From McHenry County Clerk Joe Tirio:
Ranked Choice Voting: A Solution in Search of a Problem
As the County Clerk and Election Authority for McHenry County, Illinois’s sixth-largest county, I have administered numerous elections and interacted with thousands of voters. After reading the recent piece [in the Northwest Herald] advocating for ranked choice voting (RCV) as a “golden opportunity” for Illinois primaries, I feel compelled to offer a different perspective, one grounded in the practical realities of election administration and voter needs.
The Problem That Doesn’t Exist
The article suggests that ranked choice voting would solve problems in crowded primary fields, using the 2014 Republican gubernatorial primary as an example.
But this analysis misses a fundamental point:
no voter has ever approached me requesting the ability to vote for their second or third favorite candidate.
In my years of service, citizens have consistently demonstrated they understand the current system and can navigate it effectively to express their political preferences.
The premise that voters are “torn” and need a ranking system assumes a problem that simply doesn’t manifest in real-world election administration.
When voters care deeply about outcomes in crowded fields, they research candidates, attend forums, and make informed choices.
The voting public isn’t served by making voting more complex; it’s served by ensuring every eligible citizen can cast a clear, understandable ballot.
The Educational Challenge No One Wants to Fund
Implementing ranked choice voting would require a massive voter education effort.
Yet proponents consistently avoid this reality.
Accurate voting under an RCV system demands that voters understand not just how to rank candidates, but how their rankings will be tabulated through multiple rounds of counting.
Without rigorous training and education, which no entity has committed to funding, we risk creating a system where voters cannot accurately express their political will.
This is particularly concerning for elderly voters, voters with disabilities, and those for whom English is a second language.
We should be making voting more accessible, not adding layers of complexity that could disenfranchise vulnerable populations.
Administrative Realities
The article glosses over the significant administrative challenges RCV presents.
Election authorities would need new equipment, software, and extensive staff training.
The counting process becomes exponentially more complex, delaying results and creating opportunities for confusion or error.
In an era when public trust in elections is already strained, why would we voluntarily adopt a system that makes the process less transparent to the average citizen?
A False Solution to Real Problems
The author acknowledges that RCV “wouldn’t solve issues with gerrymandered districts” but suggests it would somehow address “discordance between the ways many people think about politics and the actual process for selecting representatives.”
This reasoning is backwards.
If there’s a disconnect between public expectations and our electoral process, we should be working to better educate citizens about how the electoral process actually functions, not redesigning the system to match uninformed preferences.
Everyone understands the concept that more votes wins.
From 2 to 102, people understand inherently that more beats less.
Even animals instinctively understand the concept of being outnumbered.
It should be noted that not one of the 108 election authorities supports RCV.
Not the Democrats, not the Republicans.
Not one.
These people are the real experts.
We live in the trenches every day and look our voters in the eye at the polling place, at church, and the grocery store.
What Voters Actually Want
In my experience, voters want elections that are secure, accessible, and understandable.
They want confidence that their vote was counted accurately and that the process was fair.
They want polling places that are well-run and staffed by knowledgeable Election Judges.
These are the real challenges facing election administration today.
The article notes that the task force has yet to publish their report.
This delay itself suggests the challenges of implementing RCV may be more significant than advocates acknowledge and that the alleged benefits may in fact be offset by the massive confusion it will cause.
Moving Forward Responsibly
Rather than pursuing complicated solutions to non-existent problems, let’s focus on what actually improves the voting experience,:
- ensuring adequate funding for election administration,
- maintaining modern and secure equipment,
- providing comprehensive Election Judge training, and
- making polling places and processes accessible to all eligible voters.
Illinois voters deserve an election system that prioritizes clarity, security, and accessibility over theoretical improvements that solve problems they never asked us to address.
As election officials, our primary responsibility is to faithfully serve the voters we already have, with the system they already understand and trust.
The burden of proof should be on RCV advocates to demonstrate not just how their preferred system might work in theory, but why it’s necessary when our current system effectively serves voters’ expressed needs.
Until that case is made convincingly, McHenry County will continue focusing on the real work of election administration: running secure, accessible, and trustworthy elections for all our citizens.
