Meeting Public Comments

Avrom Bailey

Ranked choice voting disenfranchises the twoparty system that has kept our nation in a paralyzing tugofwar for decades. Furthermore, it gives more influence to the people that, should I remind you, the government was established to serve. No one is asking for this ban.

Nancy Cadmus

Please do not advance SSB 1128. Ranked choice voting is worth a try in Iowa local elections. It reduces partisan divides and saves money (one election instead of two). Isn't Iowa all about efficiency and simplification of government?

COLE LINDAMAN

Rank choiced voting allows voters to better describe what they want in an elected officials. It allows for movement that is impossible in a black and white system.Enacting a blanket ban of RCV takes away the ability of the state and local municipalities to govern themselves in the way that voters desire.

Erin Bailey

My name is Erin Bailey and I am retired from a 20+ year career in banking and live in Norwalk. I am asking that you vote NO on SSB 1128. I dont understand banning a policy that isnt legal yet. We, as citizens, should be open to discussing ideas like RCV for better representation for Iowa voters. RCV could benefit our local elections by giving communities more local control, not less. Thank you.

Zoe Morgan Sydney [Movement for Fulfilled Freedom-Democracy EVERYWHERE ]

(With the recent losses for Quintessential WinWin Ranked Ballot, this seems even more relevant, & now a move to ban it in Iowa, (inter alia). Subsidize STORAGE, not production (or NON!), like Joseph in Egypt in the BIBLE.): A FREE MARKET ARGUMENT FOR RANKED BALLOT: *+* America really only has monetary debt to its Victims of Previous Condition of Servitude & Native Americans. It only has a more general debt to the rest. It shouldn't be necessary, or possible, to pay it back in one lump sum. Perhaps a specific educational aid fund might be a good place to start. With all the many problems we face, we need the nuance, subtlefaction & Compromise of WinWin Ranked Ballot. The Right should not fear WinWin, Top Dead Center Ranked Ballot. It would amount to All Powers to their lowest appropriate level & ensure Free Markets Forever, while giving us the Unity of Compromise & a Consistency of Direction sufficient to defeat Statism & Authoritarianism worldwide. RB, (voters ranking candidates in order of preference to find the most perfect compromise, a sort of averaging of the opinions of all participating), is a Perfect Marriage of FREEDOM with an Eye for Justice and Justice With an Eye for FREEDOM..*+* No bogarting, StatistDefeatByFaintEffort, or being distracted by Nazi hunting. If it's so bad that it needs to be banned, why bother? Sounds like it's the Republican Party that's afraid of it, & the Dems & the Left know that it won't result in their own daydreams, (of Power & not program, apparently). (With exceptions), nothing the state does should prevent individuals from doing likewise. America has virtually lost the ability to come together, if it ever really existed outside of the glow of victory after the two World Wars. There is no other area in which we do not prefer maximum improvement & competition. *+* Should RB be unacceptable, then BillsBroughtUpInNumberOfCosponsorsOrder might be, (even though it might eventually result in RB, & certainly would prevent it's being banned. Imagine all the Republican legislators not pursuing their own INDIVIDUAL self interest.Cosponsors Order might be. Legislators would be made to propose laws that appeal to the middle, so as to get them to the top of the pile. All leaderships, from Presidents to Presidents for Life, in all their many varieties, would be transformed into mere functionaries, putting to bed the last enduring inheritance of aristocracy. (Had the Bolsheviks, at the start of their RevolutionWithinARevolution, adopted Cosponsors Order, (while the (union local) Soviets were still Democracist, the World would have been spared the 20th century.) *+* Generally, Conservatives favoring Electoral Reform favor Term Limits but that would leave us still stuck with the twoparty Collusion, (as opposed to Conspiracy, since they're BOTH under the illusion they're in control of themselves), which we currently suffer under, just like Washington warned against. Better than Term Limits, Cosponsors Order is (PERMANENT) halfaloafbetterthannone, (especially since most desirable Unity comes from this STRUCTURAL incentive to Compromise), not a drunken stumble between two extremes (with greater interest in their own power than anything else). Why would anyone care if the other guy got his, so long as they got theirs too? Noone could possibly be for Freedom, or Justice, their own or anyone else's, & not be for RB. Wouldn't it be glaringly embarrassing for legislatures to oppose Cosponsors Order? *+* WinWin RB would be best, even if CosponsorsOrder might be a better fit for them than MOST FAIR RB. While Cosponsors Order wouldn't do TOO much to limit the ill effects of the twoparty system, it would definitely make politics way more responsive, open to compromise & give us a real POSSIBILITY of Appropriate Reform. If someone can get CO, how not RB? Those proposing Term Limits are still clearly thinking SOMETHING'S not right. The major parties' aim would appear to be MORE at preservation of power than solving Polarization. AND, there IS something to say for experience. The Perfect Compromise of RB would give us all the lightfootedness we could want, while still allowing experience its due. Cosponsors Order might be sufficient all by itself to accomplish NECESSARY changes, but refusing to allow yourself the chance to rank the candidates amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. *+* With RB's equal chances, (for not just all parties, but combinations of programs AND individuals), there'll always be someone there to stand for FRUGALITY. It will give us Fulfilled FreedomDemocracy EVERYWHERE & All Powers to their Lowest Appropriate Level. Sharing the Work (the workweek attached to the unemployment rate) would do away with the NEED for most welfare & lots of entitlements, & their attendant bureaucracies, (all the things the right claims to want to end), keeping families together, strengthening family values & making us more competitive on the world market, & hopefully, the NEED for much military spending (the equivalent, soon enough, of having the larger portion of the defense budget back in your pocket, not being spent on what you hope you never have to use), smooth the business cycle, prevent an Organized Labor Circular Firing Squad from chasing increasingly empty dollars into the ground (while dragging FreedomDemocracy along with them), & free the right from having to appeal to racial, ethnic & nationalistic hatred. Workers being always assured of more work, would be motivated to be as cooperatively productive as possible, like Amish throwing up a barn for neighbors. *+* Cosponsors Order, & even more so RB, would make things way more responsive, open to compromise & give us a more real POSSIBILITY