Why is ranked-choice voting (RCV) a bad idea? What drawbacks have critics identified? How successful has RCV been in elections so far?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ranked-choice voting is a system in which voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots, and it’s gaining popularity across the United States. However, critics say ranked-choice voting is a bad idea due to its complexity and potential to waste votes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Keep reading to learn why critics say ranked-choice voting is a bad idea for the U.S. <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
While ranked-choice voting (RCV) may sound promising, critics point out that it entails risks. According to them, ranked-choice voting is a bad idea primarily because it’s complex, both to carry out and to educate voters (and candidates) on. Although some have pointed out that the Electoral College is also complex and hard to educate voters on<\/a>, and yet it\u2019s widely accepted. This complexity might cause some voters to forgo voting altogether<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Some research has found that RCV reduces voter turnout, even in high-turnout cities<\/a>. Instead of giving a voice to more voters, this might lead to more-politically active groups having a disproportionately large impact on election results. Along the same lines, some argue that RCV is unconstitutional because it goes against the \u201cone person, one vote\u201d principle<\/a>, diluting the power of an individual\u2019s vote.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The complexity of implementing RCV is also more demanding for cities and states that decide to switch to this system. It can put pressure on local governments to invest more<\/a> resources in new machines and educational campaigns. As was seen in Alaska and New York City, the difficulty tallying RCV ballots adds to the existing difficulty of processing, for example, mail-in ballots<\/a>. This leads to final results taking much longer to be confirmed and shared with the public, which can foster distrust of the electoral process, especially considering how difficult it can be for government workers to explain a particular result<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While proponents of RCV argue that it will lead to less polarization, critics argue that ranked-choice voting is a bad idea, \u201crigging the game\u201d so that polarizing but popular candidates can\u2019t win. While fringe candidates can be upsetting to the people who disagree with them, opponents of RCV argue it\u2019s better to find ways to bring more people out to vote rather than stifle the choices voters can make<\/a>. Otherwise, you end up tamping down on candidates with strong but controversial stances<\/a> and rewarding those who don\u2019t make many waves but also don\u2019t speak to what voters truly want.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Further, even though candidates win by eventually securing a majority, a stronger mandate is not a given. Since candidates need to convince voters who support opposing candidates to choose them as their second choice, they might end up watering down their platforms and positions to appeal to a broader coalition. And even if they win, their mandate is a sort of decoupage of first, second, and third-choice supporters<\/a>, not necessarily founded on consensus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another reason critics say ranked-choice voting is a bad idea is that the system might devolve demographic diversity into simple identity politics<\/a>. Research has suggested that the wide range of choices in RCV ballots leads voters to make decisions based on demographic features<\/a> rather than ideology or policy. This results in demographic groups making starkly different decisions and ultimately being more divided. Others argue that the complicated nature of RCV alienates minority voters<\/a>, disenfranchising them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In terms of ideological diversity, some believe that the two-party system gives voters enough clear-cut options<\/a>. RCV would make it harder for voters to make those clear-cut choices and, for example, hold a party accountable when it goes against voters\u2019 wishes. Others argue that RCV will predominantly benefit one side of the two-party system: the Democratic Party. They claim that states that have switched to RCV have trended blue<\/a>, and that the switch is just a way for the party establishment to gain an advantage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Regarding third-party options, it\u2019s not clear that RCV will actually benefit them. For example, Maine\u2019s third-party candidates had more success prior to ranked-choice voting<\/a> being implemented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lastly, voters who come out on Election Day might not get a say on the final result. If they don\u2019t rank all<\/em> the candidates and instead only choose one or two, they might end up not influencing the election result if their choices get eliminated. This is known as \u201cballot exhaustion<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n On August 16, 2022, Alaska elected its US Representative through RCV. It was a special election: The winner would fill the seat vacated by Don Young only until November. Young (R) was Alaska\u2019s representative for almost 50 years until his death in March 2022.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This election was the first time Alaska implemented RCV since approving it by ballot measure in 2020 with 51% approval. For context, most Alaskans identify as or lean Republican (39%), but a sizable 29% identify as independents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The winner was Mary Peltola, the first Democrat to win the seat since 1973. There were three candidates: Peltola and Republicans Sarah Palin and Nick Begich. