ELECTION 2022: Ranked-choice voting now leading for Seattle

For the first few vote counts post-Election Day, Seattle Question 1A/1B results had voters narrowly rejecting a change in city-election voting. Then in the past few days, that flipped, and as of tonight, “yes” to change is a full point ahead, 50.53% yes, 49.47% no, with the second part of the measure showing support for ranked-choice voting outstripping “approval” voting with 75% support. As for how many votes remain to be counted, the newest count represents 60.5% of all Seattle voters, while King County Elections says it’s received ballots from 69.6% of all Seattle voters. If ranked-choice voting goes on to win, here’s the explanation of how it would work:

… the Seattle City Council and Mayor have proposed Proposition 1B (Ordinance 126625), which would allow primary election voters for Mayor, City Attorney, and City Council 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. 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.

Vote-counting is scheduled to continue with daily updates until the results are certified November 29th.

Adam November 14, 2022 (7:35 pm)

I voted “no” and then “definitely no”. If this passes, can we revisit and count both my votes?

Danny November 14, 2022 (10:32 pm)

You’d need to submit your vote like so

1. Definitely no

2. No

You’ll only get one vote, but you can be sure it will be cast for a least one viable “no” candidate.
- Adam November 15, 2022 (6:30 am)
  
  Danny, I’d vote 3x for you just for recognizing satire

Another West Seattlite November 14, 2022 (9:07 pm)

Thanks for sharing your reaction. I’d be really interested in understanding what you don’t like about it.

WS Res November 14, 2022 (10:03 pm)

He thinks it means people get “more than one vote.” Which they don’t.
Adam November 14, 2022 (10:23 pm)

Just a joke, thought I was being clever

Mj November 14, 2022 (9:48 pm)

Yes for ranked choice voting that hopefully will succeed in making it harder for extreme candidates to win elections.

CAM November 15, 2022 (12:55 am)

One of the primary benefits of RCV is that it frees voters to vote their actual preferences without fear of wasting a vote. The only kind of “extreme” candidate you’ll be eliminating are those that are overwhelmingly unpopular and unable to garner any degree of support. RCV could absolutely see the election of more 3rd party candidates. It could also eliminate the line that people often voice of, “I’d vote for them but I don’t think they can win.” RCV is not designed with the intention to develop more moderate elected bodies.
- Seattlite November 15, 2022 (9:39 am)
  
  RCV negates one person, one vote, which is a negative for selecting one well-researched candidate to vote for in an election. If a voter’s top pic is eliminated and said voter has no second choice marked, said voter’s ballot is tossed out. That is called disenfranchisement because these “exhausted” ballots are erased without a record of said voter’s vote. Too many candidates on a ballot for one office is not conducive to voter participation. Realistically, voters are not going to research four or five candidates. Whereas, a voter will choose their top pick and not rank any other candidates on the ballot. RCV is NOT a better election system. Instead, it is confusing, complicated, time-consuming, and, again, disenfranchises voters.
  - Jon Wright November 15, 2022 (11:26 am)
    
    Everything you say is true, but since you can’t limit the number of candidates, you get a dozen people running for mayor. Last year support coalesced around Harrell and González and they emerged as the clear top two coming out of the primary. But in 2017 mayoral primary, Durkan was the clear number one vote getter but things were much tighter after that. Moon, Oliver, Farrell, Hasegawa, and McGinn combined to get over 60% of the primary vote. I think claiming disenfranchisement is a bit alarmist; the situation you describe now is no different than how things are now. One could argue the 54% of voters in the 2017 who did not vote for Durkan or Moon were disenfranchised. I personally voted no to change the process because I am concerned about potential unintended consequences but it will definitely be an interesting experiment.
    - Seattlite November 15, 2022 (1:19 pm)
      
      RCV disenfranchises voters. How? Because ballots that don’t include the two top finalists are tossed aside which creates a contrived majority for the winner. RCV also inhibits debates on important issues between several candidates resulting in the voter being short-changed on genuine choices between the final two top candidates. Bottom line, RCV severs elections from important issues and makes way for candidates with low support from voters to win. RCV is not in the best interests of voters because of the shrouded manipulation of election outcomes.
    - CAM November 15, 2022 (4:40 pm)
      
