Here’s my warning to Montana voters to vote NO on CI-126 and CI-127, which seek to sabotage traditional elections and promote ranked choice voting. Appeared first at RealClearPolitics.
By FRANK MIELE
Democrats have proven that they are no fans of the democratic process and consider many of the pillars of our constitutional republic to be threats to their agenda. Consider their plans to stack the Supreme Court, eliminate the Senate filibuster, and restrict the First Amendment and Second Amendment – to say nothing of opposing any voter identification requirements.
Each of those efforts is intended to consolidate Democratic Party power, not to improve democracy. Their pattern should put us on high alert to be wary of any and all liberal schemes to change our institutions and customs, from all-mail balloting to ranked-choice voting.
We all know the saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Less commonly discussed is that “If anyone tries to fix something that ain’t broke, be suspicious, because it will almost inevitably wind up broken.”
Voters in Montana, such as myself, are being tempted this November to fix a voting system that ain’t broke, and if we fall for it, we have no one to blame but ourselves when we suffer the consequences.
The argument by proponents of Constitutional Initiative 126 and Constitutional Initiative 127 is that more than 230 years of Americans voting by political party is wrong – and even dangerous – and the only solution is to introduce an “open” primary system with a disingenuous wrinkle.
Under the measure, all candidates for an office in Montana (not including municipal elections and U.S. president) would compete against each other in a primary, with the top four vote-getters then advancing to the general election ballot regardless of party affiliation. Moreover, anyone on the primary ballot can declare themselves a member of any party, or of no party at all.
It goes without saying that this invites chaos. Voters would be forced to familiarize themselves with every candidate for each race, which could easily exceed a dozen or more. There would be no guarantee that candidates who claimed to represent the Republican Party or the Democratic Party were legitimate members of that party. Montana has no official party registration, so this system would invite far-left Democrats to run as Republicans in a state where most voters lean right. And even if all candidates ran under their correct designation (which is not required by the law), it is possible that five or six Republicans would run for the same seat, thus dividing the vote amongst themselves and giving an advantage to a lone Democrat on the ballot.
If this sounds convoluted, it is – by design. The proposal is a stalking horse for ranked-choice voting. Under this complicated system, used statewide only in Alaska and Maine, the top four vote-getters in the primary (regardless of party) advance to the general election, where voters must write down their first, second, third, and fourth choices for each office.
If no one reaches a majority on the first round of vote-counting, the candidate with the fewest votes would be eliminated and then the ballots supporting that candidate would be re-tallied to assign their votes to their second choice. If someone opted not to pick a second choice because no one else met the voter’s standards, their ballot would be discarded. This effectively disenfranchises the voter, and the only cure would be to allow voters to put down the same candidate for their first, second, third, and fourth choice, thus allowing them the chance to participate in not just the first round but each round of voting. Just because the “virtual elections” are held in quick succession, there is no reason why an individual should not be allowed to vote for their preferred candidate in each iteration of the balloting.
But in Montana, the proponents of the so-called open primary are not coming out and admitting that their ultimate goal is to implement ranked-choice voting.
Instead, they have added CI-127, which declares that all the elections covered by CI-126 can only be won by a candidate who achieves an actual majority of the vote. Currently, Montana state law allows winners to be decided by a simple plurality of the vote. And if CI-127 is defeated at the same time CI-126 is approved, then whoever achieves a plurality in the four-person election will be named the winner no matter how small a percentage of the vote they receive.
But that’s not what proponents of CI-126 want to happen. Instead, they assume that the voters of Montana, trying to make sense of the two initiatives, will approve both of them. If that happens, then a plurality winner will no longer be possible. Instead, the Montana legislature will be forced to pass legislation in the 2025 session that either will establish a costly run-off election between the top two vote-getters or will adopt the execrable ranked-choice voting scheme.
So if the ultimate goal of these changes is to pass ranked-choice voting, it behooves us to know where this revolutionary idea came from and who is behind it. Not surprisingly, the supposedly non-partisan idea is funded by far-left donors like Kathryn Murdoch (wife of one of Rupert Murdoch’s sons) and Alex Soros (son of radical billionaire George Soros).
Support for ranked-choice voting is not entirely partisan. Many Republicans have been lured into supporting it or its precursor, an open primary, including former Montana Gov. Marc Racicot, former Secretary of State Bob Brown, and former state legislator Frank Garner. Of course, each of them has a reputation for supporting Democrat candidates and/or Democrat policies, so they don’t represent the grassroots Republican Party.
Garner was one of the supporters who wrote the argument for CI-126 in the official Montana Voter Information Pamphlet. Their claim is that CI-126 is necessary because “Real challenges facing Montana families … are going unsolved because politicians only feel accountable to party bosses, not Montanans.”
Nonsense. I’ve lived in Montana for 40 years, working as a journalist for most of that time, and I would not be able to point out a “party boss” trying to prevent solutions, only neighbors and civil servants promoting their competing visions for how to make Montana better. If you really want to encourage bipartisan solutions, don’t start by insulting those who dedicate their time and energy to creating majorities to get things done.
And if you don’t believe me because I am a conservative Republican, maybe you will listen to California’s Democratic governor, Gavin Newsom, who vetoed ranked-choice voting for his state in 2019.
Newsom, who had experience with the “reform” as mayor of San Francisco – which adopted the system in 2004 – said it was counterproductive: “Where it has been implemented, I am concerned that it has often led to voter confusion, and that the promise that ranked-choice voting leads to greater democracy is not necessarily fulfilled.”
If you don’t want to experience disappointment like the voters of Alaska, who are being asked to remove ranked-choice voting just two years after it was introduced, then don’t open the door in the first place.
In any case, Montana already has “open voting” in primaries. Since the state does not register voters by party, we are all given both a Democratic and Republican ballot when we sign in to vote. That would also include third parties if they are holding a primary. Voters have to choose one of the ballots to vote, and discard the rest. This means we can vote in either the Democratic or Republican Party primary, depending on our interests.
The ultimate irony is that “open voting” is considered a scourge by many Montanans, because it takes away the ability of parties to ensure that their candidates are being chosen by actual members of their party. Currently because Montana is such a red state, many election outcomes are decided in the Republican primary. Therefore Democrats frequently abandon their own primary in order to try to influence the outcome in the opposition party.
Therefore, many of us in Montana have been demanding a closed primary for years, so that we can ensure that it is only Republicans who select Republican candidates, and not Democrats whose sole goal is to throw a monkey wrench in the system.
Rather than improving the voting system in Montana, CI-126 and CI-127 will just make everything worse. Vote no and preserve the small-d democratic norms that have prevailed in our country for more than 200 years.
About Heartland Diary USA
Heartland Diary is solely operated by Frank Miele, the retired editor of the Daily Inter Lake in Kalispell, Montana. If you enjoy reading these daily essays, I hope you will SUBSCRIBE to www.HeartlandDiaryUSA.com by leaving your email address on the home page. Also please consider purchasing one of my books. They are available through the following Amazon links. My new book is “What Matters Most: God, Country, Family and Friends” and is a collection of personal essays that transcend politics. My earlier books include “How We Got Here: The Left’s Assault on the Constitution,” “The Media Matrix: What if everything you know is fake?” and the “Why We Needed Trump” trilogy. Part 1 is subtitled “Bush’s Global Failure: Half Right.” Part 2 is “Obama’s Fundamental Transformation: Far Left.” Part 3 is “Trump’s American Vision: Just Right.” As an Amazon Associate, I may earn referral fees for qualifying purchases through links on my website.
