from the Seattle Times Editorial Board October 17, 2022
There are so many things wrong with Seattle Propositions 1A and 1B, it’s hard to know where to start.
Both measures would radically change elections for mayor, City Council and city attorney. They are confusing, ill-conceived and unnecessary.
Proposition 1A is known as “approval voting.” It would allow voters in primary elections to select as many candidates as they like for each office. The two candidates receiving the most votes would advance to the general election.
Proposition 1B is “ranked choice voting,” which would allow voters to rank candidates by preference. In the first round of processing, each voter’s top preference would be counted. The candidate receiving the fewest would be eliminated. If your candidate was eliminated, your next choice on the ballot would be awarded your vote. Successive rounds of counting would eliminate one candidate each round, counting each voter’s top preference among remaining candidates, until two candidates remain to proceed to the general election.
On the ballot, voters are asked whether either of these measures should be enacted into law. The answer should be “No.”
Then the ballot asks “Regardless of whether you voted yes or no above, if one of these measures is enacted, which one should it be?”
That’s like a waiter asking if you want chicken or fish, and when you say neither, the waiter responds: “We’re going to ask everyone else what they want, and if there’s a majority, that’s what you’re going to get, so you might as well offer an opinion.”
Best to just vote “No” and leave it at that.
Both campaigns say their respective election method would be fairer, less divisive, and produce candidates that more accurately represent public sentiment.
Don’t buy it. The tortured path these measures took to get to the ballot is reason enough to reject them.
Approval voting started as Initiative 134, a campaign bankrolled by a California cryptocurrency entrepreneur and promoted by a local pot-store owner. Not surprisingly given its financial backing and paid signature-gathering effort, I-134 garnered enough support to be placed on the ballot.
Then in a surprise move, the Seattle City Council in July added ranked choice on the same ballot.
Any pretense that these measures were somehow above special-interest gamesmanship was quickly burst by the council discussion. Councilmember Kshama Sawant said approval voting would be “a major step backward.” But her fellow Socialist Alternative party candidates didn’t fare well under ranked choice in other cities, either. She ended up voting to put both on the ballot, as did other council members who also didn’t like either option, presumably hoping that voters would throw up their hands in disgust.
Ranked choice boosters say it’s used in many other cities, including New York. But that city’s 2021 mayoral race provides a cautionary tale.
Less popular candidates can join forces and push out a front-runner. It is not unprecedented for a candidate leading in the initial tally to later lose to someone who gained enough second-and third-place votes.
When New York Mayor Eric Adams’ lead looked iffy after several rounds of vote counting, his surrogates cried foul and began discussing a new referendum to dump ranked choice, which was approved by voters in 2019.
Pierce County spent millions of dollars implementing ranked choice in 2006. Three years later, the confusion was so bad, voters got rid of it and went back to the old system. It would take millions of dollars to implement ranked choice voting in Seattle, and election results wouldn’t be known for weeks.
Seattle — with all its other problems — does not need this self-inflicted headache. Keep it simple: One person, one vote. Top two candidates move on to the general election.
Reject Seattle Propositions 1A and 1B.Seattle Times, The (WA)