      In response to your comments at 1:19 Seattlite, RCV doesn’t throw out any votes. In the same manner as traditional voting, if you choose to vote for a single candidate and that candidate is not preferred by the majority of your fellow constituents that candidate will not be advanced. RCV gives you a chance in that situation to have your voice still be heard if you continue indicating preferences but it is absolutely your decision whether or not to. As for RCV depressing discussion of the issues, RCV actually ENCOURAGES discussion of the issues vs traditional voting which encourages trashing your opponents to make yourself seem like the only viable candidate. RCV punishes people who don’t seek to make themselves appealing to the largest number of voters possible, including those that might not agree with them 100%. The goal is to get yourself ranked by as many voters as possible and as high as possible by those voters. If you spend your time mudslinging and trashing everyone else, you aren’t likely to make the preference lists of people who prefer the candidates you are trashing. It is therefore far more advantageous to sell your policies and beliefs and goals. Wouldn’t that be freaking amazing?
  - CAM November 15, 2022 (1:34 pm)
    
    There is no evidence from other places using RCV that people will still only vote for one candidate. In fact, if you look at the most recent special election for an open congressional seat in Alaska, one of the first times they used it, people used RCV and the majority of voters who picked the 3rd ranked candidate selected one of the top two as a second choice and those votes were carried on to the second round. And, those voters were bipartisan/swing voters who split their ballots between candidates from different parties in a significant number of cases. That’s the point of RCV. They picked their preferred candidate and then said, but if not that person, than I’m okay with this person instead of the other people running.
    - Seattlite November 15, 2022 (4:35 pm)
      
      In AK some voters did not check for a second choice. Hence, their first choice did not make it and their ballot was buried. I stick with the fact the RCV is a an electoral scheme that skews outcomes do to ballot exhaustion.Also, San Francisco after using RCV ended up with a with an incredibly bad DA who was ultimately recalled. Hence, the chances of bottom of the barrel candidates floating to the top is high due to RCV.All of the above and my other comments are why I voted NO to RCV. I did heavy research on RCV 1a/1b as I do before all voting.

Seattlite November 15, 2022 (5:34 am)

Ranked Choice Voting is a mockery of the voting/election system. It is multi-layered, confusing electoral scheme that more than likely results in the least qualified candidate being voted into office. Think about it.

WS Res November 18, 2022 (4:10 pm)

It’s an instant run-off. That’s all it is. If you rank only one candidate, it’s as if you voted in the primary but chose not to in the run-off.

Ivan Weiss November 15, 2022 (9:08 am)

I have been listening to, and participating in, discussions about the relative merits of ranked choice voting for years now. I understand what makes it desirable for some. “Outs” want to be “ins,” and any tweak in the system that forwards that goal is worth pursuing, in their minds at least. Plus, people will always want the new bright shiny toy, whatever it is. But I have never yet heard a persuasive argument that this system is necessary. Its adherents will tell you that if we adopt RCV, this will happen, and that will happen, when it’s just as likely that the exact opposite will happen. Pierce County tried it and then rejected it. My hope is that Seattle will be as smart.

April November 15, 2022 (11:40 am)

Yes!!! Finally!! Happy Dance!!!

skeeter November 15, 2022 (2:04 pm)

I voted “no” after reading the Seattle Times editorial board recommendation.

Wseattleite November 16, 2022 (9:22 am)

Should this become adopted, it will provide no end of entertainment with all of the “unintended consequences” that will come with. Let the games begin!

Scarlett November 18, 2022 (2:33 pm)

RCV will produce a raft of safe, un-illuminating candidates who will try to stay within a SD or two of the political “buoy/mean” hoping they might survive the runoffs. That’s not going to cut it when we need innovative and fresh approaches to problems, locally and nationally. I don’t want candidate who are trying to pander to me, I want candidates who will challenge me.

Sorry, comment time is over.