Fw: 🌉 Tired of Division? Join Us Wednesday, Nov 19 in Manistee: Let’s Bridge the Divide with Ranked Choice Voting
John Helge
Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2025 4:00 PM
To: John Helge <johnm...@gmail.com>
Subject: 🌉 Tired of Division? Join Us Wednesday, Nov 19 in Manistee: Let’s Bridge the Divide with Ranked Choice Voting
America is more politically divided than ever — and too many voters feel unheard. It’s time for a solution that lowers the temperature, rewards collaboration, empowers voters, and truly reflects the will of the people.
That’s what Ranked Choice Voting does, and that’s what Rank MI Vote’s Bridge the Divide community action series is all about.
🌟 Be part of the change! Join us in Manistee, Wednesday, November 19.
Ranked Choice Voting gives voters real choices and rewards candidates who build coalitions instead of pointing fingers, helping restore civility, fairness, and trust to our democracy.
At this special event, you’ll:
Event details:
✨ This is how change starts, one conversation, one signature, one meeting at a time. Decide to make a difference in Michigan’s future. Join us, bring a friend, and be part of the movement to lower the temperature and build a democracy that works for everyone.
We look forward to seeing you! Let’s help Michigan voters vote their hopes, not their fears!
Mary Perrin
Rank MI Vote Communications
commun...@rankmivote.org
Support Our Campaign
Rank MI Vote is a grassroots, volunteer-powered organization, and every dollar makes an enormous impact.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Since our founding by a group of volunteers in 2019, we've been entirely sustained by individual donors and grants and have no sustaining corporate or national sources of income. That's why your support is essential to sustaining Rank MI Vote as we incur petition printing costs. We're in our most critical phase of the campaign, which is why today, we ask for your support to keep RMV moving forward.
I'd Like to Sustain Rank MI Vote
Let's share this email with those tired of our politics as usual and make a change for the better! If this email was forwarded to you, join us!
|
 |
Follow Us On Social Media! |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
Our Partners |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Rank MI Vote
PO Box 27304
Lansing, MI 48909-7304
United States
You have received this email as a subscriber to Rank MI Vote's "Newsletter". unsubscribe
Paid for with regulated funds by Rank MI Vote Ballot Question Committee, P.O. Box 27304 Lansing, MI 48909
K.P. Pelleran
On Nov 10, 2025, at 1:40 PM, John Helge <johnm...@gmail.com> wrote:
Please plan to join us to learn more about ranked choice voting.
<Outlook-keeka4bo.jpg>
--
To Email the Group: manist...@googlegroups.com
Website http://www.manisteecountydemocrats.us
facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/1711070132463223/
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Manistee Dems" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to manisteedems...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/manisteedems/PH7PR84MB17657CF9ED830DD583F253AEA2CEA%40PH7PR84MB1765.NAMPRD84.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM.
Betty Scott
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/manisteedems/3890A138-A9C0-4E18-9B12-7291A710F824%40yahoo.com.
ltr...@gmail.com
My research reveals:
• the vast majority of people like our current plurality voting system, as it’s easy for voters to understand; and the results are accurate and timely;
The “vast majority of people” only know the current system. RCV is, according to surveys, also easy to understand and timely where it has been implemented. Most, if not all, voters have been exposed to RCV in other situations with no problems. In addition, if people do not feel comfortable voting for multiple candidates, they do not have to.
• only the states of Maine and Alaska have implemented RCV—they are not comparable to Michigan with more than 10 million in population as compared to their 1.3 million and 750,000 respectively, and there is a lack of empirical data on RCV’s effectiveness and efficiency;
NYC has RCV and is approaching 10 million in population. There is no reason to believe that population is an issue. Empirical data is available from other states and municipalities, as well as information from other
countries.
• the RCV would increase the costs of hardware, software, and staffing needs in every voting precinct in Michigan for each and every election;
There may be some additional cost, but hardware and software companies are already preparing for more RCV and have adapted their systems to it. If it does initially cost a bit more, it is money well spent if it allows
voters to more accurately express their opinions.
• The Michigan County Clerk’s Association passed a resolution opposing the RCV ballot proposal;
The Michigan County Clerk’s Association is heavily Republican and Republicans are always in favor of limiting voting. They are afraid that they can never get 50+ percent of the votes.• it can disadvantage the Democratic Party by disenfranchising its base of voters (i.e. in the 2021 New York City (NYC) elections, 140,000 voters exhausted their choices, meaning that their ballots were not counted in the final tally); those on the lower academic and income levels may have greater challenges in voting a longer and more complicated ballot.
The loser is always disenfranchised. Remember, Mamdani had support from a majority of the voters, maybe a second choice for some, but he had a majority. I reject your premise that “those on the lower academic and income levels” are less able to make voting decisions.
Lastly, it was evident to those watching the recent 2025 NYC Mayoral elections that the claim by proponents, that RCV would curtail the influence of big money and negative advertising and rancor, did not pan out.
The fact that Mamdani won is proof positive that big money, negative advertising and rancor did were curtailed. In my opinion, this is reason enough to support RCV.
Ranked Choice Voting will lessen the effectiveness of “being primaried” and lessen the chance that candidates with very low support can get elected. Sri Thanedar won his primary with less than 30% of the vote. It is widely believed that had there not been a first to the post primary, another candidate would have won.
I can’t tell you that I think RCV would be good for the Democratic Party, but I believe that it would be good for the electorate.
