Support political reform in Iowa

According to polling, fewer than one-third of Americans are remotely satisfied with our politics, a record low. Trust in government, including executive branches, legislative bodies, and the courts, is also at an all-time low. Moreover, an increasing number of Americans have unfavorable views of both major parties. Finally, more Americans than in years past wish they had more options, including better candidates and additional political parties.

Americans are increasingly supportive of political reforms, particularly term and age limits, and efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. They also seek reforms in how we select our political candidates and elected representatives, understanding that these changes may be necessary before other objectives can be achieved.

Two reforms focused on candidate selection and election include open primaries and ranked choice voting (RCV). I am a fan of both of these reforms and, for the past few years, I have supported a new group, Better Ballot Iowa, which seeks to allow RCV as an option to interested counties and municipalities in Iowa. Despite being prohibited by legislative statue, the Iowa Legislature has introduced new legislation this year to prohibit it, again. Given this renewed interest, it is worthwhile considering the pros and cons of RCV.

On the downside, there can be an upfront cost with RCV implementation, such as voter education and acquiring new hardware and software, but the long-term costs are unchanged. RCV is easy to understand for most voters, involving ranking candidates as they might rank movies or books. While some districts have reported delays in election outcomes with RCV, those delays are usually minor and can be overcome with technology and experience.

RCV is not more susceptible to fraud or outside manipulation than plurality voting, and auditing of election outcomes remains possible. RCV should eliminate costly and poorly attended runoff elections. While data is limited, RCV can result in increased voter turnout and engagement. Despite claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that RCV benefits one party over another. RCV frequently does not change the result of elections compared to our current plurality voting system.

Most state and federal legislative districts are uncompetitive, and many are not even contested by another major party candidate in any given election. RCV will not change the outcome of a race in which there is only one major party candidate or in a district or state dominated by one party or another, and incumbency advantage persists. Any time there is a candidate who earns the support of half or more voters, that candidate would win with either RCV or plurality voting.

Only when three or more candidates are on the ballot, each with a good-sized base of support, will RCV sometimes yield a different result than plurality voting. For example, in a tight three-way race using plurality voting, a candidate could win with just over one-third of overall voter support. With RCV, that same candidate might still win, but there is a chance that one of the other two candidates ends up securing half or more overall voter support.

Which outcome is best is more a matter of preference, I think; not that one choice is right and the other wrong. I would prefer that the winner of a given election has garnered a majority of overall voter support, rather than a candidate who manages to earn as little as one vote more than his or her closest competitor, but that’s just me.

While RCV may not significantly alter the outcome of most elections, its potential lies in its ability to influence the broader political landscape long before Election Day. Candidates have an incentive to appeal to a broader swath of voters, encouraging less negative campaigning. Minor party and independent candidates have a greater potential to get new ideas out in the public square. Some of those ideas will be valuable, attracting support among voters, and major party candidates will have to pay attention. Voters will appreciate not simply being fed partisan political boilerplate but feeling they can have a meaningful voice in the political process beyond voting.

RCV might help change the state of our politics. Allowing Iowa counties and municipalities to experiment with political reforms, including RCV, should be encouraged, not prohibited. Permitting such “home rule” is the essence of our “laboratories of democracy” ideal, the foundation of our federalism. State overreach, undermining the sovereignty of Iowa counties and municipalities, as exemplified by existing and proposed legislation, should be opposed.

Dr. Christopher Peters lives in Coralville.