Daily Herald opinion: : Can ranked choice voting promote collaboration?

If, like us, you are weary of the acrimonious partisanship that consumes governance these days, you have to be at least open to an exploration of ranked choice voting.

If, like us, you want elected leaders to try to work together to solve problems rather than engage in contrived political warfare, you might wish there were systemic alternatives in the way we elect people that would better encourage collaboration.

And if, like us, you are sick of negative campaigning, you probably agree that there's got to be a better way.

We are not ready to fully endorse the ranked choice voting concept yet, but we are more than ready to get behind a state task force that is being established to explore what would be needed to implement it if that voting system was adopted.

We only hope that the Democratic legislators who are behind it are genuine in their interests of promoting good government and better politics, and that they refuse to allow party interests to butt in.

As we said in an editorial in December, ranked choice voting can take many forms, but essentially, it replaces the traditional choose-one process of determining an election winner with a ballot that instead asks each voter to prioritize choices among multiple candidates - say, their first choice, second, third, etc.

Theoretically, if the voter's preferred candidate doesn't win a majority of votes in a first round of tabulations, subsequent rounds may give the candidate a later path to victory or at least the system would produce a winner that most voters can get behind.

The Illinois task force is looking at this concept presumably for presidential primaries, beginning with the 2028 election.

Our view: If the state's going to look into this, why limit it to the presidential primary?

There are other bills on ranked choice voting that would allow it for many other offices.

The key is, does the concept make sense? If so, it should be used generally. If not, it should be discarded.

Critics say it is confusing, and yes, no doubt it would be odd at first. But once voters get used to it, as our forebears did with the cumulative voting concept that used to elect representatives to the Illinois House, the confusion, by all evidence from states that use the system, disappears.

There is much left to debate on the topic. As we said, we are not ready to embrace or reject.

But one thing is clear: If the point is to create an electoral process that fosters collaboration, collaboration is essential at the starting point.

The task force must be bipartisan, transparent and inclusive in its work. Let the best thinking and the interests of the people drive the discussions, not political agendas.