We’ve all felt it: the frustration of standing in a voting booth, torn between the candidate we truly support and the candidate who has a “real” chance to win. This dilemma, often called “strategic voting,” forces us to choose the “lesser of two evils” rather than our authentic preference. It’s a system that can leave a winner with support from only a minority of the populace, leading to polarization and voter apathy. In the search for a better way, one model has generated significant buzz and intense debate:
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
Also known as “instant-runoff voting,” RCV isn’t a new idea, but its adoption in various municipalities and even some states has pushed it into the mainstream political conversation. Its advocates champion it as a cure for our polarized, “spoiler-effect” plagued elections. Its detractors, however, warn that it’s a confusing, complicated, and ultimately less transparent system. The debate cuts to the core of what we believe democracy should look like: is it about simple plurality, or finding the candidate with the broadest possible consensus?
Understanding the Mechanics: How Does Ranked Choice Voting Work?
At its heart, Ranked Choice Voting changes the ballot from a single-choice selection to a preference ranking. Instead of picking just one candidate, voters are asked to rank them: 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, and so on. You can rank as many or as few candidates as you wish.
The counting process is where RCV truly differs from traditional “first-past-the-post” (plurality) systems. It happens in rounds:
- Round 1: All 1st-choice votes are counted. If a single candidate receives more than 50% (a true majority) of these votes, they are declared the winner. The election is over.
- The Runoff Rounds: If no candidate hits the 50% + 1 threshold, the process continues. The candidate with the fewest 1st-choice votes is eliminated.
- Redistribution: This is the key step. The ballots that listed the eliminated candidate as their 1st choice are not discarded. Instead, the vote is redistributed to that ballot’s 2nd choice. For example, if your 1st choice (Candidate C) is eliminated, your vote instantly transfers to your 2nd choice (Candidate A).
- Repeating the Process: The votes are re-tallied with the new redistributions. If a candidate now has a majority, they win. If not, the process repeats: the candidate now in last place is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to their supporters’ next-ranked choice.
This “instant runoff” continues until only two candidates remain, at which point one will necessarily have a majority over the other. The winner is the candidate who can build the broadest coalition of support.
The Case for Change: Why Proponents Call RCV Fairer
Those who support RCV argue that it fundamentally improves the health of an election. They build their case on a few key pillars, primarily focused on representation and campaign civility.
Tackling the “Spoiler Effect” and Wasted Votes
The “spoiler effect” is perhaps the most common complaint about plurality voting. Imagine an election with three candidates: 40% support Candidate A (Major Party 1), 35% support Candidate B (Major Party 2), and 25% support Candidate C (Third Party). In a traditional system, Candidate A wins with 40% of the vote, even though 60% of the voters preferred someone else.
Worse, the supporters of Candidate C (who may be ideologically closer to Candidate B) are blamed for “spoiling” the election and allowing Candidate A to win. RCV proponents argue this is deeply unfair. Under RCV, those 25% who voted for Candidate C first could list Candidate B as their 2nd choice. When Candidate C is eliminated in the first round, all 25% of those votes would transfer to Candidate B, giving B a combined 60% (35% + 25%) and a decisive victory. Proponents say this frees voters to support their favorite candidate without fear of “wasting” their vote or inadvertently helping the candidate they like the least.
Building Consensus and Ensuring Majority Rule
The fact that Candidate A could win with 40% (or even less, in a more crowded field) is a central problem for RCV advocates. They argue that a leader who is actively opposed by a 60% majority lacks a true mandate to govern. This can lead to gridlock and a sense of disenfranchisement. By design, RCV ensures the eventual winner has consolidated support from
over 50% of the voters who expressed a preference among the final candidates. The winner isn’t just the person with the largest single “base” of support; they are the candidate who is also the most acceptable “second choice” for the broadest range of voters. This, advocates say, produces consensus-oriented winners rather than divisive extremists.