of APPROPRIATE reform. The Perfect Compromise of RB would give us all the lightfootedness we could want, while still allowing experience its due. Perhaps there'd be a lingering Safety Net alongside Sharing The Work, maybe subsidized protection from communicable disease (which we all Share In Common), INVESTMENT in Prevention, & paying for health care with pretax dollars, school being open all year long & enough each day to provide ease of dropoff & pickup & free WIRELESS college, till Justice is restored & all are able to stand for themselves. *+* With RB's Equal Chances , someone would always be there for FRUGALITY, (Percentage Of Receipts Budgeting, Sharing The Work & loans before incentives before subsidies before grants before projects, & taxing stock trades, to transform them into actual investing). The wings will still always have authentic input, the ability to make proposals & amendments of their own, & to try to sway the mass & legislature (by Cosponsors Order) in their direction). We've seen the inadequacy of the rule of the majority of the majority in.the House (a poor substitute for RB). *+" How shameless, & devastating to the cause of FreedomDemocracy it would be if we let Ukraine fall. RB (the only FAIR thing) has by now been presented to every voter, cause it's been promoted virtually everywhere, AND the right has mounted campaigns against it in the many places where it's won (or lost), come out with Term Limits as an alternative, or attempted to TYRANNICLY ban it. *+* Neither Moralistic Libertarian (sic) Isolationism, nor Spendthrift Promising Everything To Everyone, will allow FreedomDemocracy time to work its magic, (though the threat from defeatist Isolationism is more imminent than that of workers rushing the border for jobs & to escape the heat & violence). The SIGNIFICANT thing, for us & all the world, is for the US to adopt RB NATIONALLY. Without RB, FreedomDemocracy, the World, nation, ANY Compromise & all Principle are in peril. With RB's equal chances, someone will be there to stand for FRUGALITY, without need of racist dog whistles, while tariffs caused the Great Depression & anyone can spin the wheel too hard. (No woman ever got pregnant to have an abortion.). "+* The Statists on the left appear to be running to the front of the parade (as usual) with local Forward Party campaigns, aimed at Hangry Youth, instead of a national one (as if the educational effect of running for National (or Statewide!) office would not be a worthwhile investment, win OR lose), or by (antihumanscale, partycentric, counter Women's Equal Representation & antiIndependent) Multimember Districts, despite the fact that with RB's equal chances, this (admitted, if you dig deep enough) attempt to preordain the result will be a shortlived victory anyway. With RB's great transfomative power, who would need it? With California's Open Primaries for state offices, how are there not candidates running on RB everywhere there? NYS' upstate Unite NY is focused on Term Limits before RB (as though NYS were not the birthplace of so many worthwhile reforms), & even though Term Limits would leave us with the twoparty system. Perhaps BillsBroughtUpInNumberOfCosponsorsOrder would be a better Conservative fit, in that while it wouldn't do much to lessen the ill effects of the twoparty collusion , it definitely would make it way more responsive, & open to compromise & the POSSIBILITY of change. NYC seems satisfied to sit on its laurels. NYS has already gone through an entire gubernatorial year without any attempt at all to run a proRB candidate. Ultra LIBERAL Massachusetts managed to shoot it down (cause it was "too confusing" & "didn't count all "votes" equally" (both easily demonstrably false), (and now there's the absurd claim that it favors the extremes, &/or the extreme left, on Full Measure). What with the gathering storm, better adopted sooner. Is it because the left knows it's more Centric than their own desires? It's as if they want to keep it for themselves. *+* States have recently TYRANNICLY banned localities from adopting it, (without REASONED cause). Meanwhile some in the Electoral Reform Movement seek to also dictate the result. Eurostyle (partylist) imitating MultiMember District's are UNNECESSARY (given plain RB's great TRANSFORMATIVE power, as well as STW), partycentric, counterWomen's Equal Representation, & admittedly, (if you dig deep enough) an attempt to preordained the result. Perhaps, one or both of the two major parties will come to organizing themselves internally by RB & make this tyranny irrelevant, as Republicans in both UT & VA have done, The cat is already out of the bag & the right is just making itself look old & in the way by pretending otherwise. Perhaps RB will be a great sell to the right just as soon as they're done with Nazi hunting. + STW would also create such prosperity as would amount to virtual GLOBAL Reparations, with all that accompanying Soft Power (dear to the hearts of "Libertarians" everywhere), mean no corporation would ever again be too big to fail (good to all but giant corporations), end compulsive careerism, unsustainable growthism, footdragging, makework, (inflation, deflation, downturns, & irrational exuberance), thereby solving Global Warming (180 miles North of where it stuck all Winter in my youth, it NEVER lasts days, while Greenhouse Gases we're demonstrated in the nineteenth century with glass jars), end class antagonism, as well as amount to A Perfect Marriage Of FREEDOM With An Eye For Justice And Justice With An Eye For FREEDOM. It would create a path for putting country & Principle above party, give us a safer, fairer and more frugal path thru future pandemics (by out of phase work shifts), give workers all the Unity and Liberation they could want, (& redress the balance of power between workers & bosses in a more FAIR direction, one that treats their workers better than their cattle). The longest journey (to everyone being selfsufficient) is begun with a single step. *+* Easiest to explain "Additive" RB is counting the first choices, and then, if noone has 50%, adding in the next, and so on, till someone, most exactly in the middle, finally does. The usually espoused "Eliminative" form ("RCV") is said to be confusing, & to not count everyone's votes equally, but ARB was just explained in a single sentence and counts everyone's vote so long as it counts anyone's. *+* Even Libertarians have been for SOME ("minimal") government spending: canals, roads, rails, interstates, colleges, trade & technical schools (& recently SECONDARY roads & bridges?) though that's all most effectively left to localities in the long run. Everyone & everything needs to carry its own weight, so we assign it ots true value. *+* (With the many problems we face, we need WinWin Ranked Ballot NOW. No bogarting, StatistDefeatByFaintEffort, or being distracted by Nazi hunting. *+* America really only has monetary debt to Victims of Previous Condition of Servitude & Native Americans, a more general one to the rest of the 8/9 billion. They both