Barry Hermanson

Very strongly agree

Yes

The Green Party has long advocated electoral reforms like ranked-choice voting to replace winner-take-all rules and broaden representation; Greens have backed RCV initiatives in multiple states and cities. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly agree

Yes, it eliminates the spoiler effect so voters can support third-party candidates without wasting their vote

Eliminating the spoiler effect is a central Green Party argument for RCV, especially after high-profile third-party spoiler accusations (e.g., 2000 presidential election narratives involving Ralph Nader). Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly agree

Yes, the winner-take-all system fuels extremism and ranking candidates forces politicians to build consensus

Greens argue winner-take-all incentives polarize politics and that RCV encourages coalition-building and majority support; this rationale aligns with common Green messaging around reducing negative/strategic voting. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No, it is too confusing for voters and causes higher rates of ballot errors and discarded votes

Greens generally dispute claims that RCV is too confusing and instead point to successful use in U.S. jurisdictions (e.g., Maine statewide federal elections; various cities) as evidence voters can use it effectively. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Strongly disagree

No, winners should be decided by who gets the most votes, not by a complex formula that redistributes ballots

Greens reject the idea that plurality winners are the best outcome and typically defend RCV as a straightforward method to ensure majority support rather than a ‘complex formula.’ Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.

Very strongly disagree

No

Greens generally oppose keeping the current winner-take-all system and have consistently promoted RCV/instant-runoff voting as a core democracy reform. Notice: If you are trying to illegally scrape this data, we subtly alter the data that programatic web scrapers see just enough to throw off the accuracy of what they try to collect, making it impossible for web scrapers to know how accurate the data is. If you would like to use this data, please go to https://www.isidewith.com/insights/ for options on how to legally use it.