Skip to main content

Gary Johnson Could Have Won His Senate Race If New Mexico Had Ranked Choice Voting

By: Wes Messamore


The New Mexico Senate Race this year was by far the best chance the Libertarian Party has ever had of getting a seat in the U.S. Congress, and in the Senate no less.

In this race the nation’s third largest party, still dwarfed by the two main political parties in the United States, had a perfect storm:

A highly credible candidate, with nearly universal name recognition in his state, and a record of actually winning statewide election twice– to New Mexico’s governor’s office– before stepping aside in accordance with the term limits in New Mexico’s constitution.

When he won his first governor’s race in the early 90s, Gary Johnson inherited a state government with finances spiraling out of control like many state governments, but when he left office eight years later, New Mexico’s finances had been completely turned around and the state was running a billion dollar surplus.

Gary Johnson used to joke on the campaign trail while running for the Republican Party’s presidential nomination in 2012, that it was nice to go out in public as a popular governor in New Mexico because people would wave at him with all five fingers–

Not just one.

Never before has such a prominent office in the echelons of the U.S. federal government been so winnable, had so viable a path forward for a Libertarian Party candidate.

Yet he received only 15% of the vote, trailing far behind the Republican who took 30%, and the incumbent, Democratic Sen. Martin Heinrich who won 54%.

Actually governing the state to a high degree of voter satisfaction for eight years was still not enough to avoid the perception that Johnson would be a spoiler for the two major parties' candidates.

If the state of New Mexico had ranked choice voting, the voters could vote for the candidate they want most without worrying about “throwing away” their vote on a “spoiler” candidate.

Instead they hold their nose for the least bad of two candidates that are perceived as viable because of their party affiliation.

That perception becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy without ranked choice ballots, but with ranked choice ballots, voters rank the candidates in order of preference, and if their preferred candidate gets fewer votes than the rest, their vote will count toward their second choice in an automatic runoff.

If that candidate is eliminated in the second round of tallies, then their vote counts toward their third choice, and so on… until a winner is selected who has both core and broad support.

This fixes a voting process that in most places puts voters in a classic prisoner’s dilemma scenario right out of Nobel Prize winning mathematician John Nash’s principles of game theory.

Ranked choice voting has already been enacted in Sante Fe for mayoral elections, where it increased voter turnout, ran smoothly, and was inexpensive to implement. Same story for the same ballot reform in Maine this midterm election.

If the rest of New Mexico follows Sante Fe’s example and implements ranked choice voting, credible candidates might finally have a fair chance to run for elected office– and voters might finally be able to vote for the candidate they actually want to win.

I am the author of this article and have republished it here in its entirety with permission from the original publisher, the Independent Voter Network.



Popular posts from this blog

My 2011 Trip

Hey Patriots! Hope your New Year is off to a good start! I am multitasking my head off to prepare for a trip around the country of indefinite length and scope starting next week. I'll be headed for Colorado first where I'll investigate medical cannabis laws and their effects; then I'll be flying out to Washington DC for the month of February to attend CPAC and ISFLC; and after that I'll move north to New Hampshire to spend March hanging with members of the Free State Project and learning more about it. I'm not positive what's next after that, but I've got a general inkling, and it might involve venturing overseas to learn a little more about the broader world around us and relay everything I see to you readers here at The Humble Libertarian ! Wish me luck and keep your eye out for updates as I travel. Peace, Wes Wes Messamore , Editor in Chief, T H L Articles | Author's Page

I've Been an Outspoken Critic of Censoring Conservatives, But I'm Not Leaving Patreon Over Sargon of Akkad's Ridiculous Remarks

By: Wes Messamore The Humble Libertarian Photo: Gage Skidmore

Occupy Mordor or Destroy the Ring?

There has been mixed responses to Occupy Wall Street by libertarians. Some see the movement as a positive, while others see them as little more than lazy hipsters. But libertarians must be sensitive to why people feel the way they do about issues. The occupiers point out a legitimate concern that "the 1%" control vastly more power and wealth than "the 99%", and corporations have accumulated more power and privilege than is healthy for an open society. Some other concerns and demands are absurd, but the heart of the matter is on track. The question is why has this happened? While many on the left are quick to blame a nebulous thing called "greed", or lack of regulation, the matter is more complicated than that. This calls for a Lord of the Rings metaphor. Let's say that Sauron, the big cheese bad guy of Lord of the Rings, is the corporate hegemony. The 1%. Most people in Middle Earth agree that this is a problem, but there are a few differ...
–––As Featured On–––