Seeing as how some people here on Lemmy get upset at any mention of Ranked Choice Voting and respond that, in their opinion, it's not perfect, and that we should therefore keep the voting system we have while we debate which alternative is perfect for several decades, allow me to preemptively respond.

========

RCV has the momentum and is infinitely superior to what we have now. Don’t let perfect be the enemy of fantastic.

I’d be happy if a community chose one of the other options. I don’t care. They’re all better than what we have and we should be celebrating every city, county and state that switches to any of them. That's the purpose of this post.

Trying to demonize one option because you don’t think it’s perfect is just muddying the waters and subjecting us to decades of more of the shit sandwich we have now while we debate which alternative is flawless (hint: none of them are).

You'll never get everyone to agree on which option is best. A vast majority of us can agree, though, that FPTP is garbage, and RCV is way way better.

It's like you're sitting there with nothing to eat but spoiled meat and it's making you deathly sick, someone comes by and offers you a fresh juicy hamburger, and you respond, "No! I'll accept nothing less than Filet Mignon!" Dude! You're eating spoiled meat! Take the damn burger!

Some of the possible changes on the table are increasing pay for the mayor and council members, moving City Council elections to a ranked-choice voting system and extending the terms of district council members.

As governor, Fulop would push for ranked choice voting and same-day voter registration.

Spain’s victory came after the county’s second-ever ranked choice voting election. On their ballots, Arlington voters ranked three of the five candidates. In the first round of the tabulation, the person who got the least number of votes — in this case, Julie Farnam — was dropped, and her supporters’ votes allocated to their second-choice candidates. The same happened with James DeVita followed by Tenley Peterson. That pushed Spain over the 50% required to win over second-place finisher Natalie Roy.

An Anchorage Superior Court judge has ruled that opponents of Alaska’s ranked choice election system violated state campaign finance laws in their effort to gather signatures for a repeal ballot measure.

In a 54-page order, Judge Laura Hartz upheld almost all fines issued in January by the state’s campaign finance regulator and concluded that Alaska’s “true source” disclosure laws apply to ballot measures.

Those laws state that if a nonprofit contributes to a political campaign, it must reveal the names of its donors, the true source of the money.

Hartz said one fine, levied for the misreporting of $2,358 in cash contributions, may not have been warranted and remanded the issue back to state regulators.

That was a small aspect of the overall case, which involved more than $94,000 in fines levied by the Alaska Public Offices Commission against groups and individuals who backed a ballot measure that seeks to eliminate both ranked choice voting and the state’s open primary, which places all candidates — regardless of party — into a single election for each office.

The repeal measure is slated for the November general election. A separate lawsuit has challenged the signature-gathering process used to put it on the ballot.

Preliminary orders in that case, including one issued Friday, have been in favor of allowing the repeal measure to go forward. A trial on the issue is scheduled to begin Monday.

Hartz’s 54-page order did not touch on that case, only the matter of the fines.

The Alaska Public Offices Commission, which regulates campaign spending in the state, concluded last year that Art Mathias, an opponent of ranked choice voting, contributed $90,000 to the Ranked Choice Education Association, an organization incorporated as a church in Washington state.

RCEA then gave money to Alaskans for Honest Elections, which campaigned in favor of the repeal measure.

Members of the Public Offices Commission concluded that was a violation of state campaign laws that forbid donations in the name of another person and require nonprofits to list their donors if they pass money to a political campaign.

Some ranked choice opponents appealed the fines, as did Alaskans for Better Elections, a pro-ranked choice group that sought larger fines. The Alaska Department of Law, representing the commission, sought to uphold the commission’s decision.

Hartz ruled almost entirely against both appellants, finding that only one fine — involving the handling of cash donations gathered at campaign events — may not have been warranted.

She sent that issue back to the Public Offices Commission for further consideration.

In 2020, Alaskans passed Ballot Measure 2, which included ranked choice voting, the open primary and a law stating that nonprofits that donate to a political campaign must disclose who gave them the money, revealing its “true source.”

That law didn’t directly address ballot measures, but Hartz said that ballot measures are included in the law because of an older law that forbids donations in the name of another person or group.

Her order said in part, “the court concludes that true source reporting requirements do apply to contributions in support of a ballot initiative when the contribution is passed from the true source through an intermediary to an initiative sponsor.”

Using that conclusion, Hartz upheld most of the commission’s actions.

“Because RCEA derives its funds from ‘contributions, donations, dues, or gifts,’ RCEA is an intermediary and not, by definition, the true source of a contribution,” she wrote.

Hartz rejected arguments suggesting that the First Amendment gives donors a right to privacy, thus negating the “true source” law.

“There is no constitutional right to make anonymous contributions for the purpose of influencing the outcome of an election,” she wrote. “There is likewise no right to contribute through an intermediary or in the name of another, and the court declines to create such a right.”

Supporters of the ranked choice repeal suggested they might face threats, harassment or reprisals for their donations and support, but in her ruling, Hartz said that they failed to show “any evidence of a ‘reasonable probability’” that would happen.

Friday’s order is unlikely to be the final word on the matter. Appellants could request a review from the Alaska Supreme Court.

In addition, since the initial filing against Alaskans for Honest Elections, supporters of ranked choice voting have filed additional complaints alleging further problems.