-I want to fit in one more topic and get your thoughts on it; that is, Ballot Question 3, which would implement open primaries in Nevada and ranked-choice voting in the general election.

It came up a lot during a recent call-in show that I co-hosted with Nevada Public Radio's Joe Shoenmann.

Our guests were two former politicians.

Chris Guinchigliani is a Democrat and a former Clark County Commissioner and Nevada State Assemblywoman.

Warren Hardy is a Republican and a former state Senator.

(male voice) I want to make a comment before I get into ranked-choice voting.

I want the government to stay out of my bedroom, my doctor's office, my library, and quit telling me that this nation was founded on Christianity.

It wasn't.

It was founded on getting away from government-driven church.

-Okay.

-That comment I just wanted to make.

Now, on ranked-choice voting, one of their first that the anti people, one of their first things they say in their ad is, you have to actually, you know, find out who these people are before you vote on them.

Well, that should have been done a long time ago.

Instead just voting an R or a D or an I or whatever, you know, their whole-- their whole comment is, my God, you have to do your work as a citizen to find out who you're voting for.

-A great comment there.

And here's another listener who called our voice mail line to record his comment before the show.

(male voice) Hi, Joe.

This is Victor from Henderson.

I'm a retired professor of political science with a focus on electoral systems and voter behavior, and I'm calling to comment on Question 3 on the ballot that seems to conflate two very important issues adding to voter confusion.

I think these two important issues are important enough to be judged on their own merits separately and not put together in one combined package.

It's important to talk about expanding voter participation and having a better way of choosing candidates that the ranked-choice voting offers, but it's done in such a way that it creates a lot of confusion, and this confusion is intentional in order to sell a "pig in a poke."

And this is very unfortunate, since both issues clearly deserve to be judged on merits.

Proposition 3 appears to be financed by out-of-state financial interests.

So it's legitimate to ask: If this is such a good idea, why don't they spend their money at home to promote similar proposals where they live, instead of in Nevada?

Or do they consider Nevada as a playpen where they can experiment with their pet political ideas?

As a retired professor of political science, I consider this very unfortunate that these out-of-state financers refuse to disclose their identity, thereby holding their real motive for spending $15 million to confuse Nevada voters.

Thank you.

-That is a-- he makes two really good points.

And Chris, one question on the ballot really has two different ideas in it.

And he's also talking about outside money as well.

We'll get to that.

But two different ideas we are talking about: opening the primaries and ranked-choice voting.

Those, they both have to do with elections, but they're separate.

What are your thoughts?

-My thoughts are very frustrating, because Heidi Gansert, I think, was the one who had the legislation where we did single subject to make sure that it was clear and concise.

It went to the Supreme Court, and unfortunately, they did not see that these groups have been hiding behind an open primary debate to get the ranked ballot part.

Most people aren't reading to the second page, the second tier.

It's unfortunate the Supreme Court did not clearly see on its face that these are two separate, separate ideas and should have been split.

But that's what they're using.

The out-of-state folks are funding it and using it as the open primary to let nonpartisans vote.

And that's a different debate, and that's fine.

But the ranked voting is a very much different animal, and it's going to be very confusing.

I think it will actually, if it passes, it'll decrease turnout.

Only Alaska, I think, has it.

I don't know if anybody else does, has adopted it.

-I think Alaska and Maine.

-And Maine.

So it's-- we are kind of the, what was the term he used, the playground?

-A playground.

-A playground.

Unfortunately, I think they're testing the waters with a small state like us to see if they can get this passed by dumping over $15 million in from out-of-state people.

-Warren Hardy?

-Yeah, that's not new.

I mean, we've been, we've been the political laboratory for ballot questions as long as I've been around, because we are a small state that looks a lot like the rest of the United States.

Yeah, listen, I had a friend ask me.

And I said unfortunately, unfortunately, I am going to support Question 3.

I agree with everything Chris just said.

I'm not sure why we just don't open our primaries and we have to go to ranked-choice voting.

But here's where I am, personally, from an inside perspective, watching the legislature work.

We have a very, very hard time getting moderate candidates through primaries that are willing to work with the other side.

When Chris and I came up, and we were elected the same year in '91, we fought like cats and dogs.

