Ranked choice voting: Meaning, Criticisms & Real-World Uses

Hidden Link Pool:

What Is Ranked Choice Voting?

Ranked choice voting (RCV) is an electoral system where voters rank candidates in order of preference rather than choosing only one candidate. This method falls under the broader category of Political Economy, as it directly influences how political representation is determined and, by extension, how public resources may be allocated. In an RCV election, if no candidate secures a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The votes cast for the eliminated candidate are then redistributed to the voters' next preferred choices. This process of elimination and redistribution continues in rounds until one candidate achieves a Majority Rule of the votes. Ranked choice voting is also known as "instant-runoff voting" and aims to ensure that the winning candidate has broad support.

History and Origin

Ranked choice voting originated in mid-19th century Europe as a system for Proportional Representation in multi-winner elections. It was adopted in Australia for legislative elections in the 1850s. William Ware, an MIT professor, adapted RCV for single-winner or instant-runoff races in the 1870s. The Australian House of Representatives adopted this form in 1918, and the Australian Senate followed with the multi-winner format in 1948. Other countries, including Malta and the Republic of Ireland, also adopted RCV in the 20th century.¹⁷

In the United States, Ashtabula, Ohio, was the first jurisdiction to approve a ranked choice voting measure in 1915.¹⁶ New York City adopted it in 1936 for city council and school board races, though many cities that adopted RCV later repealed it due to opposition.¹⁵ However, RCV has seen a resurgence in the U.S., with Maine being the first state to use ranked choice voting in a federal election in November 2018.¹⁴

Key Takeaways

Ranked choice voting allows voters to rank candidates by preference, rather than selecting just one.
If no candidate wins an outright majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated to the next preferred choice.
This process continues until one candidate secures more than 50% of the votes.
RCV aims to elect candidates with broader support and can reduce the impact of "spoiler" candidates.
The system may encourage more civil campaigns as candidates seek second and third preferences from voters.

Formula and Calculation

The calculation for determining a winner in ranked choice voting involves a multi-round tabulation process. While there isn't a single "formula" in the mathematical sense, the process can be described algorithmically.

Let (V_i) be the set of votes for candidate (i) in a given round.
Let (C) be the set of all candidates.
Let (M) be the total number of valid votes cast.

First Round: Tally all first-choice votes for each candidate.
$\text{Votes for Candidate } i = \sum_{j=1}^{M} \mathbb{I}(\text{First choice of voter } j \text{ is candidate } i)$
where (\mathbb{I}(\cdot)) is the indicator function.
Majority Check: Determine if any candidate has received more than 50% of the total valid votes.
$\text{If } \exists i \in C \text{ such that } \frac{\text{Votes for Candidate } i}{M} > 0.5 \text{, then Candidate } i \text{ wins.}$
Elimination and Redistribution (if no majority): If no candidate has a majority, eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes.
$\text{Eliminate Candidate } k \text{ where } \text{Votes for Candidate } k = \min_{j \in C'} (\text{Votes for Candidate } j)$
where (C') is the set of remaining candidates.

Redistribute the votes from the eliminated candidate (k): For each ballot that ranked candidate (k) as the first choice, transfer that vote to the next highest-ranked candidate on that ballot who has not yet been eliminated.
$\text{Transfer votes from eliminated Candidate } k \text{ to their next valid ranked choice.}$
Repeat: Repeat steps 1-3 with the updated vote totals until a candidate achieves a majority.

This iterative process ensures that as candidates are eliminated, the preferences of voters whose top choice is no longer in contention are still factored into the outcome, contributing to the election of a candidate with broader support. The concept of Valid Votes is critical, as improperly marked ballots can be exhausted and not contribute to subsequent rounds.

Interpreting the Ranked Choice Voting

Interpreting ranked choice voting outcomes involves understanding that the winning candidate has achieved a majority of the votes, either in the initial count or after a series of vote redistributions. This differs from a plurality system, where a candidate can win with less than 50% of the vote if they simply have more votes than any other single candidate.

