The Illusion of Choice has a Rank Smell.

How Ranked Choice Voting Breeds Dishonesty and Makes Elections Meaningless

I believe deeply in honest elections, clear choices, and leaders who tell voters exactly where they stand. A republic only works when voters can compare real ideas and real records, then make informed decisions based on truth rather than manipulation. Ranked Choice Voting undermines those foundations. It presents itself as reform, but in practice it rewards political camouflage and punishes conviction. Instead of speaking plainly, candidates learn to soften their positions, blur the truth, and chase second- and third-choice preferences instead of telling voters what they actually believe.

That’s not leadership. It is structured dishonesty built into the system itself.

When Yukon voters endorsed Ranked Choice Voting in their 2025 plebiscite, I warned our northern neighbors that this system does not improve democracy, it dilutes it. Under Ranked Choice Voting, politicians are pushed toward the political middle, not because their ideas are better, but because they are afraid to be honest with the public. A candidate who believes strongly in protecting innocent life, limiting the size and scope of government, or balancing budgets is encouraged to stay quiet, because true clarity costs votes in later rounds. The system trains candidates to treat truth as a liability. That is deception designed by process, not accident.

Supporters claim Ranked Choice Voting makes politics more fair or more civil. The truth is that it makes politics more homogenized and less transparent. When candidates must appeal to everyone in order to survive elimination rounds, they abandon strong positions and replace them with vague platitudes while their real beliefs are carefully hidden. That is not compromise. It is dishonesty disguised as pragmatism. Countries that have used Ranked Choice Voting for long periods show where this leads. Australia has used it for more than a century, and what you see today is a political class that looks and sounds the same, regardless of party label. The major parties differ more in branding than in substance; and real debate on difficult issues disappears because the incentive structure punishes it.

Ranked Choice Voting also shifts elections away from substance and toward image and performance. When candidates are forced to sound alike, or to subjugate their true positions in favor of being “good enough” for some, voters are left to judge based on personality, appearance, or media presence rather than philosophy or policy. When real differences disappear, vapid image fills the vacuum. Elections become contests of charm rather than contests of ideas. We stop asking, “What do you believe?” and start asking, “Who seems likable?” That is not just a minor cultural change as many RCV advocates say, it is a dangerous shift for any serious republic.

Many of the founders of this country were not likable men. They were difficult, stubborn, strong-willed, and even bullies at times, and that is part of what made this nation great. They argued fiercely, held unpopular views, and refused to soften the truth to make themselves more appealing.

What troubles me most is that this system breaks the fundamental promise of American elections, one person, one vote. Instead of a clear decision that every voter can easily understand, we now have a complicated redistribution process that most voters cannot verify on their own. Ballot exhaustion means legal votes simply vanish from the final tally once a candidate is eliminated. These voters are not counted in the final decisive round, even though they followed the rules. That destroys confidence and makes people feel like their voices no longer matter. Under the hive mentality encouraged by Ranked Choice Voting, only the collective voice matters, not the individual voice. Individual accountability is replaced by statistical outcomes.

In a healthy democracy, elections force real accountability. Officials must stand on their record, defend their ideas without hiding behind process, and face voters who can draw a straight black-and-white line between promises and performance. Ranked Choice Voting erases that clarity snd erases accountability. When candidates all sound the same and outcomes depend on mathematical redistribution rather than direct voter intent, elections become formalities instead of real decisions. The system turns elections into exercises in managed outcomes rather than moments of citizen judgment.

I believe Ranked Choice Voting should be rejected wherever it appears. Alaska should repeal it, other states should prohibit it, and voters should demand systems that reward honesty instead of political gymnastics of mediocrity. We need elections that highlite courage, clarity, and direct responsibility. Democracy depends on real choices between real ideas, not the ranked illusions and engineered outcomes of talking heads.

I will always stand for transparent elections, straightforward ballots, and leaders who are brave enough to tell the truth, even when it costs them votes.