THE RANKED-CHOICE VOTING ALTERNATIVE HOW DOES RANKED-CHOICE VOTING WORK?

Voters rank candidates by preference on their ballots.

● The first choice on every ballot is tallied. If a candidate acquires 50% plus one of the votes, then they are declared the winner. If none of the candidates receive the majority vote, the following occurs:

○ The candidate with the least votes is eliminated. If the eliminated candidate was a voter’s top choice, their vote is given to the next candidate on their ranking.

○ The votes are tallied up again, and the previous step is repeated until a candidate receives a majority.

KEY TERMS

● “Spoiler” Effect - When a candidate wins an election without the majority of the votes

● “Bullet” Voting - When a voter only votes for a single candidate instead of ranking

● Plurality Voting System - Also known as a winner-take-all system, a candidate wins if they receive more votes than their counterparts. Essentially, a candidate can win with less than the majority.

ARTICLE

As many young people living in the United States can attest, the sheer number of problems riddling this nation paints a grim image of the future. Although it can be difficult to imagine issues superseding the loss of abortion access and the looming recession, another quiet evil hangs in the shadows: voter suppression. For the unfamiliar, voter suppression is the practice of making voting inaccessible. Some of these methods include voter registration restrictions, gerrymandering, and cuts to early voting. Even so, efforts have sparked to return voting power to the people and even out the political landscape. One of these is the implementation of ranked-choice voting.

Ranked-choice voting, or RCV, was originally invented in the 1850s. Initially intended for multi-winner elections, William Ware, a professor at MIT, adapted the system for single-winner elections. The Constitution’s ‘Election Clause’ leaves the decision of voting systems to the states, but the U.S generally ascribed to plurality voting until 1915. As RCV began spreading throughout the U.S., displaced politicians and a harsh political climate led to the system’s repealing in many cities by the 60s. As the system’s popularity gained traction throughout the rest of the globe, it remained discredited in the U.S. That was until a few years ago, when a surge in voter suppression efforts renewed support for the system.

The largest benefit of RCV is that a candidate must win a majority, thus better representing the people’s will. Pluralist elections will sometimes be the subject of a “spoiler” effect. During Maine’s governor race in 2010, Paul LePage was the winning candidate with only 38% of the votes. Additionally, RCV allows third-party candidates to “siphon off” votes from major-party candidates. This could potentially assuage extreme bipartisanship by encouraging more centralist candidates with general appeal. In an RCV system, extremely partisan candidates have a narrow appeal that makes them less likely to be in people’s top choices.

Ranked-choice voting also minimizes negative campaigning. In our current voting system, candidates typically do better when they attack their opponents. However, because in an RCV system, candidates are also hoping to be the second choice of their opponent's supporters, they are incentivized to be positive and directly reach out to voters. Studies have shown that cities that use RCV see more positive media coverage and a more positive experience for voters.

These benefits set the groundwork for a political landscape that is more appealing to young voters. When gaining the right to vote at 18, many teens are learning and developing their political ideologies. Choosing between radical sides of the political spectrum that plurality elections have created can be extremely overwhelming. It also encourages voting third-party because if a voter’s first choice gets eliminated, that vote doesn’t immediately feel “wasted.”

Even so, the benefits of RCV are not all-encompassing, and the system does have some downsides. For starters, there is the possibility that many votes become null. If a voter’s “bullet” vote candidate is eliminated in the first round, their vote is virtually null. There is also the risk of incorrectly filled ballots leading to invalid votes due to the confusion that comes with a new system.

Currently, the branches of government stand paralyzed by polarizing bipartisanship, and it is unlikely an alternative voting system will affect elections in a meaningful way. Furthermore, it is possible for some extreme candidates to take advantage of the system. In a TIME magazine article, Anna Pruna Kambahampaty explains that “since candidates often win with the aid of lower-preference rankings, ranked-choice elections can incentivize parties to look for third-party candidates to insert into a race for their own benefit.”

For jaded young voters that have witnessed the effects of polarizing bipartisanship and corrupt politicians through social media, it seems unlikely that RCV will make any sort of difference. A new voting system fails to obstruct the dozens of anti-voting bills introduced into Congress each year. Neither does it successfully de-platform corrupt politicians. In some ways, RCV is nothing more than a castle in the air.

Currently, two states, Alaska and Maine, have implemented RCV for congressional and state elections. A handful of major cities, including Portland, Maine, and Cambridge, Massachusetts, abide by ranked-choice voting in certain elections. RCV has been implemented globally in Australia, New Zealand, Malta, and Ireland. Australia has been using RCV for over 100 years. Benjamin Reilly, an electoral system design expert at the University of Western Australia, said in an article for TIME magazine, “Both voters and politicians are very used to the idea of rankings and would probably see a system which did not allow that as lacking something and maybe even illegitimate.”

Voter suppression will undoubtedly continue affecting the future rights of many young voters. It is essential to consider efforts to stop this issue before it gets worse. Even if RCV doesn’t seem like the solution, it is a potential step. And there are currently many other efforts being made by organizations to stop it from getting worse.