Ranked choice voting is a win-win solution for Kansas’ crowded primaries

Babe Ruth called his towering home run as the Yankees swept in the Cubs in the World Series. Amelia Earhart became the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic.

It was 1932. I’m proud my Republican Party has won every Senate race in Kansas since.

But this year, Democrats have united around a former state senator Barbara Bollier, whose first quarter fundraising total of $2.4 million set a new Kansas record. Republicans, meanwhile, appear fragmented, with four well-known candidates seeking the nomination to succeed the retiring Pat Roberts.

Last week, Kansas state Republican chairman, Mike Kuckelman, called on the candidates polling in third and fourth place — state Senate President Susan Wagle and former Johnson County commissioner and Kansas City Chiefs star Dave Lindstrom — to drop out. Party members have since called upon Kuckelman to resign.

There’s a better and proven way to bring about party unity and select a nominee who heads into the fall election with genuine majority support: ranked choice voting. RCV would allow candidates to stay in the race without being “spoilers.” Voters, not state party officials, would determine the nominee. And the winner would be the candidate with the broadest and deepest support.

Kansans are already learning about ranked choice voting because state Democrats adopted it for their 2020 presidential primary, joining three other states. It’s as easy as 1, 2, 3: Voters place the candidates in order, stopping when indifferent to their remaining choices. Those rankings act as a voter’s backup if their first choice can’t win.

And it worked for them — the Democrats saw more than three and a half times the number of voters compared to the 2016 presidential primary, with nary a criticism raised in their process.

Here’s how it works in a Senate primary. If someone earns more than 50 percent on the first tally, they win, like any other election. But if no one has a majority, RCV functions like an instant runoff: the last candidate is out, and their ballots go to each voter’s next choice. The field gets winnowed naturally to identify the majority preferred candidate.

It’s the ultimate win-win. RCV allows greater choice. A party can have a full debate, yet winners with majority support. With ranked choice voting, a party chair wouldn’t feel tempted to force out candidates because RCV solves the outcome Kuckelman fears: a divided party and controversial plurality winner who becomes less electable after winning with fervent, but only minority support.

RCV helps produce a different kind of election, defined by incentives that reward candidates able to unify a party. Here in Utah, voters love it. This year, Republicans at our state convention used RCV successfully in crowded contests for governor and Congress, with record turnout and widespread satisfaction.

As a former Republican state party chair, I understand Mike Kuckelman’s concerns. Republicans naturally want a nomination process that helps them win a seat they’ve held for nearly a century. But 1932 was a long time ago. Today we also know how to modernize our elections to produce fairer, more representative results. Kansas would be the winner if Republicans encouraged all candidates to run their best race, then have one rise to the top who brings their party together. Ranked choice voting may be the answer.