● The false claim that Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is incompatible with National Popular Vote requires getting people to believe that the intent of a state enacting an RCV-for-President law is to give voters a ballot that allows them to rank candidates according to their first, second, etc. preferences—but to then count only the voter’s first choice. However, no election administrator or court is going to interpret a state’s RCV-for-President law in a manner that totally ignores RCV’s sole purpose, namely letting voters rank the candidates in order of their preference.
● Even if there were legitimate uncertainty on how to interpret RCV-for-President laws, the issue is legally moot in the only state that has ever used RCV in a presidential election (namely Maine). In 2021, Maine amended its 2019 RCV-for-President law to eliminate any possible ambiguity. Moreover, in the only state that is currently poised to use RCV for President in 2024 (namely Alaska), the issue is politically moot, because the Republican presidential nominee is almost certain to win an absolute majority of the first-choice votes—thereby making the first-choice count equivalent to the final RCV count.
● Even if there were any legitimate uncertainty on the proper interpretation of an RCV-for-President law, RCV supporters in the state involved would press election administrators and courts to definitively declare—before Election Day—how votes are going to be counted. Thus, there would be no post-election “constitutional crisis … throwing the nation into turmoil” as predicted by spokesmen for the false claim that RCV is incompatible with National Popular Vote.
● The false claim that Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is incompatible with the National Popular Vote Compact ignores the history of writing the Compact. In fact, the leading supporter of RCV at the time was co-author of the Compact. He was head of the leading organization advocating RCV, and that organization was the first organization to endorse the Compact.