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the first round of the general election, Peltola developed a 9-point lead in first choices, but it wasn\u2019t enough to secure a majority (she received 40% of first choices, compared to Palin\u2019s 31%). Since Begich earned the least first-choice votes, he was eliminated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the second round, Begich\u2019s second-choice votes were distributed and this secured Peltola\u2019s win. Although 50% of Begich\u2019s votes ranked Palin second, 29% ranked Peltola. Added to Peltola\u2019s first-choice lead, those second-choice votes were enough to earn her a 51.5% majority. Runner-up Palin got 48%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, looking at first-choice votes alone, Peltola got 39.7% while Palin and Begich added up to almost 60%. This made the Democratic win a tough pill to swallow for many Republicans<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Turnout was 32% of registered voters, the highest in Alaska since the 2014 primary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Surveys and ballot analysis suggest that voters were comfortable with the new voting system: 85% of voters referred to RCV as \u201csimple.\u201d Most voters (66%) ranked multiple candidates, and 75% of those who didn\u2019t said it was because they only liked their first choice, not because they were confused about how to rank them. The ballot acceptance rate was 99.8%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The winner was declared 15 days after the election, seven days later than the latest elections in 2020.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Because it was a special election, Peltola only fills the seat until November, when the three candidates face each other again, joined by independent Chris Bye. Palin called on Begich to drop out<\/a> of the race, in an effort to avoid splitting the Republican vote. However, the deadline for dropping out of the November race passed and Begich remained steadfast in his intention to beat Palin and Peltola.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pundits have offered several explanations for Peltola\u2019s win:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Observers note a number of likely outcomes of Alaska\u2019s election:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Ranked-choice voting is only one of Australia\u2019s voting innovations. Besides preferential voting\u2014the local term for the voting system\u2014Australia was a pioneer in granting voting rights to all adult men without property and later to women, as well as in adopting the secret or anonymous ballot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Australia\u2019s adoption of preferential voting resulted from two conservative parties splitting the conservative vote and losing to the left. The new system allowed both parties to compete locally and rally nationally in opposition to the Labor Party.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Preferential voting works the same way as ranked-choice voting in the US, with some differences:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Australia is a polarized country, just like the US and many other democracies. However, moderate candidates still win elections, thanks to RCV. <\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, in May 2022 independents and Green Party candidates managed to break into parliament by focusing on the environment, a pressing issue for many Australians. The independents were known as \u201cteal independents\u201d because they supported climate policies but were otherwise conservative (blue is the color of conservatives in Australia). They won by beating the Labor (left) candidates in the first choices. Then, support from Labor voters who ranked them second secured their wins over the more right-leaning candidates. In a traditional election, the right-leaning candidates would have won with the support of the largest minority. RCV provided voters with a choice that fell between two extremes<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Parties cannot campaign affirmatively in RCV because the voting system rewards centrist positions and rejects those that veer too far from the middle, even if they have good ideas. Unable to use bold policy ideas to set themselves apart, candidates resort to running negative campaigns that energize the electorate through rage rather than hope<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nLess Polarization, but Still No Consensus<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
More Identity Politics and Confusion Rather Than True Diversity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Wasted Votes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Alaska\u2019s Experience With Ranked-Choice Voting<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The Results<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Participation and Complexity<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Aftermath<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Why Peltola Won and Republicans Lost<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
The Election\u2019s Impact<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Australia\u2019s Experience With Ranked-Choice Voting<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
RCV Helps Moderates Win Elections, Even in Polarized Societies<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
RCV Encourages Negative Campaigning<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
RCV Makes Room for the Complexity of Politics<\/h3>\n\n\n\n