should forsake the Dems for the likes of the (hopefully Centrist) Forward Party. Ninetynine percent + of the human genome is held in common, giving new meaning to False Categorization of Superficial Characteristics. If any has ought against you, go & make straight your path with them, while they are still in the way, & THEN go into the temple to pray. *+* The Right should not fear WinWin Ranked Ballot. It will amount to All Powers to their lowest appropriate level & ensure Free Markets forever.) With exceptions) nothing the state does should prevent individuals from doing likewise. America has virtually lost the ability to come together. Perhaps BillsBroughtUpInNumberOfCosponsorsOrder would be sufficient to overcome the selfdestruction, but Top Dead Center RB is the PERFECT MARRIAGE of Freedom with an Eye for Justice and Jusce With an Eye for Freedom. *+* Generally, Conservatives favoring Electoral Reform favor Term Limits but that would leave us stuck with the two party collusion (as opposed to Conspiracy, since they're both under the illusion they're in control of themselves?) we currently suffer, just like Washington warned against. Better than Term Limits, Cosponsors Order is a (PERMANENT) half a loaf better than none, (especially since most desirable Unity comes from a STRUCTURAL incentive to Compromise), not drunkenly stumbling between two extremes with greater interest in their own power than anything else. Why would anyone care if the other guy got his, so long as they got theirs? With all the problems we're facing, how could anyone not be for RB? Noone could possibly be for Freedom, or Justice, their own or anyone else's & not be for RB.*+* Can you imagine all the legislators getting voted out for failure to pursue their own self evident, individual, personal selfinterest? Wouldn't it be absurdly embarrassing for them to oppose Cosponsors Order? *+* RB, a sort of averaging of the opinions of all participating would be best. CosponsorsOrder might be a better fit for them than MOST FAIR RB. While it wouldn't do TOO much to limit the ill effects of the twoparty collusion, CO would definitely make politics way more responsive, open to compromise & give us a real POSSIBILITY of Appropriate Reform. Those proposing Term Limits are still clearly thinking SOMETHING'S not right. The major parties' aim would appear to be MORE at preservation of power than solving Polarization. Even if there IS something to say for experience. The Perfect Compromise of RB would give us all the lightfootedness we could want, while still allowing experience its due. Cosponsors Order might be sufficient all by itself to accomplish NECESSARY changes, even if leaving us still stuck with the twoparty system, but refusing to allow yourselves the chance to rank the candidates amounts to shooting yourself in the foot. *+* With RB's equal chances, there'll always be someone there to stand for FRUGALITY. It will give us Fulfilled FreedomDemocracy EVERYWHERE, All Powers to their Lowest Appropriate Level, Sharing the Work (doing away with the NEED for most welfare & lots of entitlements, & their attendant bureaucracies, (all the things it claims to want to end) keeping families together, strengthening family values & making us more competitive on the world market), & HOPEFULLY, the need for much military spending (the equivalent, soon enough, of having the larger portion of the defense budget back in your pocket), smooth the business cycle, prevent an Organized Labor circular firing squad from chasing increasingly empty dollars into the ground (while dragging FreedomDemocracy along with them), & free the right from having to appeal to racial, ethnic & nationalistic hatred. Workers being always assured of more work, would be motivated to be as cooperatively productive as possible, like Amish throwing up a barn for neighbors. RB is the Perfect Marriage of Freedom with an Eye for Justice and Justice With an Eye for Freedom. There has to be something to say fo the ability to get things done. + Cosponsors Order, & even more so RB, would make things way more responsive, open to compromise & give us a more real POSSIBILITY of APPROPRIATE reform. There IS something to say for experience, & the Perfect Compromise of RB (a sort of AVERAGING of the opinions of all participating) would give us all the lightfootedness we could want, while still allowing experience (& Freedom) its due. Perhaps a lingering Safety Net plus Sharing The Work, maybe subsidized health & education, till Justice is restored & all are able to stand for themselves. *+* Someone will always be there for FRUGALITY, (Percentage Of Receipts Budgeting, Sharing The Work & loans before incentives before subsidies before grants before projects). The wings will still always have authentic input, the ability to make proposals of their own, & to try to sway the mass in their direction). But even if Cosponsors Order MIGHT be sufficient in what other area do we not prefer maximization of Competition? *+* Recently we've seen the inadequacy of the rule of the majority of the majority in.the House (a poor substitute for RB. *+* How shameless, & devastating to the cause of FreedomDemocracy it would be if we let Ukraine fall. RB (the only FAIR thing) has by now been presented to every voter, cause it's been promoted virtually everywhere & the right has mounted campaigns against it in the many places where it's won (or lost), come out with Term Limits as an alternative, or attempted to TYRANNICLY ban it. *+* Neither Moralistic Libertarian (sic) Isolationism, nor Spendthrift Promising Everything To Everyone, will allow FreedomDemocracy time to work its magic, (though the threat from defeatist Isolationism is more imminent than workers rushing the border for jobs & to escape the heat & violence). The most SIGNIFICANT thing, for us & all the world, is for the US to adopt RB NATIONALLY. Without RB, FreedomDemocracy, the World, nation, ANY Compromise & all Principle are in peril. The sooner we get it the better. With RB's equal chances, someone will be the possibility of standing for FRUGALITY, without need of racist & nationalistic dog whistles. Tariffs caused the Great Depression the Pandemic (& the invasion of Ukraine) caused Inflation. Anyone can spin the wheel too hard, so as to pay more later, instead of now. (No woman ever got pregnant to have an abortion.). "+* The Statists on the left appear to be running to the front of the parade, to better steer, (as usual) with local Forward Party campaigns, aimed at Hangry Youth, instead of a national one (as if the educational effect of running for National (or Statewide!) office would not be a worthwhile investment, win OR lose), or by (antihumanscale, partycentric, counter Women's Equal Representation & antiIndependent) Multimember Districts, despite the fact that with RB's equal chances, this (admitted, if you dig deep enough) attempt to preordain the result would be a shortlived victory anyway. With RB's great transfomative power, who would need it? With California's Open Primaries for state offices, how....

