By Patricia Miller, Reno Gazette Journal, June 26, 2024
Re: “Question 3 will give nonpartisans a seat at the table,” April 14:
Jim Schnieder supports Question 3 to give nonpartisan voters a seat at the table and more cooperation across parties. He is mistaken. It will effectively ensure there is rarely a varied choice of candidates in the general election. Further, he ignores that Question 3 also includes ranked choice voting in the general — and does the above as a constitutional amendment.
Open primary
If passed, there would be one open primary for all voters. The top five vote-getters from the primary would advance to the general, so Republicans no longer would select the Republican candidate that moves forward to the general, nor would Democrats select the Democrat candidate. There is no guarantee there will be party representation in the general, as the top five vote-getters could all be from the same party.
I believe that candidates represent a party, and parties have different philosophies and principles. The purpose of a primary is to select a candidate not based just on personal characteristics, but also on how well they represent party principles. If based on just majority vote, whichever party has the most voters in a region are likely to advance their candidates, effectively negating the views of minority parties. That is counter to the foundational principles underpinning our state and country.
Ranked choice voting
Question 3 also modifies the general election to require ranked choice voting (RCV), which is not discussed in Schnieder’s opinion. RCV asks each voter to rank candidates from first to fifth choice. You do not have to rank all five candidates, but if you do not, your ballot is exhausted and inactive once it no longer contains candidates remaining in the race. Let me explain:
In the first round of voting, the first-choice votes for all five candidates are calculated. If no candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, and it moves to a second round. In the second round, the ballot for anyone who voted for the eliminated candidate as first choice is reintroduced — with their second-choice candidate now receiving their vote. The votes are calculated to see if anyone now meets the over 50% threshold. If not, again the lowest candidate is eliminated and the ballots that identified that candidate as first choice are recounted with their second choice receiving the vote, and so on until a candidate meets the threshold.
Sound confusing? It is. Basically, it eliminates holding a runoff election between top candidates by moving second-choice votes around after candidates are eliminated. If you vote for fewer than five candidates, your ballot is inactivated if the candidates you selected are all eliminated. Another concern is in a close election, if the first candidate eliminated received most of the second-choice votes (e.g., they were not everyone’s first choice but most folks’ second choice), they have already been eliminated so those second-choice votes are irrelevant.
Our election process is far from perfect, but it does allow diverse candidates representing differing principles to be selected in the primary, ensuring minority parties are represented and that all voters have a real choice in the general. RCV is extremely confusing, results in inactivated ballots, and could result in a winner being determined who was not the candidate most desired. In the current process, a runoff election enables all voters to participate, and to reconsider who their top choice is based on who remains in the race.
I encourage all Nevadans to vote against Question 3.
Patricia Miller is retired and an active volunteer in the Reno community.