COMMENTARY: Nevada voters lose with ranked choice voting

Most of us just want elections that are trustworthy. We want it to be easy to vote and hard to cheat. Next year, Nevadans will hold a final vote on whether to add Ranked-Choice Voting to the state Constitution. We hope that a majority of voters will realize this system makes voting harder, especially for vulnerable voters, and reject the plan.

In a normal election, each of us votes for one candidate in each race. This is the idea of “one person, one vote.” But in a ranked-choice election, voters can rank multiple candidates in the same race. This number varies in different systems. In Maine, for example, voters can rank as many candidates as are in the race. In Alaska, and the proposal in Nevada, voters can rank up to five (often called “top-five ranked-choice voting”).

Any ranking system makes it harder to vote and more likely that ballots get thrown out. The burden falls hardest on those who already have a hard time voting. This would include Nevadans with disabilities and those for whom English isn’t their first language.

Even supporters admit that expensive education campaigns are needed for voters to navigate the ranking process. Ranked-choice ballots are longer than normal ballots, taking more time to complete and often requiring additional sheets of paper. In each race, voters have more bubbles to fill in, with candidates listed in rows and preferences in columns. All this is spread across the page, with more fine print and instructions than a normal ballot.

Every additional bubble is a new opportunity to make a mistake. Something as simple as a stray mark can void a ballot. At a polling place, this means challenges for poll workers instructing voters and replacing ballots. When people vote at home, this makes it more likely that they simply give up. Voters who make mistakes, or give up in frustration before voting in all races, can change election outcomes.

All these problems created by ranked-choice voting will fall hardest on vulnerable voters.

Consider visually impaired voters who use auditory or tactile systems to vote. It’s one thing to choose one candidate per race. But to rank a first, second, third, fourth and fifth choice? In every race? That is much more complex for anyone, but for those Nevadans who already have a harder time voting, this imposes a massive burden.

Some states used to force voters to take a literacy test before allowing them to vote. The Supreme Court struck down those laws as a violation of civil rights. It’s an open question just how complicated a voting system can be before it violates this precedent.

An NAACP chapter warned that it had “grave concerns” when Arlington County, Virginia, experimented with ranked-choice voting in an election this year. That election was so confusing that county officials scrapped the approach after the vote. Other cities have done the same thing, and five states have banned ranked choice.

The process is also more complicated for election officials, with ranked-choice voting often requiring multiple rounds of tabulation. If no candidate has a majority of first-preference votes, the one with the fewest first-preference votes gets eliminated. Ballots with an eliminated candidate ranked first are adjusted or discarded. If there is a next-ranked candidate, that candidate is moved up. If the voter did not rank another candidate, the ballot is eliminated in that race.

It should be easy to vote, hard to cheat and easy to trust the results. Ranked-choice voting would be a step backward, making it harder to vote and harder to understand and trust the process. It makes voting especially harder for those who already face challenges. America long ago rejected literacy tests for voting, and now Nevadans should reject ranked-choice voting.

Trent England and Jason Snead are co-authors of the forthcoming book, “The Case Against Ranked-Choice Voting,” from which this article is adapted.