Jessie Knapp

Hi, Jessie Knapp from Ames here. Banning RCV apropos of nothing gives the vibe someone doesn't like or want to embrace a better, smoother, more efficient democracy. The government's job should be to increase liberty and safety in all it does. There are real problems with out voting system, ranked choice voting, especially in a state that doesn't even use it, is a nonissue. If you explained what RCV is to most Iowans, I would bet they would support it. Its shady to ban something no one really knows about or understands.

Deborah McClure

My name is Deborah McClure. I am a Des Moines resident Senate District 17. I do not understand why the Senate is wasting time trying to enact a ban on ranked choice voting. No constituent has asked you for this, you are wasting far more of the tax payers time and money on this show then would ever be spent in potential run odds or ballet recounts. RCV can only help Iowa moving forward. Vote no in SSB 1128

Pheng Yang

My name is Pheng Yang, from Des Moines, Senate District 18. I urge you to vote NO on SSB 1128 for three reasons. First, its an overreach of government on a nonissue, that would restrict local governance. Second, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) gives every citizenincluding Republicans in Democraticmajority countiesa stronger voice at every level of government. Finally, RCV would empower legislators to act boldly because they can appeal directly to the majority regardless of political party.

Jimi Wirth

I would like to see Ranked Choice Voting implemented. It is an excellent opportunity for representation to more closely reflect the voters. Please do not strike this down!

Joel Andrews

If you're a fan of reducing government spending, RCV and instant runoff voting will save communities across the state hundreds of thousands of dollars on runoff elections. Please don't let this needless spending continue.

Barbara Helmick

Please do not kill the Ranked Choice voting process. Let's take enough time to understand how it can end our gridlock, and how it can get voters more enthusiastic about voting.

Donna Godar

My name is Donna Godar from Grinnell. I urge you to vote NO to SSB 1128. I dont understand why you are wasting time preventing something that isnt even legal yet. RCV would have wonderful benefits for local elections especially in our larger communities. This would give them more power at the local level not less. RCV is cheaper and more efficient since it would require only one election not two as in a primary and then general election. Thank you for listening.

