A group of lawmakers recently introduced legislation to advance a voting system that aims to end, or at least ameliorate, partisanship in U.S. politics.
The Voter Choice Act (S. 2939), introduced by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Angus King (I-Maine) and Rep. Dean Phillips (D-Minn.), would provide $40 million to help states and local governments to cover the costs of adopting a ranked-choice voting (RCV) model, also known as “instant-runoff voting.”
Traditionally, most U.S.-based elections have followed the plurality system where candidates who receive the most votes win. Under this system, however, a candidate could receive as few as 34% of the votes, if there are three candidates in the race, and still win.
RCV models, instead, would promote more cooperation and moderation among candidates, proponents say. Under such a system, voters rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority of votes after counting voters’ first choices, then the last-place candidate is removed from the race. Ballots of voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice are then reallocated to those voters’ next choice.
The process repeats until a candidate receives a majority, or more than 50%, of the votes. The process was used in the Democratic primary for the 2021 New York City mayoral election, which resulted in moderate Democrat Eric Adams winning the race. Alaska and Maine are the only states to have adopted RCV for state and congressional elections; however, Maine’s move toward RCV is being challenged in court.
Advocates say the model has a number of advantages over the traditional voting system. For example, it would prevent third-party candidates from taking votes from more popular candidates. It could also streamline election administration and cut costs by eliminating the need for runoff elections. Along those lines, proponents also argue that RCV provides greater access to military and overseas voters who may face barriers with mailing ballots back to the U.S. within the allotted time frame during a runoff election.
“Ranked-choice voting is an opportunity to incentivize candidates — and as a result, elected officials — to build consensus rather than exploit divisions, better reflecting the will of the American people,” King said in a press release announcing the bill. “The process is, in essence, an instant runoff that allows the priorities of voters to be more accurately captured on Election Day without the added expense to taxpayers of a completely new tally. Our bill will provide logistical support to the state and local governments that choose to adopt ranked-choice voting, allowing them to make the choice that will best serve their citizens.”
Supporters, including 2020 presidential candidate Andrew Yang, also argue that RCV can help to cut back on negative campaigning. “Candidates shy from negative campaigning that would alienate the supporters of other candidates, instead trying to appeal to those voters as their second or third choice,” Yang (who also ran for New York mayor) wrote on his campaign website.
Opponents argue that the “fairness” of winning by plurality or majority is subjective and that RCV will not fix America’s polarization problem, especially if voters choose not to cross party lines. Some also argue that it is an unfair system because of the possibility that voters do not rank all of the given candidates on their ballot; if all of their chosen candidates are eliminated, those voters would essentially not have a say in the final election. “Ranked-choice voting is the flavor of the day. And it will turn out to have a bitter taste,” Gordon Weil, a former Maine state agency head and municipal selectman, wrote in a 2015 editorial when voters in that state were debating RCV’s adoption. “Its advocates want to replace real democracy, in which a majority picks the winner, with something akin to a game show method of selection. The result could be more like ‘Family Feud’ than a decision about one of the most important choices people can make.”
Weil also explained that RCV is not always straightforward or easy to understand and can lead to situations where candidates who receive fewer first-place votes can still win the election. “That may not seem fair to many voters, creating just the kind of discontent our already stressed system doesn’t need,” Weil wrote.
Several U.S. cities, including St. Paul, Minn., and four cities in California, also use RCV, which has been more widely adopted and used by private associations and colleges. Concerns about polarization and voting fairness have led to more calls for RCV models.
For more background, see the June 2020 issue of Congressional Digest on “The Electoral College.”
