Breaking It Down is GPPR’s new series focused on explaining emerging and endorsed solutions for various policy problems. In this first installment, I explain the process of ranked-choice voting and its credibility as a tool for electoral reform in the United States.
For the first time, American voters will not be voting under a uniform electoral system in the 2024 federal elections. Ranked-choice voting (RCV), which has been strictly a local phenomenon since the early 2000s, will be adopted in Maine for the 2024 Presidential Primaries and in Alaska for the 2024 Presidential and US House elections. Berated by notable figures like Governor Gavin Newsom for causing voter confusion and embraced by others like Senator Elizabeth Warren for “strengthen[ing] the principle of majority rule” and defending democracy, RCV has been a constant source of debate amongst political leaders. There is bipartisan consensus that electoral reform is needed in the U.S., and that RCV is a viable solution for our electoral future.
Simple or Complex? RCV Explained
Under our current winner-takes-all system, American voters often feel discouraged from voting due to candidate selection and campaigning-style issues, two problem areas which RCV clearly addresses. In winner-takes-all, or first-past-the-post (FPTP), preliminary rounds and restrictive ballot access laws limit the selection of candidates. Similarly, in FPTP, the presence of one vote per voter increases negative campaigning and furthers polarization.
In RCV, each voter preference ranks all the candidates they support, without fear of hurting their first-choice candidate. Voters may omit any candidate whom they do not support from their list. A candidate automatically wins if they receive over 50% of the votes and, if no candidate achieves that, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. For voters who ranked the eliminated candidate first, their vote next goes to their second choice candidate and this elimination and redistribution continues until a candidate achieves a majority vote.
The voter ranking process is no different from rankings we do in our daily lives, like ranking our favorite sports teams. Over 90% of voters in New York City, Maine, and Minneapolis reported that RCV was simple and that they had positive experiences with the process. Clearly, voter confusion is not a viable argument for restricting nationwide RCV implementation.
How does RCV address candidate selection and campaigning-style issues from FPTP? First, voters are more likely to feel represented by a candidate due to lower entry barriers, which can support higher voter turnout and satisfaction. Second, voters who are split between multiple candidates no longer have to choose just one person which also promotes voter satisfaction. Third, voters in swing states are not pressured to strategically vote for popular candidates and are not blamed for “wasting their vote” if they vote for another candidate. Fourth, negative campaigning is reduced, and is replaced with coalition building amongst candidates. Fifth, the need for primary and runoff elections is eliminated , which helps governments save substantial amounts of money. Finally, RCV promotes majority rule by ensuring that the elected candidate receives at least 50% of constituent votes.
Where is RCV Used?
In the U.S., Alaska and Maine are the only two states to use RCV statewide. Nevada, Wyoming, and Kansas use RCV for presidential primary elections, and Indiana and Virginia use it for party primary elections. Another 6 states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina) use RCV for military and overseas voters. Thanks to their Local Options Bill, which allows cities to opt into RCV on an election-by-election basis, 23 cities in Utah used RCV in 2021.
As of July 2022, FairVote predicts that 55 cities, counties, and states will use RCV in their next elections. Internationally, some countries have fully adopted RCV, including Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Malta, Northern Ireland, and Scotland.
The Fair Representation Act: Proportional RCV for the House of Representatives
Nonpartisan electoral reform groups like FairVote not only domestically and internationally advocate for RCV, but they specifically push for proportional RCV in the U.S. The distinction is that proportional RCV results in multiple winners, which explains why it is often referred to as multi-winner ranked-choice voting. Though it has merely been a discussion point for many years, the Fair Representation Act could result in proportional RCV being used to elect seats for the House of Representatives.
How does proportional RCV work? Similar to before, voters rank as many or as few candidates as they would like. To win, a candidate must reach a threshold that guarantees their victory. As previously stated, in a one-seat election, the candidate must earn 50%+1 of the votes to guarantee victory. Two seats would require a 33.3% +1 threshold, three seats would require a 25% +1 threshold, and so forth.