Allison Castle

My name is Allison Castle from Muscatine, IA (Senate district 48). I am asking you to vote NO on SSB 1128. This symbolic bill is a waste of time (did any of your constituents ask for this?) and seems to be aimed at taking control from local municipalities. This state should not be afraid of new ideas that would have many benefits for its voters. Ranked Choice voting encourages civil campaigning rather than the divisive campaigning that has become the standard, increases accountability for incumbents, eliminates the spoiler effect and the need for and cost of multiple elections. So many voters have become apathic because they feel like their vote does not matter, Ranked Choice Voting is worth exploring to restore the voice of the people it our government representation.

Robert Cook [Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers]

Hello. I'm Bob Cook. I am VP of Iowa Atheists and Freethinkers. I oppose SSB1128. I urge you to vote NO on this bill. Ranked choice voting solves so many problems with our electoral system. It encourages more candidates to run. It forces them to reach out to voters beyond their usual base. It's almost impossible to make it to 50% ;plus one if you can't be bothered to appeal to voters as their SECOND choice. I don't understand why you are wasting your precious time on a symbolic bill to ban a policy that isn't legal yet. RCV would save cities and counties a substantial amount of money. It's more efficient. You would never have to pay for another runoff election. Voters would only vote once, not twice, and no vote is wasted.Vote NO on SSB1128.

Benjamin Allen

This Des Moines resident has a hard time understanding why legislators are considering banning something that is not allowed in the state, that just might make municipal elections more efficient and therefore less expensive to run, and that encourages more engagement from citizens. Try as I might I just dont see why this bill is even being considered. Please vote against SSB 1128.

Ryan Reynolds

I'm an Iowa City public school teacher in District 43. Ranked Choice Voting would not only save us a ton of money on elections (no primaries!) but it also gives greater control to our communities. Saving money and more local control sound like old fashioned Republican values to me! Vote NO on SSB 1128. RCV isn't even an option for Iowans so please focus on more pertinent issues such as our poor water quality and preserving our liberties and privacy, both of which are under attack at the moment.

Mary McDonald

I am a constituent from Decorah, IA zip code 52101. I am asking that you vote no on SB 1128. I am opposed to this bill for several reasons. Ranked choice voting is already not legal in Iowa, so this bill is a wasteful misuse of legislator time, further complicates our legal system, and is a step away from local control of elections. Iowans are long supporters of local control. Having just been through a runoff election for city council, our community could have saved taxpayer money if we used ranked choice voting. I ask you to consider how many of your own constituents are asking you to ban ranked choice voting and to represent the interests of the people. Why ban something that isn't legal already? What is the message intended behind what would only be a political gesture? Several states and municipalities already use ranked choice voting and even more use it for absentee military ballots. While I personally would like to see ranked choice voting more widely adopted, I am not asking that of you today. All I am asking today is that you don't close your own and Iowans options off and shut down options before they are even options. Please vote no on SB 1128

Megan Rapp

Please vote no. I think rank choice voting could improve our voting process. I would also kindly ask that we give Iowans an opportunity to learn about rank choice voting before banning it.

Martha Wolf [Ivy Bake Shoppe]

I am Martha Wolf and live in Des Moines County. I believe rank choice voting may be an opportunity to help Iowans break the loggerjam of this two party system that is so polarized it is not effectively representing Iowa voters. Let's give it a chance for cities and counties to only need to hold one election instead of two, saving money. New ideas should always be given the chance to be fully discussed and not rejected out of fear. Thank you for your consideration of my letter. Martha Wolf

Ben Rogers

Hello, my name is Ben Rogers and I live in Iowa City, Iowa and I am a lifelong Iowan. I ask that you please vote against SSB 1128. It is my belief that ranked choice voting has the potential to improve our politics by providing voters with more choice and decreasing the cost of administering our elections.I am surprised to see time being spent on a measure to ban something that isn't currently legal under Iowa law. I encourage you to focus on being more efficient with taxpayer dollars by avoiding unnecessary votes and instead advocating for policies, such as ranked choice voting, that actually save taxpayers money and empower Iowa voters and municipalities.

Berea Kaimera

Ranked choice voting would greatly benefit Iowa as well as the rest of the country. Banning it in this state before its even legal is ridiculous. If the people want to vote in a way that provides them more choice they should have the right to do that.

Lori Stiles

RCV is an extremely confusing method of casting, as well as counting, votes. It has absolutely no place in our Constitutional Republic. In tallying votes, which has to be accomplished by computer software b/c of the complicated nature of tallying, (leaving Iowa unable to ever reconstruct by a hand count HOW the supposed winner of the election was by simply counting the ballots), votes actually get discarded as candidates 'survive' and move up in the rank. It is ridiculous, and a method to keep many doors open for nefarious actors. Please SUPPORT SSB 1128 which will BAN RCV and Instantrunoff voting in Iowa.THANK YOU!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ez3aEUjRQo&authuser=1 Video of how RCV is tallied, (Maine's example). Republicans are actively working to remove the use of RCV in all states that it has been adopted, AND in all states where it is proposed.

