Brief Ranked Choice Voting

Use of Ranked Choice Voting 

Alaska and Maine are the only states to use ranked choice voting for statewide elections. Some cities in the U.S. use ranked choice voting for general elections including St. Paul, Minn., Portland, Maine, and several cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Other locations, including New York City, use ranked choice voting in primary elections. Cambridge, Mass. and Minneapolis, Minn., use ranked choice voting in multimember districts.  

Prohibitions on Ranked Choice Voting

Ten states—Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Kentucky, Montana, Mississippi Oklahoma, South Dakota and Tennessee— prohibit the use of ranked choice voting in all or some elections. The legal status of ranked choice voting is uncertain in the 34 states that neither expressly permit nor prohibit its use.  

Arguments Proponents Make in Favor of Ranked Choice Voting 

Majority Rule. In a plurality election with several candidates, the winner may receive less than a majority of the votes, and some may see that as a problem. Often cited is the 2010 Maine governor’s race, when Republican candidate Paul LePage won with 38% among a divided field of four candidates. Supporters of ranked choice voting argue that candidates should receive at least 50% of the vote to win, proving a broad base of support from their constituents. 

Eliminates “Spoilers.” Ranked choice voting is said to limit the “spoiler” effect of independent or minor party candidates. In a plurality election, it’s possible for minor party candidates to siphon off votes from major-party candidates. In the 2000 presidential election, some say Ralph Nader, from the Green Party, received enough votes that might otherwise have gone to Democratic candidate Al Gore to swing the election in multiple states to George W. Bush.  

Increased Access for Military and Overseas Voters in Runoffs. Ranked choice voting may also bolster access for military and overseas voters when a primary race necessitates a runoff. States must adhere to federal law mandating that ballots be sent 45 days ahead of time to overseas voters, a difficult deadline to meet for a primary runoff. Six states—Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi and South Carolina—use a ranked choice system, called instant runoff in these states, for military and overseas voters. This ensures those voters still have a vote in the runoff—their first choice if that candidate is still in the race, or their second choice if the first choice has been eliminated. 

Arguments Opponents Make Against Ranked Choice Voting 

Fairness is in the eye of the beholder. Who’s to say that winning with a plurality but not a majority is a problem? In addition, if a voter decides to only vote for one candidate and not rank the others (sometimes called “bullet” voting), and the counting goes to a second level, the voter’s ballot would be “exhausted” and may not count at all, thus nullifying that citizen’s vote. 

One Person, One Vote. Many who oppose ranked choice voting claim that it violates the principle of one-person, one-vote: that one person’s voting power should be roughly equivalent to another’s. Through ballot exhaustion (the elimination of a vote from late-round tallies if a voter did not rank all possible candidates), a voter’s ballot may not count, perhaps giving voters who ranked all their choices more voting power. 

A Complex System. Because ranked choice voting diverges from the traditional voting method in the United States there are concerns that voters will not be properly educated about the new system. This could lead to frustration by voters and the possibility that voters will not properly complete their ballots and have their votes nullified if they only vote for one candidate and that candidate does not advance beyond the first round. 

Legislative Considerations on Whether to Implement and Adopt Ranked Choice Voting 

There are many things to consider before adopting ranked choice voting. Perhaps the two largest questions are whether ranked choice voting would apply to local, state or federal offices and/or which categories of elections would use ranked choice voting? Election options include: primary elections, special elections, local elections (municipal/school/special districts/etc.) or general elections. 

There are also many administrative and procedural questions that could arise while trying to implement ranked choice voting. Those questions could include: 

• Can the current voting equipment accommodate such a system? If not, could a request for proposal for the next generation of voting equipment include readiness for these options? 
• Is the contest a single-winner or multi-winner race? This can impact the ranked choice voting process in different ways. 
• Is the overall process transparent? If audits are required in the state, can ranked choice voting elections be audited? 
• What’s the best way to educate voters on the new system? 
• Are there any other statutory changes needed to implement an alternative voting system? 

For more information on considerations in ranked choice voting policy, please see NCSL’s report Ranked Choice Voting in Practice: Implementation Considerations for Policymakers.