Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is often promoted as a solution to improve the electoral process, but there are several reasons why it may not deliver on its promises and could even introduce new issues.
1. RCV is Complex and Confusing for Voters: While proponents argue that RCV helps eliminate the “lesser of two evils” mindset, it’s far from straightforward. Voters are required to rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting just one, which can be confusing—particularly for older voters or those less engaged in politics. A 2021 study in Maine found that nearly 1 in 10 voters submitted incomplete or incorrectly marked ballots, which effectively disqualified their votes. In this scenario, RCV doesn’t enhance democracy; it disenfranchises voters.
2. RCV Doesn’t Necessarily Produce Majority Winners: While RCV is designed to produce a majority winner, it doesn’t always do so. As voters’ lower choices are redistributed, it’s common for ballots to become “exhausted,” meaning they no longer count because the voter did not rank all candidates. In some elections, the winner is selected with a “majority” of the remaining active ballots, not the majority of all voters who participated in the election. This undermines the concept of a true majority winner and can distort the final outcome.
3. Increased Costs and Administrative Burdens: Implementing RCV can be costly and logistically complex, especially in areas with older voting infrastructure. New equipment, staff training, and voter education campaigns are required to manage the process effectively. In places like New York City, RCV led to confusion during its rollout, adding to delays in vote counting and increasing administrative costs. For states already facing budgetary challenges, adding the complexities of RCV could divert resources from other essential services.
4. Encourages Strategic Voting and Candidate Manipulation: Advocates claim that RCV reduces negative campaigning and encourages candidates to appeal to broader audiences. However, in practice, RCV can actually incentivize strategic behavior, where candidates coordinate to become the “second choice” rather than focusing on winning outright. This could lead to an increase in “backroom deals” and alliances, where political insiders determine outcomes rather than the electorate.
5. Potential for Increased Polarization and Fragmentation: While some argue that RCV can reduce polarization by favoring consensus candidates, the reality can be the opposite. With the opportunity to rank multiple candidates, fringe or single-issue candidates can gain more visibility, leading to a fragmented political landscape. Instead of creating more unity, it can deepen divides and encourage parties to splinter, making governance even more challenging.
6. Proven Success is Limited: Proponents often point to Maine and Alaska as success stories, but the results are mixed. In Maine’s 2018 congressional race, the candidate who won with RCV actually received fewer first-choice votes than his opponent. This led to accusations that RCV allowed a less popular candidate to win, which fuels public distrust. Similarly, Alaska’s implementation has seen pushback from voters and confusion, undermining its legitimacy.
Ultimately, while RCV is well-intentioned, it may not achieve its goals and could introduce new problems. Simplifying voting systems, rather than adding layers of complexity, may be a more effective way to engage voters and produce clear, fair outcomes.
