Three Democrats Re-Introduce Bill That Would Bring Ranked Choice Voting to Congressional Elections Across America - eviltoast

Congressman Jamie Raskin (MD-08) and Congressman Don Beyer (VA-08) renewed their efforts to bring ranked choice voting to U.S. congressional elections, reintroducing their *Ranked Choice Voting Act *. Senator Peter Welch (D-VT) is introducing companion legislation in the Senate.

The legislation would require ranked choice voting (RCV) in all congressional primary and general elections starting in 2028, allowing voters to express support for multiple candidates for public office, with the candidate receiving the most votes declared the winner.

  • RickRussell_CA@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It will be interesting to see if it passes Constitutional muster. The Constitution only requires that “the people” choose the legislator. Previous attempts to regulate voting like this required amendments (e.g. elimination of the poll tax).

    • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t see how it would violate that. Mathematically, Instant runoff style RCV is still one person one vote. Your ranking just gets to kind of direct where that vote goes once people are mathematically eliminated from contending, the vote only ever counts for one candidate at any given time.

      • fluxion@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        It’s not that RCV violates Constitution, but that requiring RCV could potentially be deemed an un-Constitutional violation of state rights. And with the current SC, it seems likely that’s how they’d rule. But anything that brings more attention and helps normalize RCV is a good thing regardless

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Ahh okay I can see that from a historical sense. I recall part of getting the states to actually be on board with a big federal government was the promise they would be in charge of the way they voted for that federal government.

          I will also say, many more historical foundations for the US have been wantonly ignored so long as ignoring it advanced US interests. Like how cops in the US are supposed to be strictly a civilian force, yet they are tried under different laws and are allowed many many things civlians cannot have. That was designed as part of the safties against military dictatorship, but we tossed it aside and give our cops military equiptment becsuse its profitable.

    • geekwithsoul@lemm.eeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Not quite.

      https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S4-C1-3/ALDE_00013640/

      “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.”

      The 24th amendment was a special case as it only applied to federal elections (so technically state office elections could still have a poll tax). There was also a question of voter qualification being outside the generally interpreted meaning of “times, places, and manner” so a statute wouldn’t be enough, but an amendment would.

      RCV I think could generally be understood to be covered under “manner” and so Congress can do that without amendment for Congressional races.