Electoral Reform - The Argument for Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)
In the past decade, American politics have become incredibly divisive. Two political parties, the republicans and the democrats, have had a monopoly on both statewide and federal elections, creating incredibly fervent and polarized supporters while also excluding the sideliners, who represent a hefty portion of the American population. According to a recent Pew Research Study, three-in-ten (28%) Americans express unfavorable views of both major political parties, the highest it's been in three decades of polling! Combine this with 1/4 of adults (25%) not feeling well-represented by either party, and we’ve got ourselves an issue. And it's not like Americans still feel that our political system is working even with unpopular candidates, just 4% of U.S. adults say the political system is working well!
We obviously have identified a current issue with American politics, but how can RCV fix this?
Firstly, what is RCV?
RCV is a system of voting that requires the winning candidate to receive more than 50% of the vote. This is in contrast to our current plurality voting system that solely requires the winning candidate to get more votes than any other candidate. When it comes to the issue of representation, RCV requires candidates to truly represent their constituents.
To ensure that the winning candidate achieves more than 50% of the vote, RCV gives voters the option to rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, fourth, and so on. However, voters still cast only one vote, which is always given to their first-choice candidate.
After an initial vote count, if no candidate has received more than 50% of the electorate’s votes, the candidate with the least amount of votes is removed from the race. When this candidate is removed, voters who ranked this candidate 1st have their votes count for their next choice.
This process of candidate elimination and transferring of votes continues until a candidate has more than 50% of the votes.
RCV in Practice:
Let’s say we’re all voting for what to eat for lunch. There’s three options: pizza, hamburgers, and salad. On our first vote count, 61% of voters picked pizza, 22% hamburgers, and 17% salad. This would automatically call the election for pizza, as it’s passed that 50% mark.
However, now we want to vote on what to eat for snack. There’s three options: potato chips, chocolate chip cookies, and rice krispy treats. After our first vote count, 41% of voters picked potato chips, 27% of voters picked chocolate chip cookies, and 32% of voters picked rice krispy treats. In a plurality election, potato chips would be chosen as the group’s snack. However, a majority of group members prefer something sweet. This is evident in the second round of vote counting when the least popular choice, chocolate chip cookies, are removed. With their removal, 43% of voters picked potato chips and 57% of voters picked rice krispy treats. A majority of the group supported rice krispy treats and in RCV rice krispy treats would win!
This idea of salty and sweet coalitions corresponds to modern-day politics, where voters fear voting for libertarian or green party candidates in order to not “spoil” the plural American elections.
Besides greater representation, what are other benefits of RCV?
Time: RCV is one day of voting as opposed to plural voting which can require runoff elections. Moreover, results are tallied just as quick as plural voting. According to the RCV Resource Center, “San Francisco, CA, and Portland, OR, released both unofficial RCV and plurality results starting on election night. Any “delays” are just a normal function of any election.”
Simplicity: Contrary to popular belief, RCV is very simple and easy for voters to understand. In 2024, 84% of Alaskan voters and 82% of Maine voters said RCV is easy. In last summer’s NYC mayoral election, 96% found their ballot simple to complete. 76% wanted to keep RCV or expand it to general elections.
Cost: While RCV may present some upfront costs due to voter education and voter equipment necessities, it saves money over time. In 2018, an analysis done by the Fiscal Policy Institute found that future savings resulting from RCV implementation more than justify the short-term costs of updating voting equipment. One year later, the New York Independent Budget Office estimated that RCV implementation would cost anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000 up front, but would ultimately save the city up to $20 million per election cycle.
Unity: Unlike our current system, RCV incentivizes positive campaigning, as forming broad coalitions with other candidates, similar minded or not, can push a candidate to victory. In our snacks example, the sweet snack coalition formed between rice krispies and chocolate chip cookies helped propel the former to victory. If chocolate chip cookies had more support, and it came down to them and rice krispies, the winner would likely be the one that appealed best to potato chip voters. In real elections, this may mean ranking the less polarizing and radical of two similar minded candidates higher. And you don’t just have to take my word for it, a 2025 study led by the ABA Task Force for American Democracy found that political campaigns were perceived as less negative in places using RCV; voters in RCV cities were twice as likely to report local campaigns were “a lot less negative.” People in RCV cities were also significantly more satisfied with the conduct of local campaigns, and less likely to report that candidates were frequently criticizing each other.
Inclusion: When it comes to service members stationed overseas, it’s incredibly difficult for them to vote in both general and run-off elections in a plural voting system, as international mail takes time to be delivered and run-off elections can occur as soon as one week after the general election. This puts them at a significant disadvantage. RCV solves this by having service members rank their next highest choices, allowing their votes to be counted throughout the entire election
Turnout: RCV can also drive higher voter turnout. A 2024 study highlighted significant and substantially higher probabilities of turnout in places that use RCV, and found evidence that campaigns in RCV places have greater incidences of direct voter contact than in similar places that do not use RCV. Furthermore, youth turnout in RCV cities was higher than youth turnout in non-RCV cities, according to a 2021 study.
Overall, RCV is a progressive but also bipartisanly agreed upon solution to the many challenges facing American democracy. It's time to act now to adopt RCV. Stay tuned for ways to do so!
Works Cited:
https://fiscalpolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/RankedChoiceVoting-FPI-Brief.pdf
https://ibo.nyc.ny.us/cgi-park3/2019/10/22/eliminate-the-need-for-citywide-run-off-elections/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S026137942400074X
https://fairvote.org/ranked-choice-voting-and-voter-turnout/
https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/?section=strategic-voting
https://www.rcvresources.org/what-is-rcv
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/09/19/americans-dismal-views-of-the-nations-politics/