.webp)
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) isn’t novel in electoral politics. It’s actually a pretty old idea dating back to the late 18th century. It was reinvented in the early 19th century and adopted in various European Countries and Australia in the late 19th century and early 20th century. Australia has used RCV for its federal parliamentary elections since 1918.
Other countries, including Ireland and Papua New Guinea, use RCV for federal elections. RCV is used in part in many more countries, including Canada (Ontario), Hong Kong, The United States (Alaska, Maine), and most Australian state elections. Nevada will begin their first use of RCV in the 2026 elections. Six US states use RCV for their military and overseas ballots. Additionally, dozens of municipalities in fifteen states have used an RCV system since 2010.
One of the primary advantages of RCV is that it ensures that elected officials have broad support from the majority of voters. In a traditional first-past-the-post voting system, a candidate can win even if they receive only a small fraction of the total vote as long as they have more votes than any other candidate. This can result in winners who do not reflect the preferences of the majority.
In contrast, RCV requires candidates to receive a majority of the votes to win. If no candidate receives a majority of first-preference votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on voters’ subsequent preferences. This process continues until a candidate secures a majority, ensuring that the winner has substantial support from a broad base of the electorate.
In the usual first-past-the-post system, too often votes succumb to the spoiler effect, which occurs when a third-party or less popular candidate takes away votes from a major candidate, potentially changing the election outcome. This was the case with Ross Perot in the 1992 presidential election and Pat Buchanan in the 2000 presidential election.
This effect can lead to strategic voting, where voters choose the “lesser of two evils'' rather than their preferred candidate to prevent an undesirable outcome. RCV mitigates this problem by allowing voters to rank their preferences without fear of wasting their votes. If their top choice is eliminated, their vote is not lost but transferred to their next preferred candidate. This system allows for a more accurate representation of voter preferences and supports a more diverse field of candidates.
By reducing the spoiler effect and encouraging a more comprehensive range of candidates, RCV can enhance the representation of minority groups and viewpoints. Candidates from diverse backgrounds or non-mainstream perspectives have a better chance of winning elections because voters can rank them without fear of “wasting” their votes. This system can lead to a more inclusive and representative government that better reflects the diversity of the population.
RCV can also lead to higher voter turnout by providing a more satisfying voting experience by consolidating two elections into one. Voters feel empowered to vote for their preferred candidate without fear of inadvertently helping to elect a candidate they oppose. This sense of empowerment can increase engagement and participation in the electoral process. Plus, voters only have to show up once, reducing the usual drop-off in a runoff election.
In terms of primaries, RCV has several advantages over the traditional system. One of these is that it is more cost-efficient. In states like California and Louisiana, where a jungle primary is used, or in states like Georgia, where a runoff is held for both primary and general elections, the RCV voting model allows states to run a single election rather than two elections weeks apart. It is still helpful for states that hold runoff elections in primaries only since RCV is still removing the additional cost of a second primary election.
RCV may initially seem complex, but voters can understand how it works. It’s a cost-effective way to keep election turnout high while providing the potential for more diverse options for voters. Ranking all possible candidates will also provide the district with a candidate with majority support and who is more representative of the district's values.
Voters would finally be able to stop voting for the candidate that sucks the least and cast a ballot for someone they believe in.
