With the cry of “fairer elections,” advocates are promoting ranked-choice voting as a solution to the rampant partisanship and polarization currently plaguing the U.S. Touted as a democratic innovation, their model undermines the democratic principles of our electoral process and, ironically, often ends up disenfranchising voters.
Ranked choice voting differs from traditional election models in that voters do not choose one candidate for each office, but rather rank all candidates running for each office based on their preferences.
Instead of bringing about broader representation, ranked-choice voting creates confusion, uncertainty, and a loss of confidence that an individual’s vote matters.
In ranked-choice voting, if one candidate comes in first with more than 50% of the vote, that candidate automatically wins. However, if no candidate receives more than 50% support as their first choice, the lowest-ranked candidate in the race is eliminated and the voters who selected that candidate as their first choice are reassigned to the remaining candidates based on that voter’s second and sometimes third choices, depending on the number of candidates in the race.
Imagine if the 2024 presidential election were conducted using ranked-choice voting in battleground states to determine the Electoral College winner. In this hypothetical scenario, 45% of voters choose Donald Trump as their first choice, 44% choose Kamala Harris, and 11% choose Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Under the current system, Trump would win. Ranked choice voting would determine the outcome based on voters’ second choices.
Kennedy received the lowest support and is therefore eliminated from this hypothetical race. Voters who chose Kennedy as their first choice would then have their votes split between Trump and Harris based on their second choice. If significantly more Kennedy voters chose Harris as their second choice, Harris would win the race, even if Trump received more first-choice votes.
While most elections still follow the traditional model, ranked-choice voting has gained significant support in recent years. “As of the 2022 election,” the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center said. Reports“RCV has been adopted by 62 jurisdictions, including throughout Alaska and Maine, as well as major cities such as San Francisco and New York City.”
Some Americans are attracted to ranked-choice voting because it allows them to choose the candidate they like best, regardless of whether that candidate wins the election, and it can prevent an unpopular candidate with a small but dedicated base from winning in a crowded race with support split among many candidates.
Disenfranchise Voters
Despite its advantages, ranked-choice voting’s drawbacks outweigh its advantages and should be of concern to voters and policymakers who support such a system.
For example, in many prioritization systems, if a voter does not prioritize all candidates (which often happens due to confusion or laziness), their ballot is “used up,” which is a nice way of saying that their vote is invalid. This is nothing more than the erasure and disenfranchisement of the ballot caused by a voter confused by the rules.
This is not a theoretical concern, but a reality that silences the voices of people who have taken great care to exercise their right to vote.
For example, in Maine’s 2018 federal election, 9,000 voters (6% of ballots) were not counted due to voter confusion, missing ballots, or ballots that were left blank during the ranking process. Center for Election TrustRemember, many elections are won or lost by margins of less than 6 percentage points.
That’s not the only problem with ranked choice voting. Discovered by the Cato Institute Rank-order voting reduces voter participation and increases voting errors. Citing research by Cato, Government Accountability Foundation “In odd-numbered years, or years outside of an election cycle, voter turnout in RCV jurisdictions is on average 8% lower than in non-RCV jurisdictions,” it noted.
At a time when rebuilding trust in America’s electoral system is paramount, these outcomes are the opposite of what we need. How can we expect to restore confidence in our elections with a system that confuses voters and leads to widespread disenfranchisement?
Proponents of ranked choice voting say it allows a broader range of ideologies to be reflected in politics. Cato Instituteshows that this perceived diversity in candidate choices often stems from voter confusion and unfamiliarity with the candidates, rather than true consensus. Instead of resulting in broader representation, ranked choice voting creates confusion, uncertainty, and a loss of confidence that individuals’ votes matter.
Rank-order voting is inherently unfair because it effectively awards more than one vote to ideological and political minorities who support unpopular candidates in elections in which no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote.
After Democrat Jared Golden defeated Republican incumbent Rep. Bruce Poliquin in Maine’s 2018 House election (even though Poliquin received more votes in the first round of voting), one commenter wrote: In short: “That’s weird. The person with the most votes loses???”
Left wing dream
Rank-order voting is always described by its advocates as nonpartisan, but the truth is that it is currently being used by many on the left as part of an effort to weaken districts where conservatives hold the majority of power. This is why many of the groups promoting rank-order voting also happen to support left-wing policies.
For example, left-wing organizations Fair Boat and Let’s boost the vote They are lobbying hard to persuade lawmakers to adopt a voting system. These groups and their allies support policies like a national popular vote, open primaries, and universal voter registration — all of which are broadly popular on the left and unpopular with conservatives. Their wholehearted support for ranked choice voting is telling.
Thankfully, some states are starting to wake up to the dangers. 10 states States have recognized the threat ranked choice voting poses to the integrity of our elections and have banned it, which is a step in the right direction, but more states need to follow suit to protect our electoral process.
Rank-order voting excludes the voices of countless voters, creates endless, unnecessary confusion and prevents “We the People” from exercising their rights.
One person, one vote. That’s the way our system has worked for two centuries. Why change it now?
