Amd 7 is a ploy to rob voters of their power. Vote no.

The politicians behind Amendment 7 are trying to hide something from you. These political insiders claim the change is necessary to prevent non-citizens from voting in Missouri — but that is already illegal under our state constitution.

In reality, the amendment is just a smokescreen to hide what they really want: to maintain their own power and control over the status quo by restricting voting methods.

Amendment 7 is an unnecessary and misleading act to preemptively ban reformist voting methods such as ranked-choice voting (RCV), which ensures that the eventual winner receives majority support (as opposed to mere plurality).

Specifically, the change limits voters to supporting one candidate at a time in the primary and general elections, which would prevent ranked-choice voting and variations thereof.

Nonpartisan municipal elections in St. Louis already use such a variant, known as “approval voting”: Primary voters can vote for as many candidates as they want, then the top two vote-getters advance to the general election. Because the city already has this system in place, the authors of Amendment 7 created an exemption for St. Louis to make it easier for them to get on the ballot.

If passed, voters in the rest of the state will be prevented from even considering such reforms in the future. And the supporters of the constitutional amendment are taking advantage of the ease with which non-citizens can vote.

Voters should see this plan for what it is – a blatant deception – and vote “no” on Amendment 7 on November 5th.

Amendment 7 is a last-minute power grab that was introduced and rammed through the state Legislature on the last day of its session. But why ban something that doesn't exist in most parts of Missouri?

Because RCV and other reforms would give voters more power by giving them more choices and make our elections more competitive. Too many of our politicians are afraid of the idea of ​​more competitive elections.

All too often in Missouri, a particular office is so “safe” for one party that the winner of the low-turnout primary is guaranteed to win the general election — even if that candidate wins a crowded primary field by just 20% or 30%. the vote. Any voter who cannot go to the polls in the primary will have virtually no say in the final outcome of nearly 90% of our November elections.

It doesn't have to be that way. In states like Nebraska, Louisiana and Alaska, all candidates from all parties run on the same ballot, and the top vote-getters advance to the general election. This reform, sometimes called the “all-candidate” primary, has worked equally in red, blue and purple states. This November, voters in six more states, including Arizona and South Dakota, will consider switching to such systems. This would give all voters real choices in both the primary and general elections.

But Amendment 7 would effectively bar such reforms in any jurisdiction in Missouri (outside of St. Louis) by fixing the current party primary system. Shouldn't voters have the opportunity to make that choice instead of having career politicians make the decision for us?

Likewise, ranked choice voting is a simple and proven extension of our elections. Voters have the opportunity to vote for multiple candidates and rank them in order of preference – first, second, third, etc. If your first choice does not win and no candidate receives a majority, your vote will simply count towards your backup choice.

RCV, sometimes called “instant runoff” voting, produces a majority winner and gives voters more choices without fear of “wasting” our votes. It encourages candidates to run more positive campaigns because they want to be the second or third choice of voters who put one of their opponents first.

RCV is particularly good for military voters and veterans. Forty-nine percent of veterans are registered independents, who currently must request and return two separate ballots within a few weeks to vote in two-round elections. Deep red states like South Carolina, Mississippi and Georgia offer their military voters a chance to weigh in on their preferences on just one ballot.

These reforms are popular wherever they are implemented; Look at Alaska, where 85% of voters say they find RCV easy. It appears this is a problem for Missouri politicians, who fear these reforms could be far more popular than they are.

Politicians should not be afraid to give voters choices – unless they are afraid of more competition and majority rule. Ultimately, that must be why Amendment 7 proponents want to lure Missourians into banning both before we've even had a chance to say “Show me.”

We should say no to dirty tricks. We should say no to partisan elites and establishment politicians who take away our power as citizens. For the sake of all Missouri voters, let’s say no to Amendment 7.