Lucas Carr

Iowas new logo reads freedom to flourish. Ranked choice voting gives voters more options to flourish. Conversely, banning rank choice voting limits our freedom to choose. Iowa needs ranked choice voting!!!

Jena Newell

NO! We do not want Ranked Choice Voting. More costly, more time to get to results, more confusing for voters no no no! Simple is best. Paper ballots, one day voting!

Linda R Jones

Please vote NO!

Darrow Center

I live rural in Cedar County. I urge you to vote NO on SSB 1128, and instead support counties and cities having the FREEDOM to vote using ranked choice voting if they want to (many want to already and more want to when they learn the cost/benefit analysis comparing it to single choice voting).RCV combined with open primaries encourages legislators to do their jobs more efficiently and effectively, with broader support from majority of average voters instead of special interest groups.RCV combined with open primaries improves voter turnout and voter satisfaction in other states where it used. RCV combined with open primaries discourages polarization stupidity and promotes RESPECTFUL debate between voters of different beliefs.RCV saves local elections money because it is more efficient than single choice voting that require runoffs.No voting methods are perfect, but RCV combined with open primaries is 1000x better than single choice voting.

Diane Smith

PLEASE SUPPORT this bill that would forever ban Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa, as this form of voting would make our voting system complex and difficult.

Marcia Guffey

Please ban RCV forever! Very confusing and more opportunity for fraud!

Tara Helwig

I am for the ban of RCV. I do Not believe it is constitutional that we would adopt a system that could eliminate any vote. It would be to hard to ever be able to audit with out the use of tech/commuters. I believe We need to stick to keeping things simple and not over complicate our voting process, as this will further add to distrust in our elections. I am for a ban on RCV keep it out of Iowa. Thank you

Marcia Guffey

Please ban RCV forever! Very confusing and more opportunity for fraud!

Leo Kriz [retired]

Leo Kriz of Marshalltown requesting you to vote NO on SSB 1128.We have a variety of political beliefs in Iowa (more than 2) and we need to support Rank Choice Voting (RCV). Iowa was always a state that lead the way in developing new concepts such as leading in allowing female voting. RCV would have benefits for municipal elections. Republicans wouldnt have to force individuals to run for office as in the case of my county. With all the focus on Government Efficiency, RCV actually is more efficient than single choice voting we use today. Voters vote once, not twice.

Gwen Conte

Please support this bill that would forever ban Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa, as this form of voting would make our voting system complex and difficult.

Jennifer Jewell

I am a resident of Iowa and have been most of my life. I support SSB1128 and I ask that you support it also. Ranked Choice Voting is very confusing. It leaves room for a large margin of error in tabulating results of an election. It requires specific computer software which is very complex. Our founders envisioned a simple and fair method for electing members of government and I believe we, as a state and a nation, should continue to use this tried and true method. Why invite problems into an already explosive issue? Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Adam Duvick

Vote NO to ban ranked choice voting. Without ranked choice voting, the twoparty system is an effective duopoly which limits the power of constituents to elect representatives that best align with their views & beliefs.The fact that there is a subcommittee to ban this before it is even legal indicates that those in power are afraid of losing it when voters are given more power to choose.

Linda ILL

Please vote YES on this bill to permanently ban the very complex and unfair Ranked Choice voting system.

Teresa A Van Lent

Please support this bill to forever ban ranked choice voting in Iowa.

Jeff Pierick [Voter]

Please support this bill that would forever ban Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa, as this form of voting would make our voting system complex and difficult. Thank you!

Mary A Dowd

PLEASE SUPPORT this bill that would forever ban Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa, as this form of voting would make our voting system complex and difficult.

Katherine Babb

Please vote no on SSB 1128. I don't understand why the legislature is trying to push this through what is the legislature trying to accomplish by banning something that is already not legal or happening in Iowa? Who is asking for a ban? I want to continue the conversation about Ranked Choice Voting. I like that municipalities can save money by only having one election instead of costly runoffs. I really like how RCV incentivizes candidates to talk beyond their base so that there's better representation.

Ophelia Lopez

Please support this bill that would forever ban Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa, as this form of voting would make our voting system complex and difficult.

J Scott

Please vote YES to ban rank choice voting. It is not necessary and will only cause further complications and confusion to voting. Rank choice voting will open up doors for election results be delayed and uncertainty in those results. Iowa does not need this uncertainty!

Sean Hlubek

My name is Sean Hlubek and I am from Waterloo, Senate District 31, House District 61, and I believe that SB 1128 has no legs to stand on. Why ban something we've never even tried before? RCV could be a grand improvement over our current system, but we would never know if we don't at least give it a try. SB 1128 should not be allowed to continue.

Tobi Pinegar

I am an assistant childcare teacher in Iowa's twentyseventh senate district.I am writing to tell my legislators to vote NO on SSB 1128.Iowa shouldn't be afraid of new ideas. This is an entirely symbolic policy as ranked choice voting as it stands is not legal. In addition, ranked choice voting would give smaller communities like mine more control over municipal elections, this is a much needed step in the right direction. Voting no on SSB 1128 would be a step towards increased government efficiency as ranked choice voting would take away the need for several elections to be held for one position.

