Throughout the 2024 U.S. elections, the flaws of the traditional “first-past-the-post” (FTFP) voting system have fallen under increased scrutiny. Despite being deeply embedded in the U.S. electoral system, this method allows candidates to win with a mere plurality of votes, often leading to outcomes that fail to reflect majority preference. In a landscape crowded with candidates, a winner can emerge with less than half the votes cast, leaving many voters feeling disenfranchised. This dynamic has fueled polarization and discouraged support for third-party candidates, as many voters fear their choices may be futile. Enter ranked-choice voting (RCV), an innovative alternative gaining traction in various states.[1] RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, ensuring winning candidates have broader support and reducing the pressure to vote strategically (e.g., voting against a candidate rather than for one). As discussions about electoral reform gain momentum, RCV could be key to enhancing democratic representation in future elections.
The Plurality Problem: Undermining True Representation
The U.S. currently relies on a “first-past-the-post” or plurality voting system, where the candidate with the most votes wins—even if they don’t secure a majority. In this plurality system, candidates can win with a mere fraction of the vote, often without securing a majority. This can result in unrepresentative outcomes, where a candidate can claim victory with only 35-40% of the votes in a three-way race, leaving a substantial portion of the electorate feeling unheard.
Worse, the plurality system corners voters into strategic voting and amplifies the “spoiler effect.” Voters frequently feel forced to choose a “lesser evil” instead of their preferred candidate to avoid “wasting” their vote on a candidate unlikely to win. This dynamic marginalizes third-party and independent candidates, who have little chance in such a winner-takes-all environment. The current system also creates barriers for moderates to position themselves as a viable opposition or alternative, amplifying divisions in the political landscape. As the system rewards extremism over all else, voters face an illusion of choice when casting their ballots.
While there may still be peaceful power oscillations between the political poles, the entire system becomes more fragile as voters increasingly fear they will not be heard if they don’t ‘pick a side.’ If they don’t abstain or sacrifice their vote for a third party, they align with the ‘extremist’ that seems to encompass at least some of their core values and issue areas. Although positioning is standard practice in politics, extreme positioning is detrimental.
Polarization contributes to a disheartening cycle of low voter satisfaction and engagement, as many citizens feel their votes carry little weight in the decision-making process. With the stakes high in the 2024 elections, the plurality system risks stifling the democratic spirit, limiting genuine representation, and exacerbating disconnection from the political process.
How does Ranked-Choice (RCV) Voting Work?
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) enables voters to rank candidates by preference instead of choosing just one. So, every RCV ballot allows voters to select their first, second, and third candidate preferences (rather than gamble on one). Here’s the process: A candidate wins outright if they garner over 50% of first-choice votes. If no candidate achieves this majority, the one with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and those votes are transferred to the next choice indicated by those voters. This elimination and reallocation continues until a candidate earns a majority of the votes.
RCV allows voters to express their preferences without the fear of “wasting” their votes. Allowing the ranking of multiple candidates alleviates the “lesser evil” choice and fosters support for third-party or independent candidates. This mechanism ensures that the elected candidate possesses broad appeal, as they must obtain sufficient secondary support to achieve a majority, ultimately leading to more representative election outcomes.
A Solution for Better Representation
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) offers a compelling alternative to the traditional U.S. voting system, bringing with it several key advantages that could reshape electoral outcomes. At the heart of RCV’s appeal is its promotion of majority support. Unlike the current system, where a candidate can win with less than 50% of the vote, RCV requires candidates to secure a true majority. This shift ensures that the winning candidate reflects the preferences of a larger segment of voters.
Second, RCV has the potential to reduce perverse incentives that would otherwise reinforce polarization. Candidates often cater to the extremes of their base for a narrow victory. However, RCV incentivizes candidates to appeal to a wider audience, including voters who may rank them as a second or third choice. This dynamic encourages more inclusive and moderate platforms, helping to bridge the deepening divides that have come to characterize the political landscape.
Third, RCV also effectively tackles the “spoiler effect,” where third-party candidates might siphon votes from major candidates, skewing election results. By allowing voters to rank their preferred candidates without the fear of wasting their votes, RCV empowers them to express their true preferences. If a voter’s top choice is eliminated, their ballot seamlessly transfers to their next preferred candidate, reducing the need for strategic voting and promoting a fairer electoral process. Overall, RCV not only enhances representation but also encourages a more engaged and satisfied electorate.
RCV has demonstrated its effectiveness across various U.S. jurisdictions, hinting at broader national implications for electoral reform. Maine made history in 2018 as the first state to implement RCV for federal elections, allowing candidates to compete on a more level playing field. In the 2022 elections in Alaska, RCV contributed to a less polarized political landscape, encouraging moderate candidates who could appeal to larger voter coalitions. Similarly, New York City’s implementation of RCV in its 2021 city primaries resulted in significant voter engagement, with exit polls indicating that most participants found the process straightforward. Given its track record for attracting a more diverse range of candidates and enhancing public engagement, could RCV foster fairer and more representative outcomes in future U.S. elections?
Addressing Concerns of Ranked-Choice Voting
Despite numerous advantages, critics contend that changing the process may confuse voters. Nevertheless, evidence from states like Maine and Alaska, where RCV is operational, indicates that voters acclimate swiftly to the new system. Ballots typically come with straightforward instructions, and initial educational initiatives can significantly smooth the transition process.
Cost concerns are another point of contention, as RCV implementation necessitates updated voting technology and training. Although these expenses are valid, the long-term benefits for democratic equity and voter contentment frequently justify the investment. Likewise, there are apprehensions that RCV could delay election results due to the need for multiple counting rounds. However, in most instances, results are reported promptly, striking a balance between accuracy and speed to guarantee a genuinely representative outcome.
Ranked-choice voting could also upend the financial landscape of U.S. elections, potentially impacting the profitability of political parties, campaign consultants, and media outlets. By encouraging candidates to build broad coalitions and appeal to a wider voter base, RCV reduces the need for divisive, negative advertising that often drives campaign spending. Political consultants might shift focus from attack ads and opposition research to positive outreach strategies, altering traditional revenue streams. Meanwhile, media outlets, which often benefit from high-stakes, polarizing coverage, may see decreased demand for sensationalist narratives. That said, new opportunities could arise, especially around educating the public on the RCV process, presenting a different but potentially lucrative media market focused on voter engagement.
A Better Way Forward?
The 2024 U.S. elections have laid bare the significant flaws of the traditional “first-past-the-post” voting system, highlighting an illusion of choice that has intensified with each election cycle, ultimately disenfranchising many voters and suppressing support for third-party candidates.
If polarization were not so financially rewarding—political parties raised $14 billion in 2020, while campaign consultants and media outlets garnered $8 billion (including $1 billion in ads alone)—it might be surprising that ranked-choice voting (RCV) has not gained wider acceptance. RCV offers considerable advantages over the current U.S. voting framework.[2] By promoting majority support, reducing polarization, and enabling voters to rank their true preferences, RCV strengthens democratic representation. While implementing such changes can be challenging, the potential for increased voter satisfaction and fairer election outcomes makes the effort worthwhile. As more cities and states adopt RCV, its positive effects on democracy become increasingly evident. To create a more representative and resilient political landscape, voters and policymakers should shift their focus away from tribal allegiance to one party or another and instead prioritize refining the voting system itself.
[1] Ranked choice voting (RCV) was invented in the 1850s in Europe as a proportional representation system used in multi-winner elections.
[2] The 2020 U.S. Election was the most expensive in U.S. history.
