2 weeks Ago
This week, I read with considerable dismay two opinion pieces on this page purporting to explain the problems with Constitutional Initiatives 126 and 127. One was written by Ken Toole, a well-regarded Democrat. The other was co-written by four well-regarded Republicans.
Both contain inaccuracies that require rebuttal. First the factual corrections: Mr. Toole refers to the initiatives as CI-125 and CI-126.
They are in fact CI-126 and CI-127. He asserts both of them advance a "ranked choice voting" system. Neither one does.
CI-126 simply requires an open primary, allowing all voters to vote on a single ballot that includes all candidates, instead of being forced to pick a political party and vote only for the candidates on that party's ballot. This isn't ranked choice voting and has nothing to do with it. CI-127 doesn't advance ranked-choice voting, either.
It merely requires that whoever wins the general election win by a majority. The Legislature will determine the mechanism for making sure the person who is ultimately elected won the votes of a majority of the electorate. It could be ranked choice voting, a run-off , or something else.
Five other states have this requirement now, although Mr. Toole is correct that only two — Alaska and Maine — have ranked choice voting. Extremists hate it.
Average citizens love it. As for the Republicans' think-piece, they don't seem to recognize there are two initiatives, and either one can be enacted without the other one. They don't even mention CI-127, and like my Democrat friend, they conflate both initiatives with an attempt to advance ranked-choice voting.
Ranked choice voting isn't mentioned in either initiative. That's not what you're voting on, although if you vote for CI-127, that may be what you get. Now for the logical fallacies.
Mr. Toole dismisses proponents' arguments that an open primary will address the extremism that prevails under the current system. He points out that former Republican Gov.
Marc Racicot and former Republican Secretary of State Bob Brown are personae non-gratae in today's GOP. That's precisely why we need CI126. If all of us were allowed to choose from all the candidates running for a particular office, candidates like Racicot and Brown might be in the mix.
Under the current system, Montanans' choices are unnecessarily and artificially limited. The Republicans assert that it's all just too much work for Montana voters — sorting through all these ads from all these candidates. [Sigh.
] I'm sure we can handle it. They also allege CI126 will be more expensive for the average voter, which makes no sense at all. Yes, there's too much money in our elections.
Yes, we're all sick of the negativity and misinformation it produces. But the answer isn't killing these initiatives. The answer is an amendment to the U.
S. Constitution that reverses the disastrous ruling in Citizens United. That's not on the ballot this fall.
Too bad. I've spoken — and listened — to hundreds of people on CI-126 and CI-127. Although initially in favor of both, my jury is still out on CI-127.
I like requiring a majority of the votes to win, and CI-127 has protections against legislative mischief. But maybe the status quo, awarding the election to whichever candidate wins the most votes (a plurality rather than a majority), will be less expensive and prolonged. Municipal elections mirror what CI-126 would do without CI-127 and they work just fine.
I'm convinced the only way out of the ever-intensifying extremist "priorities" and hateful divisions we see emphasized in national and statewide campaigns is to be able to advance candidates to the general election who truly reflect the priorities and character most Montanans value. CI-126 gives us that opportunity. I urge you to take it.
We are better than this. Mary Sheehy Moe is a retired educator and former state senator, school board trustee, and city commissioner from Great Falls. Now living in Missoula, she writes a weekly column for Lee Montana.
.
