To the Editor:

I pride myself for trying to see both sides of an issue, even when I have a strong opinion. I had no opinion on Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) until it hit the ballot in Minnetonka a couple years ago. Then I studied it, and was surprised by the lack of a logical argument against it. However, I did see confusing and logic-free arguments like: Your vote is lost if your candidate does not win! (Compare that idea to the old system, then smile to yourself).

Last week’s Sun Sailor had a letter warning us that RCV was a “Trojan horse” but without an explanation of how that analogy applies. It contained a bunch of buzz-phrases (“powerful interests, wealthy elites, sold to residents”) with no follow-up information justifying their use. This was all summarized by the dire conjecture that RCV is “further eroding our trust in our elections,” again without explanation. Well, my trust in our elections is high, and now higher thanks to the extreme, historic, microscopic scrutiny that some groups in five of our United States put their whole process under (unusual recounts and investigations in PA, WI, MI, GA and AZ). And sorry, but naming well-respected charitable foundations who support RCV is a far cry from explaining why it is a bad idea. So, my hope for some logical information on the downsides of RCV were not realized.

I still am open to actual arguments against it, but for now I like RCV, which I believe is far more representative of what the citizens want than the old primary system.

David Paulson