But at the end, we compromised.

And now compromise is a dirty word.

Well, guess what?

The founding fathers set up a system specifically to force compromise as a way to protect the minority.

And so we're so far afield from that now, because people are "my way or the highway," instead of, instead of sitting down and compromising and understanding what Ronald Reagan says, that if you get 51% of what you want, that's a complete political victory.

That's lost on folks.

We have gotten some very good-- there are some very good legislators in Nevada who understand that, but it's almost sometimes an anomaly when they get through the primary.

So this, in my mind, is really the only way that we can get moderate candidates.

I've said this before publicly.

The problem right now in politics is not conservatives and liberals.

I'm a conservative.

Chris is a liberal.

I respect Chris.

Chris is a liberal who believes that she sees this monolithic thing called government and doesn't understand why it doesn't use its power and wealth to help people.

That's not evil.

I'm a conservative.

I look at it and say, to be nice, but we can't afford it.

That's the fight Chris and I had.

Now we've got the MAGA right and the woke left who can't get to a place in the middle where they can compromise and do what's right for the state of Nevada.

And all we have in front of us right now is Question 3 to get to a place where we can -- I don't think Chris could be elected.

I know I couldn't be elected now, because I'm not far right enough, and Chris isn't far left enough.

And she's a solid liberal.

Trust me, I've got a lot of political scars.

But that's not where we are in Nevada.

There's a litmus test for MAGA right or woke left.

And if that doesn't change, our system of government doesn't survive.

-I hope we can get back to this.

But Warren, you are the first politician-- well, you are not an active politician, but former politician, to say you are in favor of Question 3.

I thought it's unique in that both Democrats and Republicans have strongly opposed this, and I think that's what draws some people.

-I think Warren's looking for the policy side of that potential on ranked voting, and that's a debate to have.

But I don't think that's going to be the outcome.

You're going to have more drop off.

He's right, everybody's polarized now.

And back to the earlier question that the gentleman called in-- and Victor was spot on as well.

You can't be a moderate Democrat or a moderate Republican right now.

It's just-- and that's nationally.

That's not just in Nevada.

It's almost like, Well, why do you see the Cheneys of the world coming out?

Because maybe they still believe in the institution.

I do go back to lack of civics in our high schools and teaching.

I think that that's part of the problem.

If it's not on a test, it's not taught anymore.

I think we have an obligation and a responsibility.

Remember when they took drivers ed out and we said, No!

We tried to put it back in.

Why do you have people that don't drive well?

Well, you got young kids.

Many aren't getting their driver's license.

But those that do don't have the training and the practice that comes into play.

It's the same thing in politics.

You need to make sure that people know about the institution that you respect, and then you can fight about the policy part of it.

But government does work.

It can work better, but it only works if people are engaged in practicing their right to vote and questioning people.

-A lot was said during that about Question 3 and more.

I know you cannot give your stance on Question 3, but will you tell me, at least, how it impacts your office if it is to pass.

-Yeah.

It's my responsibility as the chief elections officer to look at these types of initiatives and say, How are we going to plan for the implementation if Nevada voters decide to move forward?

My team has done that.

We've looked at aspects of this issue.

You know, it will change the way we administer elections a bit.

You know, as we started the show, we talked a lot about capacity and providing Nevadans the information they want within an acceptable time period.

If this were to pass, it would change that administration of elections by delaying the office from releasing results for six days, because under Nevada law, under Nevada statutes, we have to ensure that we follow the curing time for ballots that exist.

And to give a true perspective, without getting caught in the middle of a back and forth, that is the most prudent thing for us to do as election administrators.

It also changed the layout of the ballot.

You know, we now have, I believe, are getting Nevadans comfortable with mail ballots and the way that process works.

That mail ballot will look different, which will then cause additional voter education.

And I wish we would spend the time to invest in voter education so that people are clear on what these changes are and how it's going to impact them.

And that's really where I'm concerned.

Will we do it?

Of course.

We will do whatever Nevada voters decide, but they are going to have to participate with us, because there will be some changes to the process.

-Nevada Secretary of State Francisco Aguilar, best of luck this upcoming election.

Thank you for joining Nevada Week.

And thank you for watching.