The Case for Ranked-Choice Voting
Abe Kaul and Ian Harwick, New Leaders Council Denver
The United States of America is somewhat unique in many ways; such way is with first-past-the-post voting. While there are many developed countries that use proportional voting and multi-member districts the United States, for the most part, still has single-member districts. This is largely due to our two-party system. Most U.S. Presidential elections have gone smoothly, but five times in our country’s history the winner of the popular vote has lost the election due to losing the Electoral College, including twice in the past 18 years.
Voter often complain about a “lack of choice” in elections, a feeling often associated with the U.S.’s primary system and strong two-party system. Recent history has shown a need for electoral change, and ranked-choice voting system of instant runoff voting could be the answer. In this essay we will examine: where did ranked choice voting originate, why ranked choice voting is the smart choice for the United States, where it is happening in the US currently, is it fiscally responsible to do, and are there any potential negative attributes to it.
English writer Thomas Hare was the first to raise the concept of ranked-choice voting in the mid-19th century. Hare thought it would accommodate minority interests while protecting majority rule. [1]In the early 20th century, Australia became the first country to implement ranked-choice voting and now some variation of it is used in countries in five continents.[2]A handful of U.S. cities utilize ranked-choice voting and in 2016, Maine became the first state to implement it.[3]In the 2018 midterms, Congressman Jared Golden surpassed the Republican candidate for Congress in the Maine 2nd Congressional District utilizing reallocated — or second choice votes — initially cast for third party candidates. This most recent election in Maine could be the springboard to see it move to more states and perhaps use in Presidential elections, proving the statement that states are the laboratories of democracy. New Hampshire is currently exploring using a ranked-choice voting system for its Presidential primaries. [4]
While ranked-choice voting does seem to have a successful origin story it also may be the smarter, way to go that would allow for underrepresented voices to be heard. With ranked-choice voting, voters ranked their candidates in order of choice on their ballot. First choice votes are counted and if no single candidate has a majority of votes (50% plus 1) then the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Those who voted for that candidate have their ballot counted for their second choice candidate. The process is continued until one candidate has a simple majority of all votes.
Ranked-choice voting allows voters to initially vote for a candidate that they like best but may not feel is viable to win the election due to the US’s strong two-party system. This system may lead to more positive and issue-driven campaigns as candidates need to appeal to voters as their second choice. In addition, with ranked-choice voting, candidates are elected by majority vote rather than a plurality, allowing more voters to be represented by someone they voted for.
Ranked-choice voting could work for the Presidential elections as well, “Battleground states could adopt RCV, making it easier for voters to vote for a third-party candidate without worrying about how that vote will affect the ultimate bottom line. Of those 97,488 Nader voters in 2000, Al Gore would surely have received more than 537 votes more than Bush. There is no reason the election system should force them either to vote for their second choice or help throw the election to their third,” said Lawrence Lessig, a 2016 candidate for President [5].
Ranked-choice voting could also be a more cost effective system, since primaries could, in essence, happen on the general election ballot. For example, Colorado spends anywhere between $7.5 million and $14.5 million on each statewide election.[6]Reducing the number of elections in a given year, could be a real cost saver for taxpayers. [7]Ranked-choice voting is an appealing alternative to elevate often overlooked candidates, and provides voters with a way to prioritize and strategy how they will cast their vote. Corey Cook, the dean of Boise State University’s School of Public Service, who researches ranked-choice voting, says “RCV tends to work best in races where there are a few candidates whom voters have an easy time distinguishing from one another, like a presidential election where voters have a lot of information and the candidates have party affiliations […] I see people having the opportunity to get educated on a host of candidates. And ranked choice has introduced new ways for citizens to vote. Some say they are going to vote their conscience and then go with an alternative who has a good chance to prevail. Others say they are going to vote for their top two and have a third as a firewall. It has introduced all these new strategies.”[8]
Certainly ranked-choice voting is not a perfect system. Some voters feel the person who gets the most votes the first time should be the winner. Additionally, due to voter fatigue, voters may not rank all candidates,which could disrupt the system. It may be possible this new system may confuse voters and voter turnout could wane, and it has never been done in a country the size of the United States.
While ranked-choice voting is a system that may sound complicated at first, the reality is that it is a simpler, easier, more democratic, and fiscally responsible way to hold elections in the U.S. Local jurisdictions and now the State of Maine are serving as great case-studies for how American voters will react when utilizing ranked-choice voting. Americans should strive to have the best electoral system possible; one that represents our democratic ideals. We believe that that system is ranked-choice voting.
Abe Kaul is the COO for the Center for Legal Inclusiveness (CLI) a nonprofit that’s dedicated to creating inclusive workplaces for legal professionals. He also serves an Alumni Co-Chair on the NLC Denver Board. He’s a graduate of Seattle University School of law where he received a J.D. and received his B.A. in Political Science from Linfield College.
Ian Harwick was a 2017 fellow in Denver and is now the Deputy Director of NLC Denver. He is an experienced business consultant and community organizer with a demonstrated history of working with new, innovative companies, and underrepresented communities. He is now working on the creation of a new line of all natural cannabis topicals.
[1]https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/08/07/ranked-choice-voting-as-maine-goes/
[2]https://www.vox.com/2018/12/9/18133184/maine-ranked-choice-voting-australia-ireland
[3]https://www.the-american-interest.com/2018/08/07/ranked-choice-voting-as-maine-goes/
[4]https://www.pressherald.com/2019/01/30/new-hampshire-considers-ranked-choice-voting-for-primary/
[5]https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/11/16/ranked-choice-voting-maine-protest-candidates-election-2018-column/2023574002/
[6]https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/ACE/ElectionCostStatistics/ACEUserGuide.pdf
[7]https://my.lwv.org/vermont/article/pros-and-cons-instant-runoff-ranked-choice-voting
[8]https://www.minnpost.com/politics-policy/2017/11/lazy-persons-guide-ranked-choice-voting-minneapolis-and-st-paul/
