Ranked Choice Voting is a type of election that takes place in "rounds." The process favors Democrats and right now, it is proposed in Michigan as a petition. If it gets enough signatures, it will be a proposal on the 2026 midterm election. If passed in 2026, it will destroy elections in Michigan. One of the reasons for the push of RCV by the left in Michigan is due to the scrutiny that is now on the SOS's office via the 2025-2026 Republican House of Representatives; the House has focused on Election Integrity issues given evidence of widespread cheating in recent elections. To put it simply, if the left can't cheat due to too many eyes on the SOS, then Ranked Choice Voting is the next best thing for them. Please see below, Co-Chair of MIGOP Bernadette Smith's excellent talking points against RCV. It will help you understand it better yourself and equip you with tools to convince your friends and family not to sign the petition. 

The Truth About Ranked Choice Voting: Why Conservatives Must Stand Firm --by MIGOP Co-Chair Bernadette Smith As Republican delegates and defenders of constitutional values, we must be vigilant against efforts that threaten the integrity of our elections. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is one of those efforts — and it's being pushed as "reform" when in fact it undermines the very principles we stand for. It Confuses Voters Our vote is sacred — it should never be complicated. RCV confuses seniors, those with disabilities, and citizens unfamiliar with complex ballots. More confusion means more errors, more spoiled ballots, and more voices silenced. That’s not just inefficient — it’s unjust. It Violates “One Person, One Vote” RCV allows some votes to be counted multiple times, while others are discarded early. The Constitution doesn’t say “one clever person, five votes.” It says we are all equal under the law. It Destroys Trust in the System When voters don’t understand how their vote is counted, they don’t trust the outcome. RCV reduces transparency and confidence — and in this political climate, we can’t afford that. It Delays Results — and Opens the Door to Doubt Under traditional elections, we get quick, reliable outcomes. RCV causes delays that fuel suspicion. In the days and weeks it takes to sort out votes, rumors and distrust spread like wildfire. It Can Elect the Wrong Person The winner under RCV might not even be anyone’s first choice — just the least disliked. That’s not leadership — that’s leftovers. We’re not grading on a curve. Our leaders should win with clarity and conviction. It Silences Voters If you don’t rank every candidate “correctly,” your vote might be discarded as “exhausted.” Thousands of ballots are tossed out before the final count — silencing voters in the process. It’s Expensive and Wasteful RCV demands new machines, retraining, and education campaigns — all at taxpayer expense. Local clerks are already stretched thin. This makes their job harder, not better. It Weakens Election Integrity RCV complicates audits, recounts, and fraud detection. The more rounds of vote transfers, the harder it is to track the truth. Conservatives believe in elections we can verify and trust — not ones buried under layers of confusion. It’s Been Tried — and It’s Failed Cities and states like Aspen, North Carolina, and parts of California repealed RCV after real-world failure. If it worked, it would be thriving. Instead, it’s being rolled back — and that tells you everything you need to know. It’s a Solution Looking for a Problem The left likes to cite “spoiler candidates” and “vote splitting,” but these are rare and manageable with our current systems. We already have tools like runoffs and primaries. RCV is a problem masquerading as reform. Final Word Ranked Choice Voting is not pro-voter. It’s not pro-freedom. And it’s certainly not pro-Constitution. ­ Delegate Prep/Tools: 10 Arguments Against Ranked Choice Voting These conservative responses are designed to equip Republican Delegates and Conservative Citizens to counter common talking points used in support of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). Use this guide in committee discussions, debates, and grassroots conversations. Let’s hold the line — not lower the standard. We’re not grading on a curve. Top 10 Pro-RCV Claims & Conservative Responses Claim #1: “RCV ensures majority rule because the winner has to get over 50%.” Response: Not necessarily. RCV doesn’t count all ballots in the final round — thousands of votes are often “exhausted.” The “majority” is usually of remaining ballots, not total votes cast. That’s manipulation — not real majority rule. Claim #2: “RCV eliminates the spoiler effect and vote splitting.” Response: Traditional runoffs already solve this. The spoiler effect is rare and exaggerated. RCV adds confusion and discourages voters from supporting their values. Claim #3: “RCV encourages civility because candidates must appeal to more voters.” Response: This is a theory — not reality. Mud-slinging hasn't disappeared in RCV states. Civility doesn’t come from algorithms — it comes from character. Claim #4: “RCV saves money by avoiding costly runoff elections.” Response: RCV costs more — new machines, voter training, software, and delays. Runoffs are simple and already work. Claim #5: “RCV increases voter choice.” Response: More names don’t mean better choices. RCV is confusing, causes ballot errors, and discards votes. Real voter choice means clarity and confidence. Claim #6: “RCV is working well in places like Maine and Alaska.” Response: Alaska elected a liberal in a deep-red district because of confusion and exhausted ballots. Maine has seen lawsuits and backlash. If it’s working, why are citizens trying to repeal it? Claim #7: “RCV is bipartisan and endorsed by some Republicans.” Response: A few Republicans support it — often due to donor pressure. The conservative grassroots overwhelmingly rejects it as a political gimmick. Claim #8: “RCV gives independent and third-party candidates a fair shot.” Response: The Constitution ensures equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Strong candidates don’t need gimmicks — they build trust and win on merit. Claim #9: “RCV helps military and overseas voters by streamlining the process.” Response: Overseas voters need clarity, not complexity. RCV adds confusion — traditional absentee processes are more transparent and reliable. Claim #10: “RCV increases voter turnout by making elections more engaging.” Response: There’s no proof RCV boosts turnout. It may actually lower participation due to confusion and ballot mistakes — especially among older voters.