Constance Peters

I support this bill to ban to forever ban Ranked Choice voting in Iowa!

Diane Duncan-Goldsmith [none]

Please vote no on SSB 1128 which would eliminate the use of ranked choice voting in Iowa. As you know this would be a very efficient way to vote, giving all voters and communities more control over municipal elections. With Governor Reynolds focus on government efficiency this provides an easy and cost savings method for voting. Surveys have been done with voters in Alaska, Maine, and Portland, Oregon which show that majorities of voters understand and like the reform. The system is simple and voters really like the ability to rank candidates. This is a new idea which certainly should not be banned even before it has been tried. In addition, because Governor Reynolds believes in metrics, data and outcomes, ranked choice voting should certainly be studied before banning it. The goal of Iowa legislators should be to give voters an easy, cost effective way to choose candidates in municipal elections. We must give it a try before banning it without having any data or voter input.

Robert Crawford

Please support this bill that would forever ban ranked choice voting in Iowa. This form of voting would make our voting system more complex and difficult.

Lori Vandekrol [None]

Please support this bill that would forever ban Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa, as this form of voting would make our voting system complex and difficult.

Faye Henn

Ranked choice voting is great at promoting politics that bring people together instead of dividing them, by electing people who run on platforms that are more appealing to everyone. I am sad to see my Iowa government pushing policies that will create needless division when that is that last thing we need.

Robert Fonder

Please vote for this bill. We do not need to complicate are election system. RCV will also take away the will of the peoples vote by using a computer to alter to make sure a candidate that we did not vote for wins.

Paula Vaughan

Please vote no on SSB 1128. RCV is more efficient and costeffective then the way elections are handled now. Voters vote only once rather than twice with primaries and general elections. RCV promotes a wider field of candidate possibilities and promotes majority support of candidates.

Tom O'Donnell

I'm Tom O'Donnell, a resident of House District 87 and Senate District 44. Please oppose this unnecessary and punitive bill. Ranked choice voting is fairer and more efficient than standard voting in many cases. Say you have three candidates running. One gets 34 votes, a second gets 33 and a third gets 33. In most cases, the first candidate wins even though two thirds of the voters didn't want them as their first choice. This isn't an unusual situation. In primaries and municipal races, similar results happen all the time. With rankedchoice voting, we at least get the satisfaction of having a say in who was elected, even if it wasn't our top choice. Candidates will have to seek support from a range of voters instead of appealing to a small, extreme portion. We'll have more moderate and reasonable government. Please reject this bill.

Mary Lyn Clark

Please vote NO on Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa Thank you

Kathleen Mitchell

Please support this bill that would forever ban Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa. This would make out voting system in Iowa complex and very difficult.

Michael Bayer [Iowa Canvassing]

I strongly urge you to advance SSB 1128. Ranked choice viting (RCV) is very confusing and leads to voter disenfranchisement. 1) The complexity discourages people from voting. 2) The RCV process leads to ballot exhaustion with some voters' ballots not being counted. 3) RCV ballots are very difficult (nearly impossible) to audit during a recount. Please pass this bill to ban RCV at all levels of government in Iowa. RCV advocates often get RCV adopted at the local level and then use that "success" to push for RCV adoption at higher levels of state government. I URGE YOU TO PASS SSB 1128 OUT OF SUBCOMMITTEE.MICHAEL BAYER

Jonathan Koele

Jonathan Koele from Urbandale. I would like to encourage you to vote no on this bill. Currently ranked choice voting is not a legal method for elections in Iowa. With that said we should actually be doing the opposite of this bill. Ranked Choice voting is actually good for letting people elect representative politicians. It allows people to make a choice for who they truly want and not against a candidate. It also is more efficient when there are runoffs requirements. Instead everyone already said how they would vote in a runoff. Vote no on this bill and look to introduce a bill to legalize ranked choice voting.

Debbie Kyler

Please vote No on SSB 1128. Why are we wasting time on this bill, when Rank Choice Voing can be helpful when there needs to be "Run Off" or "Special Election" to save the cost of a "second" election. Rank Choice Voting also allows candidates to promote themselves, rather than attach their opponents. Please vote No on SSB 1128. It is a more efficient was of running elections.Thank you

Matthew Peters

Please support this bill that would forever ban Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa, as this form of voting would make our voting system complex and difficult. We do not need cute gimmicks for our elections.

Rachel Blocker

Please do NOT support this bill going forward. Ranked choice voting gives citizens better representation. It reduces polarization and negativity. And it won't make voting more complicated. Anyone who wishes to vote for only their first choice candidate can do so and simply refrain from selecting candidates for their 2nd, 3rd, etc choices. The legislature should leave the door open to ranked choice voting and let the citizens decide if they want to pusure it or not.

Bev Lloyd

I am writing to urge you to please support this bill. Rank choice voting is so confusing and does nothing to alleviate our minds as citizens on the integrity of our elections.

Howard Newell

Vote YES to ban Tank Choice Voting ! Nothing about it is good for our state or country!