The application of ranked choice voting aims to ensure that the elected official truly represents a broad base of voters, not just a passionate plurality. For instance, in a traditional "first-past-the-post" system, votes cast for minor party candidates or less popular options might be considered "wasted" if those candidates do not win. Ranked choice voting mitigates this by allowing voters to express their preferences without fear of inadvertently helping a less favored candidate, which can impact Voter Turnout and Civic Engagement. The system is designed to identify the candidate with the strongest overall support, rather than just the most first-place votes.

Hypothetical Example

Consider a hypothetical election for a new community board director with four candidates: Alice, Bob, Carol, and David. There are 100 total voters.

Round 1: First Preferences

Alice: 35 first-choice votes
Bob: 28 first-choice votes
Carol: 20 first-choice votes
David: 17 first-choice votes

No candidate has a majority (more than 50 votes). David has the fewest votes (17) and is eliminated. The 17 voters who chose David as their first preference have their votes redistributed based on their second preference.

Round 2: Redistribution of David's Votes
Suppose of David's 17 voters:

8 had Carol as their second choice.
5 had Alice as their second choice.
4 had Bob as their second choice.

New Totals:

Alice: 35 + 5 = 40 votes
Bob: 28 + 4 = 32 votes
Carol: 20 + 8 = 28 votes

Still, no candidate has a majority. Carol now has the fewest votes (28) and is eliminated. Her 28 votes are redistributed based on the next valid preference on those ballots (which could be their original third choice if their second choice was David, or their second choice if their first was Carol).

Round 3: Redistribution of Carol's Votes
Suppose of Carol's 28 votes:

18 had Alice as their next preference.
10 had Bob as their next preference.

New Totals:

Alice: 40 + 18 = 58 votes
Bob: 32 + 10 = 42 votes

In Round 3, Alice now has 58 votes, which is more than 50% of the total votes (58 out of 100). Therefore, Alice is declared the winner. This example illustrates how ranked choice voting allows for a winning candidate to emerge with majority support even if they didn't have the most first-place votes initially, demonstrating a more robust Democratic Process.

Practical Applications

Ranked choice voting is primarily a feature of Electoral System design and shows up in various political contexts rather than directly in investing or financial markets. Its practical applications are centered on enhancing the electoral process and the representativeness of elected officials.

For instance, RCV is used in municipal, state, and even some federal elections to elect single officeholders. Maine, for example, uses RCV for federal elections, including the U.S. presidential race.¹³ New York City implemented ranked choice voting for its primary and special elections for various city offices, including mayor, public advocate, comptroller, borough president, and city council, starting in January 2021. The 2021 New York City mayoral primary was a notable application of RCV, where the Democratic primary saw Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams win in the final round of tabulation after not reaching 50% of the vote on election night.

Proponents argue that RCV reduces the "spoiler effect" often seen in plurality elections, where a third-party candidate can draw votes away from a major candidate, potentially leading to the election of the least preferred option for a majority of voters. It also aims to encourage candidates to appeal to a broader base of voters beyond their core supporters, as securing second and third preferences becomes crucial for victory. This can lead to more moderate candidates and more civil campaigns.¹² Studies of RCV implementation in New York City showed that nearly 90% of city voters ranked more than one candidate in at least one primary race, suggesting voters embraced the opportunity to express their true preferences rather than voting strategically.¹¹

Limitations and Criticisms

Despite its purported benefits, ranked choice voting faces several limitations and criticisms. A common concern is that the system can be more complex for voters to understand compared to traditional plurality voting. Critics argue that this complexity could lead to voter confusion, increased ballot errors, or even lower [Voter Turnout], particularly among less engaged voters. Some also raise concerns about increased ballot production costs.¹⁰

Another critique revolves around the "exhausted ballot" phenomenon. A ballot becomes exhausted if all the candidates ranked on it have been eliminated, or if the voter only ranked candidates who were eliminated early in the process. This means that a voter's ballot might ultimately not contribute to the final winning candidate, leading to a form of disenfranchisement for some.⁹ While proponents argue that RCV is less likely to result in exhausted votes than traditional systems are to result in "wasted" votes for non-winning candidates, it remains a point of contention.⁸

Furthermore, some argue that ranked choice voting can produce winners who are not the first choice of a majority of voters, or that the process can obscure which candidate truly has the strongest mandate. While the system aims to elect a candidate with majority support, the path to that majority through successive eliminations and transfers can be less intuitive than a simple first-past-the-post victory.⁷ The effectiveness of RCV in reducing [Political Polarization] and promoting moderation is also a subject of ongoing debate among political scientists and policymakers.

