On January 16, the Connecticut Attorney General ruled that the State Constitution, which requires election by “plurality”, does not permit the legislature, or local governments, to authorize Ranked Choice Voting. However, the Opinion says it is a close question. The Opinion notes that the Maine and Alaska Supreme Courts have considered this question for their states, and they came to opposite conclusions. Here is the Connecticut Opinion. Thanks to Fairvote for the link.
Does the state constitution specifically require plurality voting for particular offices (as in Maine), or for elections for all offices?
“…The history of Connecticut’s constitutional evolution in this area evidences the framers’ clear intent to institute a plurality victory threshold…”
>>Majorities are pluralities. Ranked Choice Voting picks a majority. Therefore, RCV picks a plurality.
“…If the initial ranked preferences are the voter’s “vote,” then the Plurality Provisions forbid any further retabulation and reassignment…”
>>Absolutely false. Without retabulation, you count only the voter’s 1st choice, and ignore the rest of their RCV ballot. The vote was not fully counted. This is in violation of my right to vote. That’s too bad that Mr. Tong does not see it that way like Alaska did.
“…For instance, when Oregon amended its constitution in 1908, it explicitly authorized voters to make multiple ranked choices. That choice suggests Oregon’s framers did not think the word “vote,” on its own, necessarily included the possibility of RCV, and they needed to say something more…”
>>Suggests, but does not prove. I can suggest they wanted to protect against its exclusion, not for its inclusion. Didn’t Hamilton said the Bill of Rights was already implied, so it wasn’t needed?
PLURALITY ROT — CONNECTED TO MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER ROT.
NOOO CONST IN CT UNTIL 1818
NOOO CONST IN RI UNTIL 1844 — AFTER DORR’S WAR IN 1840-1842
@WZ,
Most New England states required a majority for election. For Congress, they would hold what were called /trials/. A trial was an attempt or /try/ to elect. Before there were printed ballots, even by parties, there might be a scattering of votes.
In the initial election for the 1st Congress, four (of 8) districts in Massachusetts failed to elect on December 18, 1788. On second trial on January 29, 1789, two more representatives were elected, including Elbridge Gerry. On the 3rd trial on March 2, 1789, another was elected.
In MA-4, which consisted of Berkshire and Hampshire counties (Hampden and Franklin county had not yet been created), it took a 4th trial on March 30, 1789 and a 5th trial on May 11, 1789 before Thomas Sedgwick was elected. This was two months into the meeting of the 1st Congress.
Perhaps the remoteness of the Berkshires and Pioneer Valley limited communication of the popular choices. Maybe there was carryover from Shays Rebellion.
The requirement of a majority was also extended to the legislature and the governorship. Rather than holding multiple statewide elections, a contingent election was held in which the legislature would choose the governor. Eventually, the constitutions were deliberately changed to provide for election by plurality (candidate with the most votes).
If you read the Connecticut AG’s opinion it was quite clear that this was a proper reading of the Connecticut Constitution based on the actual historical record (same as in Maine). He then drifted off into sophistry as to what a “vote” consisted of.