A liberal group, fueled by out-of-state money, has successfully placed Proposition 1 on Idaho’s November ballot. Contrary to its proponents’ assertions, Proposition 1 does not broaden primary election access for independent (“unaffiliated”) voters. While supporters claim that independent voters face obstacles to participation, these voters can already request and cast ballots in any party primary they choose.
One of the key, unstated goals of Proposition 1 is to allow registered Democrats into Republican primaries, changing Idaho’s political environment into something more like California’s. Even the Idaho Supreme Court stated that the term “open primary” means something very different than this proposal.
And critically, buried within Proposition 1’s text is the replacement of the system Idaho has used to determine election winners throughout its history. Under Idaho’s normal process, an election for public office is held, eligible voters cast a vote for their preferred candidate, the votes are tallied, and the candidate with the most votes wins. Simple.
In place of this, Proposition 1 would eliminate Idaho’s primary elections and impose a California-style jungle election in which Democrats would vote for Republican candidates and vice versa. The top four would then advance to a “ranked choice voting” (“RCV”) system in November.
RCV is an old idea tried by dozens of American cities in the early 20th century, but soon abandoned due to its complexities and the confusion it created. Alaska, which adopted this system by initiative starting with their 2022 elections, already has a new initiative on their 2024 ballot to repeal the harebrained scheme after using it just once. Its only “benefit” was electing Democrats to office in a conservative, red state.
RCV involves a series of complex contingency voting preferences that the voter would attempt to express through a lengthier ballot. For example, currently, the 2026 ballot will have 18 different partisan races for which voters will cast one vote each. With RCV, voters would need to cast 72 votes across 18 races, quadrupling the time it takes to vote, and multiplying the length of voting lines.
To tally votes, computer algorithms would begin transferring votes between candidates, until the computer declares a winner. Because this is done by algorithms, it will be almost impossible for humans to verify through Idaho’s postelection audit.
RCV also:
- Eliminates Idaho’s traditional “one person, one vote” elections – the candidate receiving the most votes will not always win, once votes are transferred and the ballots of exhausted voters are tossed out.
- Eliminates third party and independent candidates from the general election in most major statewide races, disenfranchising voters;
- Takes longer to report election results;
- Triples the number of recounts;
- Disenfranchises tens of thousands who either cannot wait in longer lines, or will leave their ballot incomplete out of frustration;
- Lengthens many election campaigns by six months, favoring wealthy candidates and those with the most special interest money;
- Allows party bigwigs to manipulate what candidates and parties appear on the November ballot AFTER the May election;
- Is at risk of reporting the wrong winner, as actually happened in a California school board race;
According to Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane, Idaho’s current election equipment cannot accommodate RCV. Replacement costs are “at least $25 to $40 million” in new taxpayer money. Of the two companies able to supply this, one is Dominion Voting Systems. This is deeply concerning to me.
The fact is Idaho’s elections are not broken, and do not need to be blown up and replaced with this expensive, complicated, and failed idea. Please protect “one-person, one-vote” and vote “No” on Proposition 1.