Ranked Choice Voting vs. Plurality Voting

Ranked choice voting and plurality voting are two distinct methods for determining the winner of an election, often causing confusion due to their differing approaches to vote tabulation.

Feature	Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)	Plurality Voting (First-Past-the-Post)
Voter Action	Voters rank candidates in order of preference (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.).	Voters select only one candidate.
Winning Condition	Candidate must achieve a majority (over 50%) of the votes, possibly after multiple rounds.	Candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether it's a majority.
Vote "Waste"	Aims to reduce "wasted" votes as preferences are transferred if a top choice is eliminated.	Votes for losing candidates are often considered "wasted."
"Spoiler Effect"	Designed to mitigate the "spoiler effect" of third-party candidates.	Susceptible to the "spoiler effect," where a minor candidate can impact the outcome.
Campaign Style	May encourage more positive campaigning as candidates seek broader appeal for later ranks.	Can foster more negative or targeted campaigning.
Complexity	Generally perceived as more complex for voters and ballot tabulation.	Simpler for voters and straightforward tabulation.

The core difference lies in how votes are counted and how a winner is determined. Plurality voting is a single-round system where the candidate with the highest number of votes wins, even if that number is less than 50%. This can lead to winners who are not supported by a majority of the electorate, particularly in races with multiple candidates. Ranked choice voting, by contrast, ensures that the winning candidate ultimately secures a majority of active votes through its iterative elimination and redistribution process. This fundamental distinction is key to understanding the ongoing debate surrounding [Electoral System] reform.

FAQs

What happens if I only rank one candidate in a ranked choice voting election?

If you only rank one candidate in a ranked choice voting election, your vote will count for that candidate in the first round. If your chosen candidate is eliminated, your ballot will be "exhausted," meaning it will not be transferred to any other candidate in subsequent rounds. While allowed, this negates one of the primary benefits of RCV, which is to ensure your vote continues to have an impact if your top choice is not viable.⁶,⁵

Does ranked choice voting increase voter turnout?

The impact of ranked choice voting on [Voter Turnout] is a subject of ongoing research. Some proponents argue that by reducing the "spoiler effect" and allowing voters to express their full preferences, RCV might encourage more people to participate. However, critics suggest that the added complexity of the system could potentially deter some voters. Overall, the evidence on RCV's direct effect on turnout is mixed and can vary by jurisdiction and election type.

Is ranked choice voting used in any major U.S. cities or states?

Yes, ranked choice voting is used in several U.S. cities and states. For instance, Maine uses RCV for federal elections and state primaries.⁴ New York City also implemented ranked choice voting for its primary and special elections starting in 2021, notably in the 2021 mayoral primary. Other jurisdictions, such as Minneapolis, have also adopted RCV for municipal elections.³

How does ranked choice voting affect campaign strategies?

Ranked choice voting can significantly alter campaign strategies. Candidates may be incentivized to appeal to a broader base of voters, including those who might rank them as a second or third choice, rather than solely focusing on energizing their base. This can lead to more collaborative or less negative campaigning, as alienating potential second or third preferences could be detrimental to a candidate's chances of winning.²

Can ranked choice voting lead to a less polarized political environment?

Proponents suggest that ranked choice voting can contribute to a less polarized political environment by encouraging candidates to seek broader appeal and build coalitions. When candidates need to attract second and third-choice votes from supporters of other candidates, they may adopt more moderate positions and engage in more civil discourse. Some analyses indicate that RCV has been associated with more moderate candidates and less polarized rhetoric in certain elections.¹