Ranked Choice Voting
Ranked Choice Voting
What is it? Is it necessary? Why should I care?
Lately, Ranked Choice Voting has been a common headline with polarizing views. While some states are banning it, others are advocating for it to be the norm. But what is ‘Ranked Choice Voting’? Is this a necessary change?
What is Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV)?
Ranked Choice Voting is a voting system in which voters will rank candidates in order of preference - first, second, third, etc…The way this system works is through multiple rounds. When all the votes are cast, the first preference votes are tallied. If no candidate has a 50% plus one majority, the candidate with the lowest votes is eliminated and their votes are redistributed to the voter’s second choice. This process continues until a candidate receives an outright majority.
Advocates for RCV: The Advantages
Advocates for RCV claim that this voting system is needed for our country to increase representation and part from extreme polarity across the aisle. They claim that it increases fairness, voter turnout, and diversity among elected officials. In addition, it is said that RCV encourages candidates to not only seek voters’ first choice but also second and third - which may be the base of their opponent. Because of this, there is a theory among advocates that RCV would limit negative campaigning. The big idea with RCV is that even if your first choice does not get a majority of the votes, you will still have a say in the final outcome.
Opposition for RCV: The Disadvantages
Proponents who oppose RCV see the advantages listed by advocates as simply not the reality of what comes with this system of voting. Instead of increasing representation, they see RCV as a system that disenfranchises voters by manufacturing a ‘faux majority’ for a candidate whose votes are comprised of voters’ second, third, fourth, and sometimes even fifth choice, allowing candidates with marginal support to win. They disagree with the claim that RCV increases voter turnout and argue that the more complex a system becomes the less people engage due to a lack of trust and understanding in how it works. Another concern is the type of candidates this system encourages. Candidates who want to secure a higher ranking to boost their odds of winning aim to please not just their base but every single voter. This can create watered down candidates who are more focused on pleasing everyone than the issues they plan to address. In a way making elections more of a popularity contest between easily digestible candidates. Fundamentally shifting not only the election process but also those being elected.
Ranked Choice Voting in the US:
Currently Alaska and Maine are the only two states using RCV in their state primary, congressional, and presidential elections. However, there are more than 20 cities across the country that use RCV for their local elections. For many years RCV has been debated and proponents on both sides are very passionate about whether RCV is what we need or that it will change elections as we know it for the worse.
However, because RCV is in use in multiple areas, comparisons have been drawn. In Minnesota, where proponents on both sides of this debate are in the midst of battle, the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute conducted a study of RCV where it is in use to determine its effectiveness. The study found many of the claims advocates make to be inaccurate. You can learn more about the study here.
Our Stance
At first glance ranked-choice voting sounds like the ideal voter experience. One that allows everyone’s voice to be heard, increases representation, limits negative campaigning, increases fairness and voter turnout. And while these are all things we want to see in our elections, is RCV truly the answer to get there?
After digging deeper into what both sides have to say and the evidence from the Humphrey Institute, it appears its not.
When you look at the big picture and not just the ‘feel good’ phrases advocates like to repeat, ranked-choice would fundamentally change the way in which we elect our leaders. It woud also completely alter the representation we currently are able to see through one person, one vote.
At the American Voters’ Alliance we judge elections based on 3 main principles: Accountability, Transparency, and Inclusivity. Applying these principles to what we know about ranked-choice voting and we see that instead of increasing them it drastically decreases in all three areas.
For example: Ranked choice essentially builds delay and distrust into the system. In Alaska, second-round votes are kept a secret from voters while election bureaucrats sit on them for at least 15 days, waiting for overseas ballots to arrive. Not only does this increase the potential for fraudulent activity to take place but the built in delay can promote doubt and questioning of the results. In the end, while the multiple rounds take place, accountability, transparency and inclusivity through the process is limited and America is left in the dark
When approaching topics like RCV, which look good at first glance, it is important to dig deeper and look at the big picture. While advocates like to focus on how it could change the voter experience, which most Americans want to see, going beyond that raises many questions. Questions that are not often acknowledged.
What you can do
Stay engaged. If your locality or state is pushing for ranked choice voting, speak up. Reach out to your lawmakers and express your questions, comments and/or concerns.
For more information with details and examples, the Heritage Foundation has an incredible piece on why Ranked-Choice is not the right choice.