It’s easy to manipulate legislators and voters who are confused. And even our RCV loving Secretary of State is pumping the brakes, ever so softly, on this legislation because of RCV’s “complexity.” Most people, including state legislators, can’t even begin to explain how it works because RCV vote counting, despite the propaganda, is anything but simple.

We all know Left wing ideas don’t need to be understood before being embraced by the masses. If the right buzz words are attached and repeated often enough, via bankrolled advertising campaigns, that’s usually enough to pull in low information voters.

The buzz words dropped Friday at the capitol during the Left’s rally for RCV included the usual “equity, inclusion, diversity” chants along with promising “marginalized” and “POC” candidates more opportunities to acheive public office. All of that sounds very virtuous. Who doesn’t want to encourage good candidates to run for office? Answer: The Left.

Ranked Choice Voting is the Left’s latest weapon against competence. First, RCV does not count every ranked choice vote. It elevates only the votes of those who vote for “fringe,” or losing, candidates. Fringe candidates are those who receive the fewest votes and are typically without much experience, competence or public trust/support. That’s why they end up on the bottom. But, get this, only the second choice votes from the bottom candidate get redistributed to the other candidates until a majority is won. RCV gives the least qualified candidates, and their supporters, proportionally more control over our election outcomes. How is this a good idea? One need only look at the Minneapolis City Council (elected using RCV) to answer that.

Individual attributes demonstrating excellence and competence are important when evaluating people for all sorts of critical jobs like surgeons, pilots, architects, teachers, and, I’d argue, elected leaders who vote on public policy.

Our current political process, as flawed and imperfect as it is, provides a means to compete with other candidates to determine the most qualified. Our current election process also allows for run-off elections where, if necessary, voters get to choose between two top candidates they know, rather than casting a blind “automatic” second choice having an unknown impact on the final outcome.

The word meritocracy has gotten a bad rap recently in our woke culture, seeing its meaning (i.e., Rule by merit or talent, established by competition) distorted and equated with “bias,” which, interestingly, shows up as an antonym for the word! If you look up antonyms of “meritocracy” you’ll find: discrimination, prejudice, inequity, bias, unfairness, partisanship, one-sidedness, etc.

Discrimination? Bias? Inequity? Unfairness? Aren’t these things we all abhor? Shouldn’t we embrace, then, the opposite? Shouldn’t we embrace, then, meritocracy and the competition among candidates which leads to the best ones being elected? The Left thinks not.

RCV makes it harder for candidates to win who are vetted, experienced, competent, intelligent and, most importantly, have broad public support. In addition, it benefits the Left and its splinter parties (Grassroots Legalize Cannabis party, Legal Marijuana Now party, Green Party) by giving their voters more influence (more votes) in our elections. Implementation of RCV would virtually guarantee the end of our ability to elect the best and brightest leaders, whether they be POC, women, marginalized or of different faiths. There’s nothing good about that.

The less qualified, inexperienced, and ignorant our elected leaders are, the easier they are to control and manipulate with propaganda. RCV delivers on that promise.