Massachusetts voters this fall are being asked whether they want to see ranked-choice voting on ballots in future elections.
It's the focus of Massachusetts ballot Question 2. In a short debate, we heard from a supporter and an opponent to the change.
To fact-check some of their claims, we turn to Matt Murphy, reporter and associate editor at the State House News Service.
Question 2 is one of two statewide ballots questions this fall. During the campaign, supporters and opponents have each claimed their side is for election fairness and against voter disenfranchisement.
Carrie Healy, NEPM: The anti-ranked-choice side says 10% of the ballots in Minneapolis, where they had ranked choice voting, were discounted because of errors. Do we know if that's true?
Matt Murphy: This is a number we've actually seen repeated by groups, including the ACLU of Kansas, where that was debated. The ACLU of Kansas was neutral on the issue of ranked-choice voting in testimony that it has provided. But it also cited this 10% number, which we've seen replicated by studies done in Maine — which is the only state in the country to have ranked-choice voting — where the Maine Policy Institute has also found that 10% to 11% of ballots get discounted.
How does a vote get discarded?
Votes could be discarded under this new system for any number of reasons, one of which could be ranking two candidates in the same place on your ballot.
The other reason is for something called "exhausted" ballots. And this happens if the counting goes multiple rounds, but a voter only ranked maybe their first two choices — and then on the third round, with no third choice candidate for their vote to go to, that ballot gets discarded.
[That's] where you see some of the claims come in that someone can win without a majority of ballots actually cast, because the denominator actually gets shrunk as these ballots get discarded, and not counted in subsequent counting rounds.
The anti-ranked-choice side says people of color are disproportionately affected by the ranked-choice voting system. Is that true?
This comes into some of the question about whether or not ranked-choice voting can be confusing. And some of the research has suggested that more ballots are discounted in communities of color, and that greater proportions of voters in predominantly white, well-educated communities see the benefits of increased turnout compared to communities of color.
But there have been other studies done suggesting that the disparities between the ranked-choice voting cities, towns and even states is not much different than a normal, plurality voting system.
The pro-ranked-choice side brought up an example of Massachusetts' 4th Congressional District — nine candidates in the recent Democratic primary. Can you briefly unpack that race?
This was the race to fill Congressman Joe Kennedy's seat. And the winner of that race, Newton City Councilor Jake Auchincloss, wound up winning over his closest competitor, Jesse Mermell, with 22% of the vote. There have been suggestions that, had ranked choice voting been in place, perhaps the outcome would have been different, since the two candidates were separated by about 1 percentage point when all the votes were finally tallied.
What do we know about the funding mechanism for the other side, the No Ranked Choice Voting Committee? It looks like they've raised just more than $3,000, at last report.
Yes, the money disparity in this ballot campaign is great. The opposition was only formed and organized very late in this campaign cycle.
You've heard opponents talking about money flowing in from outside Massachusetts, and in large degree that is true. We've seen some $3 million raised by the ranked-choice voting proponents coming from a nonprofit called the Action Now Initiative, based out of Houston, Texas, and founded by a billionaire hedge fund owner, John Arnold.
Check out our short debate on Massachusetts ballot Question 2.
