Ranked Choice Voting, Part 1 of 2
Categorized as: Election Tips
Ranked choice voting (RCV) does not enjoy widespread use. Yes, we see you, Australia, Scotland, and Ireland—and applaud you for leading the world in adopting it over the past century. But let’s talk about the rest of the world—especially the United States—where RCV remains rare. In fact, recent efforts have even sought to ban its use in public-sector elections, including at the local level.
Let’s change that.
What Is Ranked Choice Voting?
First, let’s clarify what RCV is. A previous Skypunch blog post focused on reading the RCV election results provided by Skypunch, but a more general and high-level introduction to RCV follows.
Suppose we have four candidates running for president. In much of the world, these candidates appear on the ballot, and voters may select one. Whichever candidate receives the most votes wins. This is known as plurality voting—simple to understand and easy to implement.
In an RCV election however, voters rank candidates in order of preference—first, second, third, and so on. Ballots are then counted in a way that honors those preferences, producing outcomes that better reflect the will of the voter.
The Shortcomings of Plurality Voting
As simple as plurality voting is, it comes with notable flaws. Two of the biggest are strategic voting and the spoiler effect.
- Strategic Voting
In our example with four presidential candidates, a voter might genuinely prefer Candidate Three but realize that Candidate Three has little chance of winning. Fearing that Candidate One might prevail, the voter instead supports Candidate Two as the “lesser evil.” In other words, the vote does not truly represent the voter’s preferences. - The Spoiler Effect
This occurs when a minor candidate draws just enough votes from a major contender to alter the outcome—allowing another candidate to win who otherwise would not have.
Is Ranked Choice Voting Better?
Not everyone would say so, but most arguments against RCV are either misguided at best, or intentionally misleading at worst.
Without delving into politics, the current movement to restrict RCV largely stems from a 2024 race in which a candidate lost a race where RCV was in use. Supporters blamed the voting method rather than the results—despite the fact that, under plurality voting, the outcome would have been the same. Nevertheless, it was enough to fuel opposition.
The main criticisms of RCV tend to fall into a few predictable categories:
- The ballot is too complex and confuses voters.
I do not accept that voters in certain countries are born with some innate ability to understand RCV ballots while others are not. The reality is simply exposure and education. Once voters see an RCV ballot, they understand it. Try it yourself—visit the Sample Ballot on this site and look at the Board of Directors position, which uses ranked choice voting. Different does not mean complicated. - Voters need to know all the candidates.
Critics argue that RCV requires voters to be familiar with every candidate, which may be unrealistic when there are many names on the ballot. But voters aren’t required to rank everyone—they can rank as many or as few as they like, or even skip that race altogether. Election managers can even limit how many rankings are allowed. - Plurality voting is time-tested.
True—and so is RCV. It’s been in use for more than 150 years in various countries and is well-proven in practice. - Ballot counting takes too long.
While RCV tabulation can take slightly longer, delays are usually due to inefficiencies in election administration, not RCV itself. Modern systems—like that offered by Skypunch—can produce RCV results as quickly as any other tabulation method. And even if there’s a delay, it’s a small price to pay for fairer representation.
The Benefits of Ranked Choice Voting
- RCV eliminates strategic voting.
Voters can express their true preferences instead of voting tactically. Returning to our earlier example, a voter who most prefers Candidate Three can rank them first, and Candidate Two second. If Candidate Three is eliminated in the first round of counting, the vote transfers to Candidate Two in the next round—ensuring the voter’s intent is respected. - RCV eliminates the spoiler effect.
Votes for minor candidates can transfer to major contenders based on voter preferences, reducing the likelihood of “spoiler” outcomes.
What’s Next (Part 2 Preview)
Remember the opening challenge: Let’s change this.
By “let’s,” I’m speaking to Skypunch clients managing private-sector elections. You might wonder what role you play in advancing RCV. The answer is simple: as so often happens, I believe the private sector will lead the public sector toward a better future. Part 2 of this series will focus on how your organization can make the switch and what benefits you can expect. Stay tuned for the link next month.
That’s not all you can do. Visit the Responsible Elections page of Americans Together to read up on its advocacy of a Final Four/Five solution and sign up to stay informed at the bottom of the home page.
