After taking the defective voting method known as Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) for a test drive, Arlington County, Virginia, rightly concluded that it’s a lemon.
The county gave RCV its first test in the May Democratic primary to fill two county board seats. But widespread voter confusion over RCV’s complicated tabulation formula and unpredictable results led Arlington to send it to the junkyard after just one use.
Arlington was the first jurisdiction in Virginia to use RCV, and if voters are lucky, it will also be the last.
Most Americans understand how elections work: the person with the most votes wins. But under RCV, all that changes. Rather than vote for one candidate in a race, voters rank many candidates in every race. If no candidate gets more than 50% of the first-place vote, candidates are eliminated and votes are redistributed until someone clinches a majority of the remaining ballots.
In Arlington, voters were asked to rank three out of six candidates from first to last. After multiple rounds of elimination, the candidates who got the first and third most first-place votes wound up winning.
Arlington voters found out first hand why the Washington Post called RCV a “hard to follow” that “not many people understand.” But RCV is problematic for more reasons than its cumbersome nature.
If a voter fails to rank every candidate on their ballot, they risk having their one and only vote thrown out during elimination rounds, a common occurrence euphemistically dismissed as “ballot exhaustion” but that in truth amounts to disenfranchisement.
Often, the candidates who should win in ordinary elections are ultimately defeated by RCV. That happened to Arlington’s Natalie Roy, who got the second most votes and would otherwise have secured one of the two nominations. Republican Congressman Bruce Poliquin of Maine also won a plurality of votes but went on to lose his RCV election. Concerns over the undemocratic nature of RCV prompted the Arlington NAACP to closely monitor RCV election results so that “no one’s foundational right to vote becomes disenfranchised or impeded.”
Proponents of RCV used to claim that the system ensures candidates win with a majority of public support. But now, their tune is changing. FairVote, the largest national organization pushing for widespread use of RVC, recently conceded to The Washington Post that RCV is focused on giving “more of a voice” to “factions that are not large enough to win a seat otherwise.”
In fact, FairVote defended Arlington’s bizarre results, claiming that RCV helps ensure that a “narrow majority” does not win. There you have it: RCV is not about revealing consensus, it is about suppressing majorities in favor of election results that political elites deem sufficiently inclusive.
Even worse is the fact that efforts to establish unwieldy RCV are fueled by left-wing dark money groups focused on reshaping elections for partisan gain. Groups backed by left-wing mega donors like George Soros are funding lobbyists and ballot measure initiatives to push RCV nationwide.
They start with cities and counties, hoping to normalize RCV in smaller contests where the problems are easier to conceal. Then they push RCV for state and federal elections.
Meanwhile, other big monied special interests and even wealthy foreign investors are backing programs that use lawsuits to rewrite state voting laws or push liberal influence into election offices through programs like the U.S Alliance for Election Excellence. In other words, the left is trying to comprehensively reshape voting for political gain.
Virginia is not the only state where dark-money forces have tried to re-engineer elections using RCV. So far, two states and about 60 cities and counties are using RCV. Many others may face pro-RCV dark money-backed ballot measures in 2024. But states are beginning to push back. Already, five states have banned RCV including Tennessee, Florida, Idaho, South Dakota and Montana.
And jurisdictions that tried RCV are walking away. Utah launched a pilot RCV program in 2019. 23 towns and cities ultimately joined, but now nearly half have since pulled out over concerns about cost and diminishing public trust in election processes from using RCV.
Sixty-five percent of voters in Aspen, Colorado likewise voted to repeal RCV in favor of returning to a traditional election process after just one election relying on the gimmicky system. And Alaskans may do the same.
What is clear is that RCV fails to either improve election processes or deliver confidence. Arlington County is the latest to try it and reject it. It’s time for every state to make it easy to vote and hard to cheat by banning ranked-choice voting.
Jason Snead is executive director of Honest Elections Project Action, a nonpartisan group supporting free and honest elections.
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.