Ranked choice voting isn't a silver bullet that will turn our
Ranked choice voting isn't a silver bullet that will turn our politics into some Platonic ideal. We still might not love the candidates we get and the choices we have to make. It won't drain all the polarization and toxicity that has accumulated over years and years. And it doesn't mean that your favorite candidate will always win.
The words of Ritchie Torres, “Ranked choice voting isn't a silver bullet that will turn our politics into some Platonic ideal. We still might not love the candidates we get and the choices we have to make. It won't drain all the polarization and toxicity that has accumulated over years and years. And it doesn't mean that your favorite candidate will always win,” resound as a voice of tempered hope. He speaks against illusions, warning that no reform, however noble, can instantly purify the realm of politics. For the flaws we wrestle with are not only in systems, but in hearts, habits, and histories.
The ancients too knew this truth. Plato himself, whose ideal Republic was cast as a vision of justice, confessed that such perfection could scarcely be realized in the flawed world of men. Even the most carefully built institutions are governed by human hands, and those hands tremble with ambition, prejudice, and desire. Torres reminds us that ranked choice voting is a tool, not a cure—a compass, perhaps, but not the unerring path to paradise.
History bears witness to this. When democracy first flowered in Athens, it was hailed as a revolution of fairness, a way to give every citizen a voice. Yet soon factions arose, demagogues shouted, and citizens still found themselves discontent with their leaders. The system itself was not at fault; rather, the burdens of human nature remained. So too in our age: no single reform can erase decades of division, no law can wholly cleanse the toxicity that has seeped deep into the soil of public life.
Torres also offers a deeper lesson in humility. To demand that one’s favorite candidate always triumph is to forget that democracy is not the rule of one, but the rule of many. To participate is to share the burden of compromise, to accept that one’s own vision must dwell beside the visions of others. The strength of a republic lies not in perfection, but in the endurance of shared struggle, where no one wins all, but all endure together.
Let the generations remember: reforms are worthy, but they are not silver bullets. They can refine the process, but they cannot transfigure human nature overnight. What saves a people is not only the mechanism of their elections, but the cultivation of virtue, patience, and wisdom within their souls. Thus Torres speaks as the ancients did: do not place your hope in systems alone, but in the courage of citizens to strive, endure, and build slowly toward a more just horizon.
NMNgoc Minh
I’m persuaded this is a tool, not a cure-all, which makes me wonder about complements. Would pairing it with nonpartisan primaries, multi-member districts, or proportional methods address representation and polarization more directly? Maybe the right approach is iterative: pilot at the city level, collect evidence, then decide whether to scale or hybridize. I’d value a roadmap that includes criteria for expansion, rollback triggers, and public reporting. Closed question: if you could add one companion reform—campaign finance tweaks, debate access rules, or civic education mandates—which would you prioritize first and why?
NBnd bv
Transparency feels vital. If the tabulation process is a black box, trust will wobble regardless of the merits. Could administrators publish machine-readable cast vote records with strong privacy safeguards, plus round-by-round visualizations the public can verify? I’d also want routine stress tests: hand-count audits on a random sample, error-injection drills to validate software, and public demos before every cycle. Closed question: should independent universities or civic labs be funded to rerun the counts and certify that different implementations produce the same winners?
GHTa Gia Huy
As a voter who cares about equity, I want to know who benefits at the margins. Do communities with less institutional power gain a fairer hearing, or do name recognition and fundraising still dominate? I’m interested in safeguards: outreach grants for first-time candidates, multilingual explainer campaigns led by trusted local groups, and post-election audits that check whether undervotes or exhausted ballots cluster in specific neighborhoods. Open question: if disparities emerge, should rules be adjusted—more rankings allowed, clearer instructions, or targeted education—before declaring the experiment a success?
BDHoang Le Bao Duy
From a campaign lens, this format seems to reward coalitions and second-choice appeal. That’s promising, but it might also incentivize vague messaging or tactical buddy-pacts. How do we keep platforms specific while encouraging civility? I’d love to hear best practices: joint town halls that surface policy contrasts without personal attacks, pledge cards for respectful advertising, and transparent agreements about not sandbagging rivals’ supporters. Closed question: should jurisdictions publish standardized voter guides that emphasize issue matrices, so candidates compete on substance while still courting broader preferences?
TMPham Ngoc Tra My
My hesitation isn’t philosophical but practical: complexity can create distance. Some voters already struggle with long ballots; layering preferences might widen gaps in understanding. How much investment in public education is non-negotiable—sample ballots in multiple languages, practice tools, and on-site assistance? I’d also like clarity on design choices: limit the number of rankings or allow full slates; show round-by-round results on election night or wait for complete counts? Open question: what’s the simplest interface that preserves voter agency without overwhelming first-timers?