This post will add details to the previous post, “Letter to 2A sanctuary county activists”. Letter #1 was a summary of how the RV project can unify 2A sanctuary counties and maintain motivation of activists. Letter #2 will summarize the strategy for implementing the plan.
Dear activist,
The purpose of the Range Voting project is to expand the viability of populist candidates in conservative regions of the country. We want to use local 2A activist groups as vehicles to advance the project. The first target county will be selected from counties in which there are local issues that agitate the citizens and propel them to activism, thus making the citizenry open to unique solutions. The ideal target county would have one or more elected officials who has been ignoring constituents by refusing to support a proposed or already-active 2A sanctuary status.
The target county should have one or both of the following: 1)Councilmen or other elected officials who are at odds with constituents on a particular issue. 2)A well-known local public figure, or a lesser-known charismatic individual, who will promote to the public and become the face of the local RV project.
The above-mentioned conditions will be necessary, for the RV project to be successful. All conservatives are dissatisfied with the 2020 election and the condition of Federal politics; but, unless they are also dissatisfied with local politics they are unlikely to consider changes to the local election system.
Assuming you’ve read Letter #1, you no doubt will have questions. First and foremost will be: 1)How do I know this RV election system will work like you say it will? 2)How will I convince the people of the county that it will work?
These are actually two very different questions. You, the activist, can be convinced by facts gleaned from the history of multiple-choice voting. The people of the county can only be convinced by someone they know, or feel that they know. That means either a known public figure, or a lesser-known but charismatic individual, who can sell himself. Facts are still important, but take a back seat, when promoting to the public.
Here are the facts that will be important to you, the activist, and will be interesting, but less important, to the public: 1)Ranked-choice voting (similar to Range Voting) has been used often since 1850, in districts that have multiple at-large representatives. In most of the cases, RCV has allowed the election of popular candidates who would have failed under traditional-style voting. 2)The effectiveness of RCV degrades drastically when tried in single-representative districts. Range Voting has been shown to be much more effective. 3)Ranked-choice voting arose due to the need for an effective election system in multiple-representative districts. It has spread in the last 20 years only because of name recognition. Nearly all political scientists agree that the lesser-known Range Voting is a much more effective system. 4)It may be more palatable to implement RV in your county on a limited basis; i.e. for school board only, or councilmen only. This is common in the history of multiple-choice voting.
Here are the facts that will be important to the people of the county; these facts are simple, easy to remember, and can easily be passed on to one’s neighbors. 1)In districts that have implemented some form of multiple-choice voting, the citizens have the option of reversing the decision, should they become dissatisfied with the new system. This option has been used by citizens on multiple occasions. 2)Range Voting allows votes to be counted in the precinct in which they were cast. There is no need to transport ballots to a central location for counting.
This post will be updated soon, so that it includes links to documents that support all claims made regarding history of voting systems.