Missouri voters are facing a big decision this November as a Republican-backed measure to ban ranked-choice voting could appear on the Nov. 5 ballot. The move is part of a broader trend among Republican-led states to outlaw a voting system designed to ensure that elected officials have majority support, not just plurality.

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, which can lead to more representative outcomes and reduce the impact of vote-splitting among similar candidates. Yet, critics argue that it is confusing and unnecessary. They claim that the traditional “one person, one vote” system is simpler and more effective, a sentiment reflected in the push to preemptively ban ranked-choice voting before it gains traction.

Interestingly, the referendum doesn’t just target ranked-choice voting. It also includes a clause banning non-citizens from voting, despite the fact that it’s already illegal for non-citizens to vote in Missouri. This “ballot candy,” as some critics call it, seems designed to stir up fears and distract from the real issue at hand: limiting voters’ future options for how they want to conduct elections.

St. Louis County has shown interest in exploring ranked-choice voting elections for County Council members in the past. The 2019 Charter Commission considered it as part of its review of the county Charter that year. If the ballot measure passes, it would effectively prevent the county from ever implementing such reforms, thereby stifling any local efforts that could improve the electoral process.

Ranked-choice voting has shown promise in other areas by promoting more civil campaigns and encouraging candidates to appeal to a broader base. It’s been seen as a way to reduce partisanship and promote moderate candidates. The argument that it is confusing doesn’t hold much water when voters are given proper education on how the system works, and it’s already in use in several U.S. cities and states with positive outcomes.

The push to ban ranked-choice voting seems more about maintaining political control than addressing voter confusion. It’s a preemptive strike against a system that could make elections more representative. Voters should see through the smokescreen of “ballot candy” and recognize the potential benefits of keeping their electoral options open.