Voting & Democracy

Ranked Choice Voting

Image with vertical 1, 2, & 3, each inside a box with a white background, purple border, and teal writing. To the right of each box, in bold, purple text, with each word taking up a line next to a number, it says 'Ranked Choice Voting'

About This Principle of Democracy

Ranked choice voting, now used in 26 states, is an overdue upgrade to the winner-take-all voting method we inherited from 18th century England. A method that determined a candidate only needed a plurality of votes to win - even if the majority of voters vote against them. Under our current plurality rules, in any race with two or more candidates, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if their percentage of the votes falls well short of 50 percent. Under this system, a candidate can claim the seat in spite of the majority of voters voting against them.

At democracy’s inception, letting the party with a plurality of votes win was expedient and simple. But beneath its deceptive simplicity lies a problematic election math that operates in direct opposition to the democratic principles of majority rule; denying voters a meaningful choice in a competitive election.Let’s take a look at how those principles are undermined by our current plurality voting system.

Problems

  1. The winner-take-all plurality voting method gives extremist and unpopular candidates a path to victory. Candidates can be declared the winner with as little as 20 to 30 percent of the vote. It opens the door for a polarizing candidate with a narrow base to win an election when three or more of their opponents split the vote.
  2. Plurality voting pressures voters to choose between the two major parties, or risk splitting the vote and handing the election to the person they most oppose. While this has long been a problem for both major parties, perhaps the best known is the 2000 Gore v. Bush. Ralph Nader’s Green party in Florida garnered 97,000 votes, more than enough to decide the election for Bush who ended up winning by a slim margin of 537 votes.The underlying math of plurality voting is the reason we have a two-party system. The link is so strong and incontrovertible that the political science community named the law after the sociologist Maurice Duverger, whose research first proved this would be the case.
  3. By making any new party or candidate a potential spoiler, it discourages the innovation and new talent a healthy democracy thrives on.
  4. It limits political competition. It’s one reason our elections are among the least competitive of all advanced democracies. With only two major parties, the outcome of most elections is predetermined by the makeup of the district.
  5. It promotes a negative, attack-based approach, making elections look like as a zero-sum contest between two warring parties. Candidates have as much to gain by reducing their opponent’s votes through negative campaigning, as by winning votes based on their track record and where they stand on issues.
  6. It promotes inaction and gridlock. Once elected, there is little incentive to compromise or collaborate on legislation or policies, regardless of their merit. Each party depends on the failure of the other party to win, undercutting efforts to reach consensus on public policy—even on issues that have majority support from voters such as immigration, climate change, access to affordable housing, child care and reducing gun violence.

image of a chart depicting a sample ranked-choice ballot: four candidates, A-D are in the left column and four columns to the right indicate first through fourth choices - circles are filled in as if on a ballotHow It Works

Ranked choice voting is a simple change in the way we vote, to ensure the winner has majority support and allow voters to cast a ballot more expressive of the candidates and issues they support.

Instead of being limited to mark only one choice, voters can rank their top choices in order of preference.

  • The voters’ first choice votes are counted first. If one of the candidates receives a majority of first place votes, the candidate wins. No runoff is needed.
  • If no candidate has a majority, the one with the fewest votes is eliminated. Voters who ranked that candidate as their first choice will have their votes count for their next choice.
  • The process repeats itself as needed, until a candidate has a majority and is declared the winner.
  • To learn more, watch a video: here, here, or here.

Benefits

Its purpose is to ensure that the winner has the widest appeal and majority support. It also leads to more positive and substance-based campaigns, since candidates are less likely to attack their closer opponents and alienate voters who might vote for them as a second or third choice.

