RCV divides, despite happy talk

A recent email from the RCV campaign in Michigan says that “politics too often feels divisive,” and claims their measure “is about lowering the temperature, replacing fear with hope, and building a system that rewards leaders who bring people together.” The email concludes that RCV would lead to “a healthier democracy.” This happy talk is common among RCV lobbyists, but scholarly study and practical experience show it’s false.

MIT’s Election Lab published research after Maine adopted RCV that used two different methodologies to test whether campaigns became more positive. Both measures found the opposite: after Maine began using RCV, campaigns actually became more negative.

Anyone following the news can see that RCV does not take the mudslinging out of politics. The recent New York City primary for mayor featured all sort of personal attacks, including candidates accusing each other of anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, lying, and sexual harassment. The eventual winner was the most extreme candidate in the race. Similar contests in Oakland, California, have been intensely negative and one mayor elected using RCV was both recalled and indicted on federal charges.

The idea that RCV will make politics nicer ignores basic political realities. First, candidates, campaign surrogates, and activists are all—with or without RCV—human beings with their own personalities and motivations. Some are inclined to aggressive and even dishonest attacks, others are not, and no election reform is going to change this fact. Second, elections are contests with winners and losers, with an incentive to win (to defeat other candidates) that is not fundamentally altered by RCV. Third, what really matters with regard to dirty politics is the character of voters—something RCV cannot change.

On a personal note, my experience with Rank MI Vote leaders makes me question their dedication to “lowering the temperature.” Rank MI Vote’s highest paid consultant has called me and others who disagree with him “losers” and “ghouls,” claiming that we “hate informed and active voters.”

Here is what is truly toxic in politics: The belief that ideological goals have more moral weight than personal character. It’s toxic, but intoxicating as an excuse for bad personal behavior—ideological ends justify any means. Another toxin is the belief that no one could honestly take a position contrary to your own. This obviously absurd trope is common, especially online, as an excuse to shirk the duty of defending one’s own ideas.

The real answer to toxic politics is personal, and it starts with being honest about ourselves, refusing to be dishonest about others, and being willing to engage in substantive debate.