LPKS Submits Written Opponent Testimony For HB2013
The following was submitted as official party testimony in opposition to House Bill 2013. The short title for this bill reads, "Requiring a runoff election between the top two candidates whenever a candidate for a statewide office fails to receive a majority of the votes cast." You can read more about this bill here.
House Committee on Elections
Written Opponent Testimony HB2013
Prepared by Daniel Gaeddert for the Libertarian Party of Kansas, authorized by Chair Tim Giblin
Since this great country was founded almost 250 years ago, many things have changed. Our information rarely comes from newspapers, The horse and buggy are no longer a viable mode of transportation, and our wars are no longer fought with cannons and muskets. However, one thing that has remained constant throughout this time is the wisdom of our founding fathers. As many of us would agree, I believe that George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Patrick Henry, and the rest would all be rolling in their graves if they could see what this country has become. Our founding fathers warned us of many of the evils of government, but none so much as the evils of political parties. In his farewell address in September of 1796, George Washington himself stated:
"However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
Benjamin Franklin also spoke frequently about his distrust of political parties, even going so far as to say:
“I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all.”
There is no doubt that our founding fathers would be sickened if they could see the prevalence of political parties in today’s society. But in order to address this problem, we have to look at why political parties exist in the first place. There are many answers to this question. From wildly different opinions due to geographical location, to the messages of hate and division we are constantly being bombarded with by the mainstream media, it’s no surprise it was easy to turn Americans against each other. However, I believe that the biggest offender is our “first-past-the-post” election system. The way our elections are designed, it’s very easy to consider a vote for an “un-viable” candidate as a vote for the “other side” even if that un-viable candidate may better represent the views of a group of, or even a majority of voters. It encourages people to vote party lines rather than ideas, for fear of the “bad guys” winning. Our current system of elections is almost entirely responsible for creating the very thing which our founding fathers feared more than anything else, and something needs to change.
There are currently 2 methods of electing public officials that would solve the problem of political parties if they could be implemented on a large scale: Runoff elections, and ranked choice voting. By allowing voters a “do-over” if their favorite candidate fails to get enough votes, it encourages people to actually vote for their favorite candidate first, not simply the one who has the best chance of beating the guy they think is worse. While this certainly wouldn’t eliminate political parties, it would provide people with the freedom and peace of mind they need to support 3rd party and independent candidates. It would help people vote for politicians they actually liked, and vote for the ideas and not the party. While the technology didn’t exist to run an election like this when the founding fathers were alive, I have no doubt that they would enthusiastically support this idea if they were alive today.
While both runoff elections and ranked choice voting will ultimately benefit the voters and bring us closer to the vision of our founding fathers, ranked choice voting is clearly the superior option for 2 reasons: speed, and cost. To begin, runoff elections take a lot of time. Ballots need to be printed, candidates need to run another campaign, and the public has to be notified of yet another election. Turnout for runoff elections is undoubtedly lower, and it takes even more time for the results of the runoff election to be verified. All in all, it is simply an inefficient process. While it would certainly be better than the system we have now, it still leaves a bit to be desired. Runoff elections are also very expensive. With a statewide runoff election costing somewhere around 10 million dollars, it seems like there would be a much more fiscally responsible way to achieve the same results. Fortunately, ranked choice voting solves both of those problems. Ranked choice voting allows us to achieve the exact same results as with a runoff election, but still utilizing only a single ballot. This increases the timeliness of the results, decreases the overall cost, and still provides the voters with a much better election system.
In 1801, Thomas Jefferson said “The greatest good we can do our country is to heal its party divisions, and make them one people.” 220 years later, I believe the same thing is true. Hatred and division sewn by political parties is tearing our country in two. If we want to have any hope of saving our republic, we need to find a way to stop thinking as democrats and republicans, and start thinking as Americans, and the best way to do that is by implementing ranked choice voting. When Benjamin Franklin was first asked what system of government this new country would have, he replied “A Republic, if you can keep it.” I believe that implementing ranked choice voting will help us keep our republic and remain the last place on earth where freedom truly rings.
The following was also submitted as personal opponent testimony by one of our Leavenworth County leaders, Hayden Maples.
House Elections Committee,
My name is Hayden Maples (unaffiliated) and I would like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to submit written testimony on HB 2013.
