In an op-ed for the New York Times, Howard Dean (yeah, yeah, that guy) argued that the U.S. should adopt a “ranked-choice” voting system to give third party candidates a better chance at becoming a real factor in elections and to mitigate voters’ need to choose the lesser of two evils.

The idea has been around for a while, but as Dean notes with nearly 10 percent of the electorate saying they’ll vote for Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson or Green Party nominee Jill Stein for president, it’s worth revisiting. Some states are also looking at adopting the voting system, including Maine, which will ask voters this November whether they want to use ranked-choice voting for state and congressional races going forward.

So, what is ranked-choice voting?

In this kind of system (also known as “instant-runoff voting”), voters will see all of the candidates running for a particular office on their ballots and be able to rank them in order of preference, rather than just picking one. Then, the number one choices of all are counted. If a candidate gets a majority (50 percent plus one vote), that person wins. If not (which is likely in a contested election, particularly with several candidates), then the last-place candidate is eliminated and their supporters’ votes are transferred to their next preferred candidate. That keeps going until one candidate has a majority and is declared the winner.

Pro

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates in their order of preference, which enhances their voice and also helps third parties. Ranking choices allows voters to support the candidates they want without factoring in who is more likely to win in their state or district.

The current system punishes candidates with similar bases of support. Candidates can now split the majority of the popular vote, resulting in the election of a candidate who is didn’t earn the support of most voters. Ranked-choice voting would change that.

Con

Ranked-choice voting can result in a winner who had fewer first-choice votes than other candidates, which doesn’t seem fair. Additionally, voters are familiar and comfortable with the existing voting system where the candidate with the most votes wins. Introducing ranked-choice voting would be unnecessarily complicated.

There’s also a way to vote strategically that could undermine elections called “bullet voting.” If a candidate encourages his or her supporters to vote for them as a first choice and not rank the other candidates, it could give that person an advantage.

Tell your reps

What do you think? Should the U.S. switch to ranked-choice voting for congressional or presidential elections? Let them know.

Maine could adopt ranked-choice voting in November

Question 5 on the Maine ballot this November would put ranked-choice voting in place for all statewide and congressional races in the state starting in 2018. If it passes, Maine will be the first state in the U.S. to use ranked-choice voting for members of Congress, the governor, and state legislators. (Learn more).

Other states

Legislatures in three other states are considering legislation to adopt ranked-choice voting for general elections: Indiana, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, according to FairVote.org, which advocates for ranked-choice voting nationwide.

Some areas already use ranked-choice voting

Several cities already use ranked-choice voting for mayoral and/or local races, according to FairVote. Those cities include Berkeley, California; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Oakland, California; Portland, Maine; San Francisco, California; San Leandro, California; St. Paul, Minnesota; Takoma Park, Maryland; and Telluride, Colorado.

Additionally, Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana, South Carolina and Springfield, Illinois, use ranked-choice voting for overseas ballots in runoff elections, according to FairVote.

— Sarah Mimms and Eric Revell

Photos by Gage Skidmore/Flickr

Get daily, non-partisan news from Countable in your inbox

Originally published on Tumblr