An update to our reporting on the often-confusing system of ranked choice voting that advocates are pushing to install in lots of elections. We first tried to dissect the pros and cons with an expert on each side in March of last year:

The following is a transcript of a report from “Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson.”
Watch the video by clicking the link at the end of the page.

Support for Ranked Choice Voting doesn’t fall strictly along political lines. But we did find Ranked Choice Voting efforts are more likely to be funded by liberal and progressive megadonors. Big donors to FairVote include the liberal Hewlett and John and Laura Arnold Foundations as well as the liberal activist billionaire George Soros through his Open Society Foundation.

Deb Otis: Ranked choice voting is a better way to vote. It gives voters the option to rank the candidates on their ballot. It gives voters more power, and it promotes majority winners in our elections —something we’re not doing a good job of right now.

Sharyl: And how would you describe it?

Scott Ganz: The place where we disagree is whether it supports majority outcomes. So, it supports the majority outcomes of the last two candidates, but it doesn’t always support the majority outcome among all the candidates. And, at least, recent history has shown, that in the presence of certain types of electorates, candidates that have true majority support don’t actually get selected.

Sharyl (On cam): Here’s where things stand now:

Park City, Utah, just approved ranked choice voting for upcoming city hall elections. West Virginia just banned it.

In last November’s election, Washington DC approved ranked choice voting for federal and municipal elections starting next year.

Voters narrowly decided to keep it in Maine, and in Alaska after a close recount.

They rejected it in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Nevada, and Oregon. And it was banned in Missouri, except for St. Louis.

Watch video here.