Re: Jim Fossel’s June 24 column, “So, what did ranked choice accomplish?” (Page D1):
I would disagree with his view that ranked-choice voting was pretty much a useless and wasteful exercise. My own personal experience was significantly changed by the ranked-choice voting process.
For one thing, I was able to vote for the candidate whose views I most supported, without needing to worry about their “electability,” knowing that even if they didn’t win the primary, my second- or third-place votes would still be heard.
Secondly, although Mr. Fossel seems to think that the process didn’t affect campaigning, I did factor in demeanor and campaign style and held it against the candidates who were most negative in their campaigning, and I’m sure others did as well.
And finally, one unexpected consequence of ranked-choice voting was that I spent much more time evaluating all of the candidates, rather than just settling on my top choice and tuning out the rest of the campaign.
I look forward to the day when the whole country follows our example and adopts ranked-choice voting!
Doug Zlatin
Falmouth
Send questions/comments to the editors.
