PROP 1: It could have changed history

Many seem to be against ranked choice voting. Without ranked choice, and with more than two candidates, frequently someone who doesn’t have the support of the majority wins, and that may lead to them believing that they have a mandate. Not really. As someone who voted conservative in 1992 (I wasted my vote on Ross Perot), I would have put George H. W. Bush as my second choice. I feel confident that 90%+ of the rest who voted for Perot would have done the same. Bill Clinton won the election with only 43% of the vote, and we were stuck with him and his shenanigans for eight years. If there was ranked choice nationally in 1992, we PROBABLY would have had four more years of George H. W. Bush, a better choice in my humble opinion. If voters can understand the process, I think it is a good way to get a true majority.

ALBERT REYNAUD, MD

Hayden Lake