Hamadeh Introduces Bill to Kill ‘Ranked Choice Voting Scheme’ on Federal Level

May 1, 2025 ADI Staff Reporter
abe hamadeh
Abe Hamadeh

Congressman Abe Hamadeh is co-leading a new effort Alaska Rep. Nick Begich to combat Ranked Choice Voting also euphemistically known as “Instant Run-off Voting.”

The proposed bill entitled, the Preventing Ranked Choice Corruption Act is designed to prohibit the “flawed process,” which “allows for a majority party to be split between preferred candidates, thus allowing the minority candidate a pathway to victory- which would never occur in a regular election,” according to Hamadeh.

In the text of the bill its purpose and function are plain: “A State may not carry out any election for Federal office using a system of ranked choice voting under which each voter ranks the candidates for the office in the order of the voter’s preference.”

“The same Democrat pawns who support allowing non-citizen voting without voter ID and same day voter registration also want to turn our democracy into a rank choice voting scheme,” stated Hamadeh. “Their motives are clear – they do not want to help Americans vote – they only want to help corrupt politicians win.”

“In Arizona, we see tremendous amounts of liberal out-of-state dollars pour into our state every year to try to alter our election processes. Fortunately, our citizens see through the lies of expensive glossy mailings and reject Ranked Choice Voting.”

In Alaska, represented by Begich, the Ranked Choice Voting system has been the center of controversy since its implementation in 2020. By a narrow margin according to KTOO, a 2024 effort to end the practice in 2024 failed by a razor-thin margin of 743 votes following a recount, a mere quarter of a percentage point.

“The nation does not need more uncertainty and confusion injected into the federal election process,” stated Begich said in a joint statement with Hamadeh. “‘One person, one vote’ is a proven tried-and-true method that is easy to understand, easy to audit, and quick to report. Experiments with our national election systems risk disenfranchisement of voters and lead to outcomes that do not represent the true will of the American people.”

About ADI Staff Reporter 13687 Articles
Under the leadership of Editor-in -Chief Huey Freeman, our team of staff reporters bring accurate,timely, and complete news coverage.

6 Comments

  1. Ranked Choice voting sounds real pretty on paper, and that’s part of why a wise voter should be skeptical. Many schemes of the uniparty/establishment/elite sound pretty and unobjectionable on paper… but these are the same people who are best at gaming the system and making it work for them… and we only find out there’s a problem too late and without the political will to do something about it. I do think the Independent should’ve done a better job on explaining why Ranked Choice is a scam (Rich Baris, the People’s Pundit, has gone on several rants to the effect; essentially if you only want establishment stooges/rent seekers or Democrats in office where they have no business being in office, such as Alaska, Ranked Choice is exactly what you want).

    Unfortunate that this does nothing about state level races, but at least we know federal races will be free from these sorts of shenanigans if it passes.

  2. The state already flipped after Sinema was elected. The so called 1-1 majorities in the House and the Senate are not meaningful when almost all constitutional officers are socialists. Add to that an absolutely large dumb part of the so called independents (not all). We are not talking about stopping the flip. We are talking about trying to reverse it. With the influx of socialist minded retirees and middle aged, and an absolutely incompetent Republican Party, it seems to be an uphill battle.

  3. Seems pretty short-sighted to me. By his own logic, doesn’t this give Republicans a fighting chance in Blue States? Something seems amiss.

    Also, “a system of ranked choice voting under which each voter ranks the candidates for the office in the order of the voter’s preference,” seems like a very pro-democracy system (within a small-R republican frame work) to me. Maybe I’m misunderstanding this, but I get to vote for multiple candidates? So, of 1) Biggs, 2) Lamb, 3) Hobbs & 4) Grijalva, if I vote for 2 (favored vote) _and_ 1 (‘safe’ vote) and the results are something like 34%, 23%, 33%, 7%, respectively, I still win even though my favored candidate doesn’t? Why wouldn’t we want this?

  4. I love the idea of stopping it, and I applaud Hamedeh’s well-meaning effort, but the constitution leaves it up to the individual states as to how they conduct elections. No doubt in my mind that Ranked Choice Voting is a devious scheme utilized to stymie the will of voters, but the only way to combat it is for individual states to codify the ban into law, which will be a tough task in Blue and/or Purple states.

  5. I like it! Ranked choice voting is the absolute worst system there is. Oakland, CA has it. It’s brought them a string of the most pathetic mayors in the US.

  6. more uncertainty and confusion injected into the federal election… IS THE PLAN – OTHERWISE THEY DON’T STAND A CHANCE – “Anything to obfuscate – confuse – and win by evil ?

    The civil war has not yet become uncivil.. but it’s getting closer

Comments are closed.