I appreciate the spirit of the bill in trying to ensure there is majority support for statewide office holders, but am concerned about the increased time and significant expense associated with runoff elections. Shortly after elections last November I wrote to my state representatives encouraging consideration of Ranked Choice Voting and would propose that as an alternative to the dedicated runoff process described in HB 2013.
Ranked Choice Voting (also known as Instant Runoff) allows voters to rank their preferences on a ballot and has a procedure to use those rankings in the case no candidate receives 50% of the 1st choice vote. Basically if my preferred candidate is the least popular overall, they are eliminated and my 2nd choice is then taken into consideration between remaining candidates.
Again, this helps reach a majority preference among voters while avoiding the additional tax dollars, campaign spending, and month-long delays in final results that come with a separate runoff election. I also believe Ranked Choice Voting allows the electorate to more accurately express their opinion without concern of spoiling the election or wasting their vote. That leads to higher engagement and could help provide valuable feedback to elected officials about the priorities and preferences of the citizens they represent. I believe these factors are major reasons why Ranked Choice Voting is gaining popularity and usage of this process is increasing across the country.
The following was also submitted as personal opponent testimony by one of our past state chairs, Rob Hodgkinson.
Election Committee members,
I am Rob Hodgkinson a fifth generation Kansan from Stilwell KS.
I am here to oppose this bill -- HB 2013.
The negatives of a runoff include the continued discord of an either/or vote. You, instead of voting FOR a candidate will vote against a candidate – continuing a growing atmosphere of negativity in politics. Kansans have a MUCH better option -- using Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). I as a Kansan prefer to be able to choose from multiple candidates, just as I want to be able to grocery shop and pick between multiple brands on the shelves.
I have testified in past years, including in front of a 2017 special committee hearing testifying about the positive effects of Ranked Choice voting. RCV accomplishes the EXACT same end results of this proposed runoff bill. A winner who has a majority of the vote.
RCV will however be much less expensive and time consuming. It will increase voter and candidate participation. It will help us dramatically slow down the partisan angst/anger in elections we deal with today. We must return to civility in elections, Kansans deserve that respect. Others here today will talk about all the positives of ranked choice voting, and they are spot on. I can also continue to go into the extensive list of the benefits of ranked choice voting and would love to do so, however, to stay on point let's look at Kansans voter “perception” of what this bill really is, and why I oppose it.
HB 2013 is simply attempting to solve a perception that there is spoiler effect from third party and independent candidates. Ranked Choice Voting satisfies the “Independence of Spoilers” criteria in elections, so it is free of the spoiler effect.
I can tell you as one of the outlier voters (and as a past third party candidate who twice ran for KS Secretary of State) this bill will have the opposite effect of what the bill creators think will happen. This is a knee jerk reaction to the 2022 & 2018 KS governor results. You republicans believe that if Pyle and Cordell were eliminated from the 2022 race, and if Caldwell, Kloos and Orman in 2018 also had also been eliminated you would get those votes and you would have won the governorship as well as the legislature.
You are wrong! The recent Georgia runoff results show that.
The reality is that your candidate was not good enough, and to voters like me, when forced to vote in a duopoly only situation, we will pick the person that can help stall and slow down the stampeding majority. Pyle voters had already broken ranks with the republican party and were unlikely to return, Cordell voters also are not fans of the republican party. I (using Ranked Choice voting) would have ranked Cordell #1, Pyle #2 & Kelly #3 in 2022 and would have ranked Caldwell #1, Orman #2, Kloos #3 and Kelly #4 in 2018. Most voters that will go ahead and vote in a runoff (not giving up and abstaining) would have voted for Kelly rather than Schmidt or Kobach, as would most of the voters that did not vote for the R or D candidates originally.
This is not the expected results of the bill creators.
Stop this bill here in committee, before you end up wasting taxpayer time and dollars on a system that quite frankly will backfire and become a detriment to Kansans.
Thank you for your time.
We know other Libertarians have been speaking out against the runoff bill and in favor of Ranked Choice Voting, both in Topeka and online, for everyone helping spread the message of Liberty - thank you!
If you have submitted testimony on other bills and/or would like to bring one to our attention, please let us know!