That is why I am urging Party leaders to seek presentations from all sides of ballot questions and for the Party to remain neutral, while leaving it to individual voter discretion on whether to support RCV and / or circulate its petitions.
There are many occasions when ballot proposals are controversial. We cannot stand idly by just because an issue is controversial. We need to provide leadership and RCV is certainly an issue that the public should have a chance to express their opinion.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/manisteedems/CANmmBDao7Wq4eBjXZ4EqV6%3DqNJdZaE7G%3DRHcokzCXGVS-yxbJQ%40mail.gmail.com.
adri persenaire
K.P. Pelleran
On Nov 12, 2025, at 4:47 PM, adri persenaire <anja...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Thank you.
My research reveals:
• the vast majority of people like our current plurality voting system, as it’s easy for voters to understand; and the results are accurate and timely;
The “vast majority of people” only know the current system. RCV is, according to surveys, also easy to understand and timely where it has been implemented. Most, if not all, voters have been exposed to RCV in other situations with no problems. In addition, if people do not feel comfortable voting for multiple candidates, they do not have to.
• only the states of Maine and Alaska have implemented RCV—they are not comparable to Michigan with more than 10 million in population as compared to their 1.3 million and 750,000 respectively, and there is a lack of empirical data on RCV’s effectiveness and efficiency;
NYC has RCV and is approaching 10 million in population. There is no reason to believe that population is an issue. Population is ALWAYS an issue as it influences cost, efficiency, and related outcomes.Empirical data is available from other states and municipalities, as well as information from other
countries. Lack of available empirical data forced Ph.D. Professors from Georgetown and Iniv of Vjicago to look to Brazil and Italy for RCV data. Their research was printed earlier this year. They flagged the voter satisfaction with plurality voting via voter surveys. They suggested more research prior to broad application of RCV. Only two states use it statewide. Some states have it in smaller jurisdictions, which are not comparable to statewide need and application.
• the RCV would increase the costs of hardware, software, and staffing needs in every voting precinct in Michigan for each and every election;
There may be some additional cost, but hardware and software companies are already preparing for more RCV and have adapted their systems to it. If it does initially cost a bit more, it is money well spent if it allows
voters to more accurately express their opinions.To date, proponents have done NO cost-benefit analysis.You are falling back on their talking points. The cost per precincts with equipment for in-person voting, a vote assisted terminal, and an Absent Voter Counting Board comes to $45,000 per precinct. The staffing costs are greater to cover more staff needed over more days and somtimes weeks to process the votes and rounds associated with expected longer ballots and processing.
• The Michigan County Clerk’s Association passed a resolution opposing the RCV ballot proposal;
The Michigan County Clerk’s Association is heavily Republican and Republicans are always in favor of limiting voting. Another talking point by Rank MI Vote that shows they will stoop to a low-level to discredit a reputable group of public servants. Please be reminded that ALL local and county Clerks take an oath of office to honor the Michigan and the U.S. Constitution in carrying out their duties as public servants. The local clerks administer the local elections by appointing a bi-partisan group of election inspectors who all follow well-documented protocols outlined by Michigan law. They transport the election results to the county clerk who then, with the courts, each receive the vote and paperwork from from each voting precinct. A bi-partisan Board of Canvassers is convened to review each precinct’s votes and paperwork to determine if the process was followed and documented, and then certifies the process once all questions are satisfied. That information is then forwarded to the Secretary of States office and the bi-partisan State Board of Canvassers is convened to review that everything is core try and certifies the canvass. They are afraid that they can never get 50+ percent of the votes.
• it can disadvantage the Democratic Party by disenfranchising its base of voters (i.e. in the 2021 New York City (NYC) elections, 140,000 voters exhausted their choices, meaning that their ballots were not counted in the final tally); those on the lower academic and income levels may have greater challenges in voting a longer and more complicated ballot.
The loser is always disenfranchised. Remember, Mamdani had support from a majority of the voters, maybe a second choice for some, but he had a majority. I reject your premise that “those on the lower academic and income levels” are less able to make voting decisions.
That wasn’t my premise. Please re-read what I wrote to understand that I clearly said “they may have more challenges in completing a longer, more complicated ballot.” That’s precisely what the research reveals. It’s NOT conjecture on my part as you suggest. Lastly, it was evident to those watching the recent 2025 NYC Mayoral elections that the claim by proponents, that RCV would curtail the influence of big money and negative advertising and rancor, did not pan out.
The fact that Mamdani won is proof positive that big money, negative advertising and rancor did were curtailed. In my opinion, this is reason enough to support RCV. Current financial data from the NYC mayoral campaign finance filings reveals that average donations to candidates per donor were $98 for Mamdani, $597 for Cuomo, and $1,000 for Eric Adam’s. Mamdani had more donors than the others — this is just a snapshot and doesn’t include other candidates. Adam’s and Cuomo had lots of funding from the billionaires. Mamdani was competitive because he had more people. He didn’t take billionaire funding.inserted is a graph of the money each candidate for mayor spent.
Nate Markham
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/manisteedems/D27C321B-4197-4C90-8022-8BE63CA2EDE7%40yahoo.com.
William Allen
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/manisteedems/CAD4KTUb_2wy2WU4PYnoVFz%3DSoQjcby5Yw%2BcFTzxABkd6JPsFwQ%40mail.gmail.com.