PS: Question 1 wording

Someone wrote me the following:
> Could you clarify further? > Is this part — “and then retain the method only if… constitutional > amendment” etc. — part of the new law we’re rejecting (i.e., the new law > would delay and retain only if), or the alternative to the new delaying > law, that allows us to keep RCV in play? > My understanding is that to support RCV we want to vote yes on 1, right?? > (sheesh! – I even understand the issues, and the wording is ambiguous!) > > On 6/5/2018 9:21 AM, Dick Atlee wrote: >> PS: the reason that understanding the situation is complicated is that >> the wording of the question became entangled with the subsequent court >> decision that followed it. Here’s the wording, and heaven knows what >> people who walk into a voting booth cold are going to make of it: >> >> “Do you want to reject the parts of a new law that would delay the use of >> ranked-choice voting in the election of candidates for any state or >> federal office until 2022, and then retain the method only if the >> constitution is amended by December 1, 2021, to allow ranked-choice >> voting for candidates in state elections.”
If you want to support RCV as far as possible, do vote YES on 1.
The wording of Question 1, as with so many other ballot initiatives, is inherently confusing in the double-negative sense, a problem amplified by the subsequent court ruling. I don’t want to undertake an effort to unscramble that, even with a ten-foot pole. I’ve talked with Ann Luther for several years about RCV, and you can take her word for what will happen if it is passed.
The best thing, if you want RCV, is to vote for Question 1 and then hope for (and work for) a subsequent constitutional amendment.
_______________________________________________ HCCN mailing list

This entry was posted in HCCN. Bookmark the permalink.