To the editor:
I’ve lived in Massachusetts for three years and have loved every minute of it, but the people’s rejection of Question 2, adopting ranked-choice voting, has me upset.
Jake Auchincloss, who just won the state's 4th District seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, defeated eight opponents in the Democratic Primary with just over 22% of the vote.
In the Republican presidential primary of 2016, Donald Trump took the nomination with just under 45% of the vote, the lowest percentage of the popular primary vote for a major party nominee since the 1988 Democratic primaries.
I am not saying these men are wrong or right for the position, I’m simply suggesting there may be a better system than one put in place 200 years ago.
I’ve grown increasingly tired of “voting strategic” and choosing “the lesser of two evils” over voting for my favorite candidate who may never win a popularity contest.
Ranked-choice voting promotes a majority support for the winning candidate, discourages (some) negative campaigning, and encourages more choices for voters.
If you look up arguments against ranked-choice voting, the primary opposition suggests it’s “too complicated” - as if “rate your favorite Ben and Jerry’s ice cream flavor” polls have been disenfranchising ice cream lovers everywhere (sarcasm).
Come on, Massachusetts, we can be better.