Bad Analysis on "Ranked-Choice" Voting

This had to happen sooner or later.  But it's not a solution.

A bipartisan group of state lawmakers is seeking to blow up how Wisconsin chooses members of Congress by making primaries nonpartisan and establishing ranked-choice voting for general elections.

Backers say the changes would foster bipartisanship because candidates would be inspired to appeal to the broadest slice of the electorate, not just those in their party....

Uh-huh.

Aside from primaries which could last forever, the idea that appeal to 'the vast muddle' is the winning formula is a serious flaw.  Either there ARE principles which cannot be compromised--think abortion--or there are NOT such principles.  "Ranked Choice" gives the politician exactly what they want:  a "no commitment" option.

..."It's not even that we've got the wrong people representing us in D.C., but that their incentive structure is such that, you know, they benefit from dividing and fighting more than they do from legislating and getting things passed," Ramirez said....

The hidden assumption there is that "ranked-choice" politicians are actually men of virtue.  That's not only an assumption; it's folly in most cases.  Politicians live to get re-elected, not to 'get things passed.'   You may blame the two-party system, but that's not the primary problem.  The primary problem is a deficit of virtue.  (Not that politicians are the ONLY ones lacking virtue....)

We note that Kooyenga and Gallagher--both prominent members of the Muddle in the Middle--are in favor of this idea.  We've mention Kooyenga before and not favorably; it should come as no surprise that he is a NeverTrump creature.  

"Ranked-Choice" is very good for politicians, not so much for citizens.

Dump it.