In the 2022 midterm elections, Nevada voters voted yes on one of the most intriguing ballot measures ever proposed: Question 3. This year, it’s back, looking for the necessary second votes from the public to make it an amendment, giving voters yet another chance to make their voices heard.
But what is Question 3?
Question 3 is a ballot measure that would change the structure of Nevada elections, allowing voters to participate in open primaries. Currently, a third of Nevada voters are ineligible to vote in the primaries due to non-partisan or minority party affiliation. Passing Question 3 would allow non-partisans a say in the primaries, with every candidate appearing on the same ballot, regardless of party. As a result, multiple candidates from the same party could progress to the general election. This yes or no question is much more complex than it may seem on the surface, but passing Question 3 is crucial to protecting the true voices of democracy—voters, not political parties.
Perhaps the most pivotal part of this change is a shift to ranked choice voting.
Currently, Nevada uses a plurality system. This means that the candidate with the largest percentage of votes wins, regardless of whether they obtain a majority or not.
Meanwhile, ranked choice voting prioritizes majority rule, meaning a candidate must receive at least 50% of the vote in order to win. Under ranked choice voting, voters rank candidates according to their preference, from first to last. In the primaries, the top five vote-getters would move on to the general election. If a candidate in the general election receives more than 50% of all total votes, they are declared the winner. However, if no candidates pass that benchmark, the candidate with the fewest total first-choice votes is eliminated. The votes for the eliminated candidate are then redistributed to the next highest ranking candidate on their list. This process would continue until there is one candidate with more than 50% of the vote.
There is, without a doubt, a large degree of disagreement on this issue. “I believe that while ranked choice voting looks pretty on paper, in reality it would lead to disproportionate inequities in our government,” freshman Sabdy Cordon states. “It would only help one party, and thus drown out the voice of the minority. It literally is not representative of the people.”
They are not alone in their qualms with Question 3. However, the point of ranked choice voting is to create a system that relies upon the voice of the majority. Therefore, voting yes on Question 3 would create elections that work for the people.
One of the main purposes of ranked-choice voting and Question 3 is to create candidates that are designed to have mass appeal. This is clear with the attempt to open primaries for those registered as independents as well as a creating a voting system that rewards those who are able to secure a majority of popular sentiment, across the political aisle. As a result, ranked choice voting aims to decrease polarization in politics. Under this system, candidates are forced to appeal to the entire electorate because their success may come down to being ranked second on a ballot instead of third.
Ranked choice voting thus increases the chances of third party candidates winning. Oftentimes, these candidates are seen as spoilers or even a wasted vote. As the Center for Election Science explains, a ‘spoiler’ candidate is one who doesn’t win, but whose appearance on the ballot draws votes away from another candidate, thereby affecting who wins. Under a ranked choice voting system, these spoiler candidates are impossible. Third party candidates actually stand a realistic chance at winning. Even if they don’t win, those who vote for them get a say if none of the candidates receive a majority of the vote. The ballots that would have otherwise been “thrown away” for a third party candidate are now used in the race between the remaining candidates.
Fundamentally, Question 3 will change the way elections in Nevada are held. “This ballot measure is a chance for you to decide what you want the rules of the game to be, to decide what type of politician you want to be in charge, not just for one election, but for all coming elections,” Benjamin Farrer, professor of political science at UNLV, explains. He concludes, “it’s an extremely significant choice.”
Regardless of the way you intend to vote, it’s important to remember that the consequences are very real. Farrer makes it clear that “it’s not [his] job to tell students how to vote,” but he strongly encourages that they do. He reminds, “Every election matters, but there’s definitely more riding on this than usual.”
Yes, change is hard, but change is necessary to grow and strengthen our democracy. An affirmative vote for Question 3 is something that will put the power back in the hands of Nevadans, not political parties. Democracy was made to serve the will of the people, and that’s exactly what this ballot measure was designed to do.
