Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter

As we previously noted, Democrat policies seem aimed to import as many people as possible, encouraging illegal immigration by granting mass asylum with no due process; turning a blind eye at the border; providing illegal immigrants education through college, as well as healthcare and welfare; promising a “pathway” to citizenship; lowering restrictions on voting and registration; blocking attempts to ensure only citizens are registered; and, blocking attempts to deport anyone, even him.

Now that the flood of illegal immigrants has dropped 94 percent, Democrats have re-focused on several other ways to game the system in their favor, like trying to force everyone to vote, even those who have no interest or knowledge of the issues, and they are trying to remake the US election system through Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). These policies are being pushed in CT by Democrats along with their ever helpful surrogates.

RCV is being promoted as an improvement over our current voting systems, but both plurality voting (also called the “popular vote”) and candidate ranking were well known in 1787 when our constitution was adopted and these were rejected by our founders:  direct popular voting was used as far back as ancient Greece and Rome and in Britain since at least 1430. And, voting for multiple candidates at once, like in RCV, was used in Venice starting in 1268, and variations (like this, this or this) were known since the 1300s. Other voting systems are also being promoted today, but why?

Our current election system was chosen as a compromise between direct popular elections and having the US Congress elect the President, as was the case under the Articles of Confederation.

In Federalist #68 Alexander Hamilton stated that our Electoral College system was the least controversial part of our constitution.  Yet those seeking to change the US balance of power have proposed more constitutional amendments on voting than on any other subject. 

Objections aside, our election system has resulted in a clear winner in all but two elections (1820 and 1824).  Thanks to our current system, we have had this clear winner each time even though there have been more than two candidates every election, (there were 25 Presidential candidates in 2024) and in spite of the fact that 21 of the 46 US Presidents did not get a majority of the popular vote, which is common when there are more than two candidates.

RCV has many issues and we covered the confusion it causes. But it’s worth remembering that RCV is designed to create a false winner. This is because in each election there are many exhausted and spoiled ballots.  Exhausted ballots are ballots in which voters did not select a second or lower-level candidate and their first-choice candidate loses; in that case the ballot is thrown out.  Spoiled ballots are ballots which have been filled out incorrectly.

Studies show that even given only three candidates – that is, only one second choice – 38 percent opt not to select a second choice. Others show that in addition to incomplete ballots, over 10 percent of the ballots in RCV elections are thrown out as “spoiled” because they were filled out improperly (e.g., with multiple first or second choices).  This “spoilage” is ten times higher than with regular ballots even when candidate ranking is not new to the local public. 

So, in RCV elections with only three candidates, 48 percent of the ballots are either erroneous or contain no second choice.  And the winner is whoever got a majority of the ballots which have not been thrown out, which is to say, not a majority of the voters.

Here is a short list of other RCV issues:

1. Anyone voting for the winner or the losing runner up as first choice, gets only one vote, but those voting for fringe candidates get multiple votes. 
2. In traditional elections, the winner can be declared once the vote difference is decisive.  In RCV, the winner cannot be declared until all ballots are scanned and processed electronically.  This can take much longer, especially in states that count ballots which were mailed by election day (rather than received by election day).
3. RCV encourages more candidates to enter the race, increasing confusion.
4. Recounts are nearly impossible.
5. Dropping the lowest candidate is the worst way of determining a majority, and is discouraged by all major procedure guides, such as Robert’s Rules of Order.
6. Other systems are better at determining who represents the majority in a ranked vote.
7. RCV is unconstitutional in CT according to the CT Attorney General.

So why are Democrats pursing this?

One answer might be found in the number of fringe political parties in the US.  The vast majority of political parties in the US are left leaning.  In 2025 there are 49 ballot qualified political parties and in the 2024 Presidential elections there were 25 candidates on various ballots receiving a total of 2.9 Million votes. Prior to the debate, these fringe party voters strongly favored Biden as their second choice. 

The question perhaps should be: why do Democrats support giving voters whose first vote is for, say, Jill Stein of the Green Party or Claudia De La Cruz of the Party for Socialism and Liberation multiple votes while chanting “one person one vote”?

In short, while claiming to enfranchise, Democrats actively work to disenfranchise and obfuscate our system which has served us well and has stood the test of time for nearly 250 years.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!‘