Ranked Choice Voting
RCV and STV elections: An alternative to our winner-take-all system
A visual representation of a ranked choice voting ballot provided by Common Cause
What is Ranked Choice Voting?
Ranked choice voting is a means of voting that involves ranking candidates from most to least favorite instead of only voting for one candidate. The purpose of this system is to promote third parties and create more competitive elections.
In a ranked choice voting (RCV) election, if a candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, they win outright. If no candidate reaches this threshold, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the voters' next choice. This process continues until one candidate secures a majority.
In some RCV elections, the threshold is lower so that multiple candidates represent the same district. In this instance, if a candidate wins over the threshold, their voters’ second choice gets distributed to the other candidates. If no candidate is over the threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of votes gets eliminated, and their votes get redistributed. This process continues until the designated number of delegates from the district is reached. This process with multiple winning candidates is also referred to as single transferable vote (STV), a type of RCV election.
Pros of Ranked Choice Voting?
One of the strongest arguments for RCV elections is the dismantling of the two-party system and spoiler candidates. Because of the lack of fear that you are throwing away your vote, people feel free to vote for whom they want. Parties would be less like coalitions and more like platforms with strict beliefs. In this system, third parties would be much more powerful, especially if the STV system were implemented.
The RCV system can also help to fight polarization, according to some studies. In Maine, for example, a study showed that after this system was implemented, polarization decreased. However, with very few examples to point to in the United States, this might vary from state to state.
Compared to winner-take-all elections, RCV is much more representative of the party affiliation in a geographic area because of a voter’s ability to vote for whom they want without the fear of throwing away their vote. However, if the need for a more representative legislature appears, the most effective means may be the implementation of a proportional representation system instead of RCV or STV.
Cons of Ranked Choice Voting?
One of the biggest fears about RCV elections is the presumption of more complicated ballots. This is often attributed to voter fatigue, ballot confusion, or voter ignorance. In a country with low voter turnout, this may discourage more people from voting.
There is also a debate on how to split votes in STV runoff elections. Some argue that leftover votes, if over the threshold, should be split proportionally amongst the other candidates. Others argue that only those who come first in line should have their votes redistributed if their candidate reaches the threshold.
The implementation of STV or RCV elections would also mean more complicated counting processes in elections. This may lead to distrust in the election process.
Would it work in the United States?
Currently, RCV elections are not the standard but are gaining popularity in the United States. RCV is only used in some local elections and a handful of congressional and state-level races. For example, it is used in some cities in California and Maine. Nine states have introduced RCV elections for state legislatures. These states include Massachusetts, Vermont, New York, New Jersey, North Carolina, Minnesota, Missouri, California, and Oregon.
On the national level, it would take federal legislation to implement this for presidential races. For presidential races, only a standard RCV election would be functional in our current use of the electoral college.
It would also take federal legislation for this to be implemented in house races. House races could potentially be STV elections in order to be more representative of a geographic area.