What Is Ranked Choice Voting and Should America Adopt It?

Key Takeaways

Ranked choice voting (RCV) lets voters rank candidates 1st, 2nd, 3rd instead of picking just one. If no candidate gets a majority, lowest-vote candidates are eliminated and their votes redistributed.

RCV is used in Alaska, Maine, and many cities including New York City and San Francisco.

Evidence suggests RCV reduces negative campaigning, allows third-party candidates to compete without "spoiler" effect, and produces winners with broader coalition support.

Both major parties resist RCV when they benefit from the current binary system — particularly when they are the dominant party in a region.

AI Summary

Key takeaways highlight Ranked choice voting (RCV) lets voters rank candidates 1st, 2nd, 3rd instead of picking just one. If no candidate gets a majority, lowest-vote candidates are eliminated and their votes redistributed. RCV is used in Alaska, Maine, and many cities including New York City and San Francisco. Evidence suggests RCV reduces negative campaigning, allows third-party candidates to compete without "spoiler" effect, and produces winners with broader coalition support. Both major parties resist RCV when they benefit from the current binary system — particularly when they are the dominant party in a region.

Every four years, a significant percentage of American voters feel trapped: they prefer a third-party candidate but vote for their lesser-evil major-party candidate anyway because they don't want to "waste" their vote or help the candidate they least want win.

This is called the spoiler effect, and ranked choice voting is the most widely tested solution to it.

How It Actually Works

Imagine three candidates: Democrat, Republican, and Independent. You strongly prefer the Independent but don't want the Republican to win.

Under the current system: You vote for the Democrat to prevent the Republican from winning. The Independent gets 8% of the vote, loses, and "proves" that third-party candidates can't win — partly because everyone who liked the Independent but feared the Republican voted Democrat.

Under RCV: You rank: 1st Independent, 2nd Democrat, 3rd Republican. If the Independent comes in last, your vote transfers to your 2nd choice (Democrat). Your vote was not wasted. You expressed your true preference and contributed to preventing your least-favorite candidate from winning.

If enough people rank the Independent first, and the Independent comes in second or third with enough first-choice votes, the process continues: the lowest candidate is eliminated and their votes redistribute. The final winner must have majority (or near-majority) support when all preferences are considered.

The Evidence From States That Use It

Alaska adopted RCV in 2020. The first major test was the 2022 special election for its at-large House seat.

The result: Republican Sarah Palin was widely expected to win in deep-red Alaska. Mary Peltola, a Democrat, finished first in the first round. Palin finished second. The third Republican candidate (Nick Begich) was eliminated and his votes redistributed — many going to Peltola. She won.

Alaska Republicans subsequently attempted to repeal RCV through a ballot initiative. Voters narrowly kept it. The episode illustrated both that RCV can produce outcomes the dominant party doesn't like (Palin losing) and that voters valued the system once they experienced it.

Maine adopted RCV for federal elections in 2016. Research found voters adapted easily, negative campaigning modestly decreased (candidates have incentive to be someone's second choice, creating incentive not to alienate opponents' supporters), and voter satisfaction with the system was high.

Why Both Parties Resist It

The Republican National Committee formally opposes RCV, describing it as confusing and prone to manipulation. Neither characterization has strong evidence behind it — voters in countries using similar systems for decades find them workable, and RCV is neither more nor less manipulable than other electoral systems.

The real opposition: Republicans are currently the dominant party in many regions and the current binary system maximizes the power of the dominant party. RCV would allow moderate Republicans, libertarians, and others to credibly run without being forced to choose which major-party coalition to join.

Democrats in dominant jurisdictions (urban cores, deep-blue states) have similar resistance for similar reasons.

The parties agree: the current two-party, winner-take-all system entrenches their power. RCV would allow competitive alternatives to emerge. That is why they each oppose it when they can.

What RCV Won't Fix

RCV is not a democracy cure-all. It won't fix gerrymandering, campaign finance inequality, voter suppression, or polarization driven by social media.

What it does address: the structural mathematical incentive that forces voters to strategically vote against their preferences. It produces winners with broader support bases. It allows genuine third-party and independent competition.

Whether that's enough to matter depends on whether you think the two-party duopoly itself is one of American democracy's core structural problems.

The evidence from Alaska, Maine, and dozens of cities suggests it's a functional improvement. The question is whether the major parties who would have to approve its adoption will act against their own institutional interests to implement it.

History doesn't make that likely. But ballot initiatives — as Alaska and Maine showed — can bypass party resistance entirely.

FAQ

What is ranked choice voting?

Ranked choice voting (RCV) allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference: 1st choice, 2nd choice, 3rd choice, etc. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and voters who ranked that candidate first have their vote transferred to their second choice. This continues until one candidate has a majority. It eliminates the "spoiler" problem where a third-party candidate splits the vote and helps the opposite side win.

Where is ranked choice voting used?

In the US: Alaska uses RCV for all statewide and federal elections. Maine uses it for federal elections. About 50 cities use RCV for local elections, including New York City, San Francisco, Minneapolis, and others. Internationally, Australia has used preferential voting (similar to RCV) for over 100 years. Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and many other democracies use various forms of ranked or preferential voting.

Does ranked choice voting help third parties?

RCV removes the "spoiler effect" that makes third-party votes feel wasted under the current system. In a traditional election, voting for a third-party candidate you prefer over both major-party candidates can help the major-party candidate you like least win. Under RCV, you can rank your preferred third-party candidate first and a major-party candidate second without wasting your vote. This lowers the strategic barrier to third-party voting but has not yet produced significant third-party wins in US RCV elections.

Why do the major parties oppose ranked choice voting?

Both parties have opposed RCV when they dominate their region's politics and benefit from the current system. The Republican National Committee formally opposes RCV, arguing it is confusing and allows "ballot manipulation." Some Democrats oppose it when they are the safe dominant party in a given jurisdiction. The honest reason: RCV threatens the duopoly by lowering barriers to viable third-party and independent candidacies, which could fragment both parties' coalition.