Ranked Choice Voting is not just a theoretical model. It is actively used in statewide elections in Maine and Alaska, as well as in dozens of cities across the United States. These real-world implementations provide ongoing data on its effects on voter behavior and election outcomes. This growing adoption means the debate is moving from the abstract to the practical, based on tangible results.
A Shift in Campaign Tone?
A fascinating, though less-proven, argument for RCV centers on civility. In a plurality system, a candidate only needs to win their base. The easiest way to do this is often “negative campaigning”—attacking your primary opponent to motivate your supporters and depress their turnout. There is no incentive to appeal to your opponents’ voters.
In an RCV system, however, that calculus changes. A candidate doesn’t just want to be the 1st choice for their base; they also need to be the
2nd or 3rd choice for everyone else. If you spend your entire campaign attacking Candidate B, it’s highly unlikely that Candidate B’s supporters will rank you as their 2nd choice. They will leave that spot blank or rank another candidate. Therefore, RCV may incentivize candidates to build coalitions, find common ground, and avoid the scorched-earth tactics that currently dominate many political cycles. The goal becomes “be acceptable to many,” not just “be loved by a few.”
The Other Side of the Coin: Criticisms and Concerns
The debate over RCV is far from one-sided. Critics raise several significant and practical objections, arguing that the system, while well-intentioned, is flawed in its own right.
Is It Too Complicated?
The most immediate and common criticism is complexity. The “first-past-the-post” system is, if nothing else, incredibly simple: the person with the most votes wins. Explaining the multi-round elimination and redistribution process of RCV is undeniably more difficult. Critics worry this complexity can lead to voter confusion. Voters might not understand how to rank candidates, or they might make errors on their ballot, such as “overvoting” (ranking two candidates as #1), which could invalidate their ballot. If a large segment of the population doesn’t understand *how* the winner was chosen, it can undermine faith in the election’s legitimacy, even if the result is mathematically sound.
The Problem of “Exhausted Ballots”
This is perhaps the most significant technical argument against RCV. An “exhausted ballot” occurs when a voter’s ballot can no longer be counted in the runoff rounds. This happens if a voter only ranks one or two candidates, and all their ranked candidates are eliminated before the final round. Their ballot is then set aside as “exhausted” because it has no more preferences to distribute.
This means that in the final round, the winner may have a “majority” of the *remaining, active ballots*, but not a majority of *all ballots originally cast*. Critics argue this defeats the entire purpose. For example, if 100,000 people vote, but 10,000 ballots become exhausted, the final round is decided by 90,000 votes. A winner would need 45,001 votes, which is not a majority of the 100,000 people who showed up to vote. This issue, known as “diminishing majorities,” is a major sticking point for RCV skeptics.
Implementation Hurdles and Delayed Results
The logistical challenges are not trivial. Implementing RCV requires new voting machines or software capable of processing ranked ballots. It also demands a significant public education campaign to ensure voters understand the new system before they use it. This all costs money and political will. Furthermore, the counting process simply takes longer. While a simple plurality winner is often known on election night, an RCV count, especially in a close race with many candidates, can take days or even weeks as the rounds of redistribution are calculated and verified. In an era of increasing demand for instant results, this delay can be a source of public frustration and suspicion.
A Debate About Values
Ultimately, the debate over Ranked Choice Voting is a debate about what we value most in a democratic system. Is the highest good
simplicity and speed, as offered by plurality voting, even if it results in winners with minority support and encourages the spoiler effect?
Or is the highest good
consensus and representation, as offered by RCV, even if it comes at the cost of complexity, delayed results, and the risk of exhausted ballots? There is no perfect system. Proponents see RCV as a powerful tool to encourage moderation, broaden representation, and give voters more meaningful choices. Critics see it as a confusing solution in search of a problem, one that trades a simple, transparent flaw (plurality rule) for a complex, opaque one (diminishing majorities). As more places experiment with the system, the data will grow, but the core debate will likely remain—a fundamental disagreement on what it means to cast a vote and what it means to win.
