquishes or all but vanquishes the “plurality” winner, for the relative few who have a problem with that, in the General Election, anyway.
There is no special halo that a majority winner has more than a plurality one, and ranked choice voting doesn’t really produce a majority winner in the logical way, necessarily, anyway, unless producing one through a convoluted, Rube Goldberg-style vote counting method is considered logical, not to mention that it would probably double or triple the number of election integrity skeptics, including myself, already present by the simple “whoever gets the most votes win” system.
Messing around with our electoral institutions to this radical extent is not wise, and if I’m elected, I’m going to try to outlaw “ranked choice” on the statewide level, and for legislative or any state offices whatsoever, as well as federally (first by Statute, and then by the State Constitution). If municipalities or counties want it, they should be allowed to have it for their jurisdictional level only (not statewide, legislative or federally) as far as approval by the Legislature is concerned, but it also should have to be approved by the voters in their jurisdiction by a super-majority vote; “two-thirds” would be my proposal.