Principles of Public Speaking (COMM 1020)
Reflection
In my principles of public speaking class, we learned all about different types of speeches. I gave five different speeches, the speech below is my persuasive speech about ranked choice voting.
Introduction
I. Hook: It is election season! Wahoo! Are you guys excited?
II. Ethos: I am 20 and this is the first election I will be able to vote in. If you are like me, I am not looking forward to it very much, but I feel a strong responsibility to vote. I have seen past elections and I have found that many people, including myself, see it as choosing the lesser of two evils. I have voted in local elections and I do not like it very much. And because of my dread of voting, I have reflected a lot on why it is I do not like voting. I found the biggest reasons are that I have to worry about how other people are voting, I feel like I can’t vote for someone outside of the two parties, and therefore I have to often vote against my conscience in order for my vote to “count”. Because of my frustration, I have done research on alternate voting systems.
III. Proposition (or Hint at Proposition): In my studies, I have found that one way to help solve the concerns I have with the voting process is the concept of ranked voting.
IV. Preview: Today we will discuss
1. the current voting system and how it falls short
2. the concept of ranked voting
3. and how the ranked voting system would change the current voting system.
Transition: Let’s start where the colonies started. The first two presidents of the United States.
Body
- The current voting system
- George Washington said, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” Washington’s successor, John Adams, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”
- A single vote system encourages having two opposing parties which leads to extremist candidates. George Washington said that the division into two parties would bring “horrid enormities”. In today’s system, we have seen this as the two parties have drifted further into two opposite extremes on every question of policy.
- The two-party system encourages division rather than compromise which makes decisions more about what party is wrong and which is right and less about the people. As Lee Drutman put it in an article from The Atlantic, “This is not a system of bargaining and compromise, but one of capitulation and stonewalling.”
- When people are forced to have choose between two extremes or have their vote not count, many people simply decide to not vote.
- A single vote system encourages having two opposing parties which leads to extremist candidates. George Washington said that the division into two parties would bring “horrid enormities”. In today’s system, we have seen this as the two parties have drifted further into two opposite extremes on every question of policy.
- When a citizen votes third party in a single vote system, they are essentially taking their vote away from any other candidate they would favor because they can only choose one option. They cannot choose to support more than one good option without taking support away from another.
- One example of this from happening was the election of 1992, when, according to Electoral Ventures, Bill Clinton won the election and, out of the top three candidates, had 43% of the popular vote, Bush had 38%, and Perot had 19%. Meaning, that if the votes for Perot had been given to either Bush or Clinton, the percentages could have been changed enough to give the majority of the popular vote to Bush. This situation happened again in 1996 with Clinton coming out on top again.
- It’s no wonder that so many people are usually unsatisfied with the election results.
- One example of this from happening was the election of 1992, when, according to Electoral Ventures, Bill Clinton won the election and, out of the top three candidates, had 43% of the popular vote, Bush had 38%, and Perot had 19%. Meaning, that if the votes for Perot had been given to either Bush or Clinton, the percentages could have been changed enough to give the majority of the popular vote to Bush. This situation happened again in 1996 with Clinton coming out on top again.
- George Washington said, “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.” Washington’s successor, John Adams, similarly worried that “a division of the republic into two great parties … is to be dreaded as the great political evil.”
Transition: One of the ways to help solve the aforementioned problems with the single vote system is to have what is called a ranked voting system. There are a few names for this system such as instant runoff voting, the single transferrable vote, and the alternative vote.
- The concept of a ranked voting system
- Ephrat Livni said in Quartz magazine of ranked voting, “The system essentially allows voters to choose candidates in the order of their preference… In ranked-choice voting elections, voters can—but do not have to—rank the candidates on the ballot in their order of preference. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, they win the race. If not, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and the second-choice votes of voters who preferred the eliminated candidate are allocated to those who remain in the race. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.”
- This system is meant to produce a winner that pleases the most people.
- Let’s suppose that this system was used with the three main candidates in the 1992 election. If 2/3 or more of the people that voted for Perot had listed Bush as their second option, then Bush would have won the popular vote.
