Heading into November, voters remain split on whether ranked-choice voting is a reform worth embracing — although opinion is shifting toward opposition as more Republican and Democratic politicians speak out against it. 

A new Nevada Independent/OH Predictive Insights poll shows that opposition toward Question 3 has increased since the summer, despite substantial spending by the proposal’s backers. 

Interestingly, rank-and-file Republicans seem significantly more opposed to the idea than rank-and-file Democrats — with a whopping 60 percent of GOP voters opposed to the idea, compared to only 25 percent of Democrats. (Forty-four percent of non-major party voters are opposed.) The disparity is noteworthy, given that Democratic leadership has been every bit as outspoken against the idea as GOP leaders. 

Maybe the reason Republicans are more opposed than any other group is due to the widespread concerns over “election integrity” among GOP voters in general. After all, if they don’t trust the current process, how could a new — admittedly more complex — tabulation process possibly be an improvement? 

Proponents of ranked choice voting likely thought Nevada’s independently-oriented voter base would have been a tremendous asset in getting the question passed in November — but the state, nonetheless, still has its fair share of voters who are loyal to our current system. And the fact that a majority of Republicans have turned against the ballot question is, undoubtedly, frustrating the efforts of those pushing reform. 

Nonetheless, there remains a large number of “unsure” respondents among GOP voters (25 percent) as well as Democrats (22 percent) and independents (14 percent), indicating that the question still has plenty of room to swing either way. 

To be sure, one of the reasons it remains competitive is because those backing the ballot question argue ranked-choice voting would be a way of tamping down the partisan absurdity that currently plagues modern politics — a plague that, certainly, many voters see as a growing point of concern. 

Another reason, however, might simply be that most of the opposition coming from partisan leaders on both sides seems… well, potentially self-serving rather than dispassionately objective. After all, it only seems logical that the politicians and political insiders currently benefiting from the status quo would be motivated to oppose otherwise popular reforms. 

And in the Democratic Party, there is definitely a clear divide between rank-and-file voters and their elected leaders. More than half of Democratic voters (53 percent) support Question 3, despite the fact that almost every major candidate within the party has come out against it. 

Democratic politicians have argued that ranked-choice voting would simply be too complicated for the average voter — but such a criticism doesn’t seem to resonate with a base that has long been focused on making voter participation more accessible. And it’s easy to see why. After all, if social media users can rank a panel of celebrities by attractiveness or rank their preferred holiday destinations on some travel website, certainly voters can manage to do something similar with candidates on the ballot. 

Perhaps elected Democrats would have more faith in the ability of voters to rank their choices if ballots came with emoji stickers ranging from “frowny face” to “smiley face” to place next to candidates’ names?

On the other side of the political aisle, elected Republicans have had more success convincing voters to oppose the reform. Much of the criticism from GOP leaders has been focused on the “open primary” component of Question 3 — arguing that such a system would be susceptible to political shenanigans from activists looking to weaken a party’s chances in the general election. 

Of course, it’s not as if our current primary system somehow protects against such scheming political practices, considering Democrats just spent the last year doing precisely that in closed primaries across the country.  

This, of course, isn’t to say there aren’t some reasonable concerns about reforming the way we nominate candidates and cast our vote in the general election. In fact, it seems as if there are two major problems with ranked-choice voting that simply aren’t discussed often enough: Politicians and the partisan activists to which they generally pander. 

As we saw in Alaska, candidates aren’t quick to adjust to new electoral systems — and inter-party fighting and tribalization might not be as easily tempered as proponents of Question 3 would have hoped. After all, while voters are most likely capable of ranking candidates 1-5 on a ballot without much trouble, partisans who don’t get their way after ballots are tallied will be more than happy to feign confusion over the results. 

And it won’t be difficult for those partisans to sow discontent in today’s environment of Tik-Tok-style civic engagement. As it turns out, explaining results in a ranked-choice system is not necessarily well-suited for Twitter-style discourse. The kind of nuance required for understanding the tabulation process would be an easy thing for partisan loyalists to discredit when things don’t go their way. 

If you think claims of fraud or “illegitimacy” are a problem now, just wait until discontented candidates see their first-round plurality turn into a second-or third-round electoral loss. Perpetually outraged politicians, as well as the loyal base to which they often pander, will be more than happy to blame the system (and probably sue) rather than reflect upon the unpopularity of their own candidacy — leading to an even further erosion of trust in “election integrity” as a result. 

And maybe that’s where the arguments in support of Question 3 fall a little short. While there is seemingly merit to the idea that our current system is broken, it remains uncertain that reforming our electoral process will do much to alleviate the tribalist contempt that plagues modern partisan politics. As a proposed solution to political tension, ranked choice voting seems to have at least one obvious flaw: The politicians who are hellbent on manufacturing partisan outrage.

Of course, those same politicians are also a big part of the reason one-in-five Nevadans — including nearly a quarter of Republicans and 22 percent of Democrats — are still “unsure” how they will vote on Question 3 in November. After all, in a swingy state like Nevada, it’s hard to look around at current electoral politics and think “Yeah, everything’s fine” with the status quo. 

The insufferable nature of current politics, therefore, will remain the best thing Question 3 advocates have going for them between now and November. 

Michael Schaus is a communications and branding expert based in Las Vegas, Nevada, and founder of Schaus Creative LLC — an agency dedicated to helping organizations, businesses and activists tell their story and motivate change. He has more than a decade of experience in public affairs commentary, having worked as a news director, columnist, political humorist, and most recently as the director of communications for a public policy think tank. Follow him at SchausCreative.com or on Twitter at @schausmichael.