Like last time, votes are counted in rounds. If a candidate achieves the threshold in the first round, they automatically win a seat. Importantly, if they earn more votes than required by the threshold, the surplus votes are redistributed to second-choice candidates. This ensures that surplus votes are not wasted. However, if no candidate achieves the threshold in the first round, then the last place candidate is eliminated and their votes are redistributed as normal. This process would continue until a candidate achieved the required threshold.
Proportional RCV requires single-member districts to be replaced with multi-member districts, where two or more members are sent to a legislative body. Single-winner districts are problematic not only because of gerrymandering, but also because voters are locked “into congressional districts that are increasingly skewed toward one party… [which] leaves too many voters unrepresented and powerless to affect outcomes” (FairVote 2022). Larger districts are formed which removes the power of district lines in choosing the winner of an election. For instance, when a district has been safely ruled by a party for many election cycles, the minority voters possess powerless votes. So, with proportional RCV, seats are allocated based on proportional representation, and combined with RCV, majority rule is enforced and minority power is respected as well.
Advocates of the Fair Representation Act note that proportional RCV would create multi-member districts with 3 to 5 winners for states with 6 or more representatives, promote accurate representation and prevent shut-outs of crucial groups, and increase candidate diversity. Proportional RCV is only currently used in 3 jurisdictions, and will be implemented in another 3 jurisdictions within the next year. It was once used in 24 jurisdictions, but was abolished by the broad abolition of RCV in the 1950s due to technological barriers with counting.
Critics question if we know enough about proportional RCV. Historical analysis showed that legislative cohesion was not guaranteed with the implementation of multi-winner RCV (Santucci 2018). In a more recent 2021 paper, Santucci used historical case studies to show how seemingly small technical issues with proportional RCV had strategic implications for political parties and sometimes resulted in unpredicted outcomes. However, with modern-day political conditions being drastically different from those in the cited historical examples, this analysis fails to adequately explain why the cited concerns of the past are likely to repeat themselves today. Thus, though the critique offers fair caution, it may be unsubstantiated.
Conclusion
Ranked-choice voting addresses some of the most crucial issues with the American electoral system, and even American civic engagement. In the various locales where RCV is already implemented, there is overwhelming bipartisan support for this system. Though proportional RCV may be a novel idea with limited scholarly exploration, the two components of proportional representation and RCV have been thoroughly researched, establishing credibility for proportional RCV and the Fair Representation Act. Ranked-choice voting saves governments money, empowers voters, and diversifies candidate pools, and will strengthen American democracy should we choose to implement it nationwide.
Alisha Saxena (she/her) is a Master of Public Policy Candidate at Georgetown University and a policy intern at the AARP and EIG. She formerly worked as a part-time Research Associate at RepresentWomen, where she researched international gender parity in politics and levels of elected representation for Disabled and first-generation women. She is the Editor in Chief of the Georgetown Public Policy Review and the founder of the McCourt Disability Policy Initiative.
If I’ve read a more complete, accurate, well-written article on RCV and proportional RCV – and I’ve probably read more than my share – it doesn’t come quickly to mind. Only those skeptical of democracy in general or fearful of voters in particular could possibly be opposed to ranked-choice voting. Unfortunately there appear to be more than a few such folks.
Preferential Voting (sometimes known as Ranked Choice Voting or instant runoff voting) has been used successfully in Australia since 1924. Preferential Voting ensures that not just the most popular candidate but the most preferred candidate is elected. Whilst two candidate elections may be common in the USA, it is not uncommon in Australia to have a large number of candidates on a ballot paper. 5 to 7 is normal whilst up to 14 is not unheard of. Using a FPTP system can mean that a candidate might win the election with as little as 10% (sometimes even less) of the vote. This means that 90% of the electorate did not vote for that candidate and would prefer someone else. Preferential voting ensures that a candidate who is able represent the majority of voters (ie. has a significant level of support from the voters – 50% +1 or more than half of the electorate) have some level of preference for the winning candidate.