  1. Ensures a majority winner. In any race with three or more candidates, ranked choice voting ensures the winner is the consensus choice of the majority of voters, where voters can make a stronger statement about the candidates and policies they support.
  2. Eliminates vote splitting and frees voters to vote their top choice. Voters can vote for the candidate they most support, with the safety of having a backup choice. It takes away voters’ fear of splitting the vote and, as a consequence helping to elect the candidate they most oppose.
  3. Allows more expression as a voter. Ranked choice voting enables you to vote for the candidates that most align with your values, giving you more reason to vote.
  4. Increases voter choice and candidate competition. Ranked-choice voting allows more candidates and parties to compete, providing voters more choices and competition in the general election where the most voters participate.
  5. Provides incentives to run a less negative, more broadly-based campaign. With ranked choice voting, candidates are less likely to launch attacks. Rather than mainly targeting their base, the incentive is to appeal more widely to voters that might choose them as their second choice. Candidates will still campaign on their differences, but they must do more to reach out to all voters, not just those who will rank them first.
  6. Results in better representation. Ranked choice voting supports the election of officials more reflective of the people they represent.

Where It's Used

Ranked choice voting is now used in more than 70 U.S. cities and counties across 26 politically diverse states. Of these, 10 states use it in a range of local elections while the following states use it more broadly.

  • 2 states, Maine and Alaska, use this method statewide for state and federal elections.
  • 7 states, Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina use it for state and federal general election runoffs; also used by military voters living out of state.
  • 9 states, Hawaii, Kansas, Minnesota, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, both Democratic and Republican Parties have used it in their nominating conventions, caucuses and or primaries.

Opposition

Who opposes ranked choice voting and what are their claims against it?

Since it was first used statewide in Maine (2018) and Alaska (2022), the loudest opposition has come from today’s version of the Republican Party. 

After seeing their candidates lose Congressional races to moderate Democrats in Maine and Alaska, the Republican National Committee urged states to oppose ranked choice voting “in every locality and level of government.” Already Republican lawmakers have gone so far as to ban the use of ranked choice voting in ten states: Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Arizona, and North Dakota.

Most notably, it was in the 2022 midterm when Alaska first used this method and set off the alarm. Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin attacked ranked choice voting as “convoluted” in her failed bid to win the Alaska’s one seat for Congress. Palin lost to Democrat Mary Peltola who, attracting the most first and second place votes from Independents, Democrats, and Republicans, became the first Native Alaskan to ever win a federal office.

In the same Alaska election, Trump fanned the flames, calling it “crazy” because it disadvantaged the extremist candidate he backed for the U.S. Senate who lost a majority vote to the more moderate Republican senator, Lisa Murkowski. In the first count, Murkowski trailed her Trump-backed opponent, but won when she got most of the 2nd place votes in the second round.

Some Democratic Party leaders have also opposed ranked choice voting, not wanting their candidates to face any genuine competition from independents or third parties.

The most common claim made against ranked choice voting is to call it confusing, playing off people’s lack of familiarity with it. In practice, with help from the substantial education voters have gotten in Maine, Alaska, New York, and other new adopters, ranked choice voting has proven to be an easy adjustment. Having a second or third choice is something people are familiar with in other activities.

If it was really that confusing, it wouldn’t continue to be used by millions of voters in more than half the states, in every type of election.

Conclusion

Ranked choice voting has grown in popularity and acceptance, with close to half the states using it in local, state and federal elections. The gold standard of parliamentary procedure, Robert’s Rules of Order, changed its guidance to recommend Ranked Choice Voting to be used in any election with more than two candidates to in order to have a majority winner.

Today, after more than 20 years of use in the U.S., there are considerable resources on how to use, implement and administer ranked choice voting.

Resources like the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center that offers a range of resources to election administrators and policy makers; the Center for Civic Design providing best practices for designing ballots and conducting voter education; and longtime advocate Fair Vote.

At the same time, extremism in American politics has worsened, shining a brighter light on the disfunction of the two-party system, and the polarizing winner-take-all plurality voting method at the heart of it. More reason to update our centuries-old election method to one with incentives for building consensus and seeking common ground.

It’s not a sliver bullet. But along with open primaries and other reforms featured here, it’s an essential part of fulfilling democracy’s promise of giving all voters a meaningful choice at the ballot box.

Resources