The Impact of Ranked-Choice Voting On Elections In The United States

A digital representation of how Ranked-Choice Voting works.

As politics in the U.S. becomes more polarized, reformers and voters have started to look for alternative electoral systems that have a chance to represent voters’ opinions and thoughts better. One of the most discussed alternatives is Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), which is a system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting just one to vote for. This system has been adopted in various local and state elections, but what really matters is its impact on these elections. Early evidence and information about the system suggest that RCV has the potential to reduce negative campaigning, increase voter engagement, and improve representation. However, in this article, we will also talk about how these things don’t always happen without their own challenges and consequences.

What Is Ranked-Choice Voting?

As mentioned before, Ranked-Choice Voting is a system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference: first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on (depending on the number of candidates). If a candidate receives more than 50% of first-choice votes, they win just like that. But, in most elections, this doesn’t happen, so if no candidate meets that threshold, the one with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on the next choice on each ballot. This process continues until one candidate has a majority, who then gets voted in.

This method is currently used in cities like San Francisco, Minneapolis, and New York City and sometimes even statewide, like in Maine and Alaska.

Reducing Negative Campaigning

One of the most cited benefits of RCV is its potential to reduce negative campaigning. Because candidates will hope to earn second or third-choice votes from their opponents’ supporters, they’ll be incentivized to appeal to a broader audience rather than majorities. In traditional “winner-takes-all” elections, candidates often win by energizing their base while attacking the opposition, sometimes with lies or stretching truths.

In San Francisco, which has used RCV since 2004, researchers found that candidates were more likely to engage in positive messaging, as alienating other candidates’ supporters could cost them important second-choice votes. A 2021 study by the University of Maryland also found that voters in RCV cities perceived campaigns as less negative than those in cities using traditional voting systems.

However, this effect may vary depending on the competitiveness of the race. In some crowded fields, especially where partisan divides are deep, negative campaigning still appears, but in general, RCV encourages a more civil tone.

Promoting Diverse Representation

Another area where RCV has shown promise is in enhancing the representation of women and minority candidates. Traditional electoral systems often disadvantage candidates who are not seen as “viable” by political insiders or major donors. In an RCV system, these candidates can still build coalitions of second and third-choice voter support that help them remain competitive.

For instance, in Minneapolis, the city council has become more diverse since the adoption of RCV. Similarly, in New York City’s 2021 Democratic primary for mayor, ranked-choice voting played a role in elevating candidates of color, including winner Eric Adams. The system allowed voters to express nuanced preferences without the fear of “wasting” their vote.

That said, the success of underrepresented candidates in RCV systems also depends heavily on community outreach and voter education. The mechanism can only boost diverse voices if voters understand how to use it effectively.

Voter Engagement and Understanding

A map of U.S. states showing the extent to which they each use Ranked-Choice Voting.

A key concern raised by critics of RCV is that it might be too complicated for the average voter. Indeed, some studies suggest that ballot exhaustion—when a voter's ballot is no longer counted because all of their ranked candidates have been eliminated—can be significant, especially in elections with many candidates.

However, surveys from RCV cities like Berkeley and San Francisco show that a majority of voters report understanding the system well, especially after one or two election cycles. In New York City, where the system was implemented in 2021, over 80% of voters said they found it easy to understand.

Importantly, RCV may also increase voter turnout, particularly in local elections. When voters feel they have more say and their vote is less likely to be wasted, they are more inclined to participate. While the impact on turnout is not conclusive everywhere yet, some early data from cities like Minneapolis suggest a positive trend.

Administrative and Logistical Challenges

Despite its potential benefits, implementing RCV is not without hurdles. Election officials must upgrade voting equipment, train poll workers, and educate voters, all of which require funding and time. Additionally, tabulating RCV results can take longer, especially in large cities or in races with many candidates.

In New York City’s 2021 primary, the initial release of results was marred by a data error, which critics used to argue that the RCV system was confusing and prone to mistakes. Although the issue was resolved, it highlighted the need for transparency and preparation in rolling out RCV.

States like Alaska, which adopted RCV along with open primaries, have also faced resistance from political parties and lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the system. Change is always difficult, particularly when it affects power structures.

Conclusion

To be very clear, Ranked-Choice Voting will not fix all of the problems in American democracy, but it is a big change with various benefits. It encourages more civil campaigns, improves opportunities for diverse candidates, and gives voters more choice and power. However, it arguably has even more challenges, especially when it comes to implementation, voter education, and political buy-in.

As more cities and states consider adopting RCV, careful planning, transparency, and public engagement will be crucial. The system shows that American elections don’t have to be a binary, zero-sum game; there are better ways to reflect the will of the people and to ensure democracy, and RCV may just be one of them.