Michael Bayer [Iowa Canvassing ]

I urge the subcommittee to advance this bill. I also encourage you to recommend an amendment to ban approval voting and all forms of voting that allows a voter to vote for more than one candidate for each open position.

Mary Purtle

We are opposed to Rank choice voting.

Cheryl Tillman [Iowa Canvassing]

I support banning RCV in our state, county, and city elections. Alaska has RCV, but is now repealing this law in their state. RCV is confusing, is not a fair way to count votes, and introduces manipulation.

Geralyn Osen

I do not support this bill

Ashleigh Sheehy [None]

Please vote YES on bill SSB1128. We don't need voting to be more complicated. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) can be criticized for several reasons:1. Complexity:RCV can confuse voters, especially those who are not familiar with the system. The process of ranking candidates can be more complicated than a simple "one person, one vote," potentially leading to lower voter turnout or votes that do not reflect the voter's true preference due to misunderstanding.2. Ballot Exhaustion: In systems where voters do not rank all candidates, their ballot might be "exhausted" if their top choices are eliminated, effectively disenfranchising them from the final decision. This can lead to outcomes where fewer voters' preferences are considered in the final rounds.3. Delayed Results: Counting votes in RCV can take significantly longer than in traditional plurality voting because of the need to redistribute votes multiple times. This delay can lead to public impatience or suspicion about the electoral process.4. Potential for Strategic Voting:While RCV aims to reduce strategic voting, it can still encourage it in different forms. Voters might rank candidates not based on preference but on who they think will advance, potentially leading to less honest voter expression.5. Complicated to implement : Implementing RCV requires significant changes in voting infrastructure, education, and public understanding. Resistance to change from both the public and political parties can be a substantial barrier, with some arguing that traditional voting methods have served well enough.These arguments highlight some of the practical concerns with implementing and using Ranked Choice Voting.

Nancy Mulford

I am opposed to rank choice voting. It can be very confusing and it is difficult to go back and do a recount, should that be necessary. We need paper ballots, oneday voting with very few exceptions.

Fran Hutson

Please NO ranked choice voting.Thank you

Justin Whitty

My name is Justin Whitty and I'm a lifelong Iowan. Please vote No on SSB 1128. RCV simply collects more information from voters about the nuances of their preferences. Ranked ballots can be counted on existing Iowa voting machines with minor software upgrades, and hand recounts are possible. While RCV requires voter education, ranking preferences is not confusing ask any kid to rank their favorite super heroes, and compare what you learn by asking the question that way to asking "who is your favorite super hero?" Watch how they think through ordering their list, and imagine voters doing the same.

Linda Schreiber

Ranked Choice Voting Ban Bill SSB 1128 Iowa should embrace new ideas that improve voting. Ranked Choice Voting has many benefits. RCV encourages civil campaigning (versus a campaign on fear) and identifies the candidate with the strongest support across the electorate not just a passionate base. RCV reduces wasted votes and the need for multiple elections this may be the most important issue! RCV will take a little time for adjustment but it will be worth it in the long run. It does not help one party over the other. Iowa legislators should give communities more local control, not take it away. Voters question why lawmakers are using their time and resources to ban a policy that doesnt exist. Support Ranked Choice Voting dont ban it.

Sara Ghrist

Please support this bill to outlaw the use of Ranked Choice Voting forever in Iowa. RCV is not a desirable way of doing things when every vote cast, should be counted in a straight manner and tallied as intended. Please pass this bill to ban RCV.

Susan Frazer

A proven disaster in every state that has enacted this.Why is this even being considered?

Linda Goeldner

Please vote against SSB 1128. No.Rank Choice Voting is a cost effective way to reduce the costs of unanticipated Special Elections since voters vote once not twice and the election of a "back up" person reduces election costs and time for everyone.I do not understand why the legislature wants to block local control. This has worked well in other areas and it is time to give it a try in Iowa.I do not see that this is a partisan issue. Please vote NO and don't move the bill forward.

Tammy Apana

Voters of Iowa deserve to have an opportunity for increased choice in voting. Ranked choice voting enables third party candidates to become actual options instead of just spoilers in a typical two party system.

Rita Dudley

There is no reason to prohibit Ranked Choice Voting in Iowa. There is no good reason NOT to have it. There is a good reason to begin using it. We can begin to heal the polarization in our state and country if we can allow people to run for leadership positions without having to align with one of the two parties. Please allow RCV into Iowa.

Kim LIpshutz [Citizen of Dallas County]

I am Kim Lipshutz, and I reside in West Des Moines, Dallas County. Please vote NO on SSB 1128.I support RCV because it has the advantage of saving Iowans money on elections, it is efficient and allows for faster results. Furthermore, I find it highly suspicious that the legislature would outlaw something they have not studied and know nothing about. Other states use this effectively and are positive about the opportunity to use RCV. Iowans should not be fearful of new ideas and methods. Iowans embrace ideas and pursue gaining knowledge about a change before passing judgment. RCV actually is more efficient than single choice voting we use today. Voters vote once, not twice. Officials only need to put on one election, not two.