I strenuously disagree with your assertion on the front page of the Nov. 12 Monitor that ranked-choice voting is appropriate for the presidential preference primary (note emphasis on “preference”). Ask yourself this: Who “won” the 1968 N.H. Democratic primary?
Some political pundits like to say that “there are three tickets out of the New Hampshire primary,” but if you dig into the math a little more, it is certainly possible for at least five candidates to exceed expectations to the point where they can continue running after their showing in New Hampshire. Indeed, there is no fixed number (1, 3, 5, whatever) of positions that would serve as a win, and the state of New Hampshire should not be in the business of declaring which candidates should be eliminated in the ranked-choice counting mechanism. Your article assumes that the target number is one, but the political parties may allow delegates to be apportioned among several top vote-getters, with the target number (of candidates awarded at least one delegate) not known in advance.
I acknowledge that it would be informative to see who the second and third choices are for each first choice. Using a ranked-choice ballot would reveal that data, with some warnings about wonky math. But votes should not be taken away from any candidate and redistributed.
DAVID MARSTON
Suncook