Read the report
Over the last decade, ranked-choice voting has gone from the fringes to the mainstream of political reform. Generally, ranked-choice voting (RCV) is seen as a way to encourage more compromise and moderation in politics; to reduce negative campaigning; to introduce more competition within the two major parties; to end the spoiler effect of third party candidates; and to ensure majority winners without costly and low-turnout runoff elections. With largely successful use-cases in the 2021 New York City mayoral primary, in several Democratic Party presidential primaries in 2020, and in Maine elections in 2018 and 2020, RCV has entered the national conversation as a sensible and popular reform with momentum. In its single-winner form, it is also a relatively modest change to the current voting system, and thus, appears to be a relatively achievable victory for reformers.
However, many promised benefits of RCV appear to be more modest than many had initially hoped and/or difficult to quantify based on limited usage thus far in the United States. It is possible that these benefits will take time to become apparent as candidates and voters learn and attitudes change. It is also possible that the adoption of RCV nationwide would be more transformative than city-by-city and even state-by-state adoption. But given the broader structural forces at play in our deteriorating national politics, stronger medicine may be needed.
The most notable benefits of ranked-choice voting so far concern campaign tone and descriptive representation. Research suggests elections with RCV are more civil, and less nasty, as proponents have argued; and what limited evidence we have on RCV and electoral outcomes suggests that the system does, as promised, increase the odds of candidates of color and women candidates being elected. Additionally, there is strong evidence that most citizens like using ranked-choice voting, and they find it easy and straightforward to use—especially once they experience the system in a real election. Though critics and skeptics have raised concerns about the ways in which RCV voting could confuse and potentially demobilize certain voters, those concerns appear unfounded at this point.
Still, both ease of use and enthusiasm for RCV vary among the population. Not surprisingly, age is a significant correlate of support, with young people more likely to embrace change, and older people more likely to want to continue voting under the rules they have known for their entire lives, rather than having to learn something new. Also, Democrats tend to be more favorable toward RCV than Republicans. This may reflect the fact that conservatives are more averse to change, or that RCV is currently seen more like a Democratic reform than a Republican reform. However, since most voters do not have strong opinions either way, there is certainly room for this to change with appropriate grassroots movement building and elite signaling.
Additionally, RCV seems to work well in primaries, the elections where vote-splitting is most likely to be a problem and where extreme candidates are most likely to win with a small plurality. Another advantage of using RCV in primaries is that it combines well with voting by mail. Since candidates may drop out suddenly, mailed votes are not wasted if voters can indicate their back-up preferences. Certainly, the New York City Democratic primary of 2021 offers a success story of ranked-choice voting, despite some administrative blunders by the Board of Elections that had nothing to do with the reform itself.
The most notable benefits of ranked-choice voting so far concern campaign tone and descriptive representation. Research suggests elections with RCV are more civil, and less nasty, as proponents have argued; and what limited evidence we have on RCV and electoral outcomes suggests that the system does, as promised, increase the odds of candidates of color and women candidates being elected. Additionally, there is strong evidence that most citizens like using ranked-choice voting, and they find it easy and straightforward to use—especially once they experience the system in a real election. Though critics and skeptics have raised concerns about the ways in which RCV voting could confuse and potentially demobilize certain voters, those concerns appear unfounded at this point.