- But let’s take a step back, what if out of these three candidates, all the people that felt pressured to vote Democrat or Republican felt free to vote third party while listing either the Democrat or Republican as their second choice. This would take off the pressure of trying to make their vote “count”. In this case, it becomes much more likely that a third-party candidate, like Perot, would actually win the popular vote.
- Ephrat Livni said in Quartz magazine of ranked voting, “The system essentially allows voters to choose candidates in the order of their preference… In ranked-choice voting elections, voters can—but do not have to—rank the candidates on the ballot in their order of preference. If a candidate wins a majority of first-preference votes, they win the race. If not, the candidate with the fewest first-preference votes is eliminated, and the second-choice votes of voters who preferred the eliminated candidate are allocated to those who remain in the race. This process continues until one candidate has a majority.”
Transition: What would the effects of implementing the ranked voting system be?
- How the ranked voting system would change the current voting system.
- Some opponents to ranked voting claim that it is unconstitutional.
- In a 2019 TIME magazine article, Anna Purna Kambhampaty discussed when this question was put to rest. The state of Maine already has ranked voting in place and In 2018, a Representative from Maine, Bruce Poliquin, filed a suit questioning the constitutionality of the ranked voting system. U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker wrote in his ruling that the plaintiffs are free to “call into question the wisdom of using [ranked-choice voting],” but that the “criticism falls short of constitutional impropriety,”
- Criticisms
- One criticism of ranked voting is that people often don’t like change. Some issues that would occur if people don’t embrace the change to ranked voting include
- Voter participation might drop simply due to lack of education on the new system.
- Many people might still be stuck in the way of only voting Democrat or Republican.
- You can end up with a winner who still doesn’t have the majority if people don’t rank enough candidates.
- These issues could be solved by properly educating people on how the system works and letting the new system settle in over time.
- As ranked voting does settle in, I believe we would see an increase in voter participation over time and voter would be given the incentive and opportunity to explore other options without feeling guilty. Perhaps people would also put in more research to different candidates.
- Besides the lack of comfort people have with change, one factor to consider is the cost.
- Betty Keller of the LWV said “It either requires a computer system, or is labor intensive to count by hand, with risk of errors. But security and integrity of our elections will require having a “paper trail” so that we can do recounts, and know the results are valid.” Therefore, it would potentially cost more with a count by hand and needing to verify the computer calculations. However, the expense could be reduced if there is no primary. In the future this would likely raise the question of how we could better determine what candidates appear on the ballot.
- One criticism of ranked voting is that people often don’t like change. Some issues that would occur if people don’t embrace the change to ranked voting include
- All of these criticisms are simply technicalities that would work themselves out over time. The biggest benefit of the ranked voting system is that more people will be satisfied with the election results as well as with who they voted for.
- Some opponents to ranked voting claim that it is unconstitutional.
Transition to close: Overall, I want to be able to vote with my conscience and not feel like I’m throwing my vote away.
Conclusion:
- Summarize main points/thesis: My studies have led me to conclude that many of the concerns I have with the voting process are addressed and reduced by a ranked voting system.
- Bookend: It is still voting season and it is still our right and duty to vote. We will likely in the future start to see ranked voting grow in the united states and hopefully have it for our national elections. I think we would all be more excited for voting if and when that day comes.
- End the speech memorably: Until then, get out there and vote for the lesser evil!
- Challenge the audience to respond: Better yet, vote for people who will help get ranked voting put in place so you can comfortably vote with your conscience.
References:
Drutman, L. (2020, January 02). America Is Now the Divided Republic the Framers Feared. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/01/two-party-system-broke-constitution/604213/
Kambhampaty, A. (2019, November 06). What Is Ranked-Choice Voting? Here’s How It Works. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://time.com/5718941/ranked-choice-voting/
Livni, E. (2019, August 01). Ranked-choice voting and the quest to save democracy in the US. Retrieved July 31, 2020, from https://qz.com/1676718/the-pros-and-cons-of-ranked-choice-voting/
Electoral Ventures LLC. Presidential Election of 1996. 270toWin.com. https://www.270towin.com/1996_Election/.
Keller, B. (2017, December 22). Pros and Cons of Instant Runoff (Ranked Choice) Voting. https://my.lwv.org/vermont/article/pros-and-cons-instant-runoff-ranked-choice-voting.