Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)

A better way to conduct elections

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is a method of voting that allows voters to cast votes for more than one candidate for each office, ranking their choices in order of preference. When used in an election where there is a single winner (an executive office, such as president, governor, et cetera, or for seats in a legislature with single-member districts) the tabulation method for RCV ensures that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters (at some level of preference) instead of just a plurality (the most votes, even if that is less than a majority). This is in harmony with the primary principle of democracy – majority rule.

Ranked Choice Voting is even more powerful when combined with multiple member districts or at-large elections for constituting legislative bodies because it results in proportional representation – with political parties or other collections of like-minded voters holding a percentage of the seats in a legislature equal to the percentage of the votes the top candidates from each party receive in an election. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – one of the primary principles of democracy.

The benefits of ranked choice voting are not theoretical, they are based on observable differences between our "winner-take-all" system with single-member districts and more genuinely democratic systems that have been in place in more and more countries around the world dating back to 1899. (Over 90 countries have some form of proportional representation.)

Tabulating Ranked Choice Votes

Votes are tabulated in rounds. In the initial round of tabulation, only first choice votes are counted. If a candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, that candidate is elected.

If no candidate receives a majority of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated and the second-choice votes of voters who voted for that candidate as their first choice are distributed among the "continuing candidates". If a candidate then has a majority of the "cumulative votes", that candidate is elected.

If no candidate has a majority of the cumulative votes, the continuing candidate with the fewest cumulative votes is eliminated and the highest-ranked remaining choice votes of voters who voted for that candidate are distributed among the continuing candidates. This process is repeated for as many additional rounds of tabulation as necessary, until a candidate has a majority of the cumulative votes.

The simplest tabulation method for a legislature with multiple-member districts or at-large elections for legislators involves the same basic process as described above for single-winner elections. Instead of continuing the process of eliminating the candidate with the fewest cumulative votes until one candidate has a majority of the cumulative votes, the process is continued until the number of "continuing candidates” is equal to the number of members to be elected to a legislative body.

There are other more complicated processes for tabulating votes for legislatures with multiple-member districts. Some tabulation methods employ formulas involving “election thresholds” and for dealing with “surplus votes”. The end result of any of the commonly accepted methods is that the candidates with the broadest and deepest support are elected.

The Benefits of Ranked Choice Voting

Winning candidates have majority support

In elections with plurality winners, the candidate with the most votes (a “plurality”) wins. When there are more than two candidates, the winner may have less than a majority of the votes cast. The more choices we have, as voters, the smaller the percentage of the votes needed to win. If there are three candidates to choose from and the votes are evenly split, a candidate can win with as little as 34% of the votes cast. With five candidates on the ballot, a candidate can win with as little as 21% of the votes cast. This can be a major problem when several candidates have similar views on the issues and divide up the votes of like-minded voters. For example, if a public option for health care is supported by two-thirds of the voters in a state or district and there are four candidates on the ballot, if three of the candidates support a public option for health care and a federal job guarantee, they will split the votes of like-minded voters between them – averaging just over 22% of the votes cast. The candidate who is out of step with two-thirds of the voters may win with 33% of the vote.

When used in an election where there is a single winner (an executive office, such as president, governor, et cetera; or for seats in a legislature with single-member districts) the tabulation method for ranked choice voting ensures that winning candidates have the support of a majority of the voters (at some level of preference) instead of just a plurality (the most votes, even if that is less than a majority). This is in harmony with the primary principle of democracy – majority rule.

Eliminates concerns about "wasted votes" and "the spoiler effect"

In a “winner-take-all” system with plurality winners, and with major party candidates typically having a significant better chance of winning than minor party or independent candidates, voting for a minor party or independent candidate can make it more likely that the major party candidate you least support may win over a major party candidate who would be your preferred choice between the two major party candidates. With ranked choice voting, you can vote for the candidates you support, in order of your true preferences, knowing that, as long as you include the major party candidate you prefer to the other major party candidate somewhere among your choices, you will not help the major party candidate you oppose and your vote will not be “wasted” by voting for a candidate you truly prefer, but who might not have as good a chance of winning.

Give voters more choices

With ranked choice voting you can vote for all the candidates you truly prefer, in order of preference, including minor party or independent candidates, without worrying about the “spoiler effect” or wasting your vote, if you choose one of the major party candidates among your preferences.

Discourages negative campaigning ("attack ads")

Most voters are tired of, and turned off by, attack ads and mudslinging. With ranked choice voting, candidates do best when they reach out positively to as many voters as possible, including those supporting their opponents. While candidates must still differentiate themselves to earn first choice support, attacking other candidates can alienate voters who might otherwise cast a vote for a candidate among their other choices. Having more than one opponent also makes it much more difficult to win by attacking other candidates.

Makes primary elections and run-offs unnecessary

The introduction of primary elections to determine the candidates of political parties was a significant victory for democracy and for the Progressive Movement of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, allowing citizens to have an important role in the process of nominating candidates. It is a reform, however, that has not aged well.

In addition to the financial cost to governments of conducting an additional election, primary elections (and run-offs in “Top Two” or “Top Four” elections) add to the cost of running for office for candidates. And the need to raise enormous amounts of money to win election to office is a major source of corruption within our present system.

Voter turnout is also typically much lower for primary elections. The citizens who do vote in primary elections are often extremely passionate about certain issues and candidates. When more moderate voters are not involved, candidates with extreme views (many of whom are well-funded by corporate interests) are more likely to be nominated. And when most of the congressional and legislative districts have been gerrymandered to favor one or the other of the two major political parties, the extreme candidates who are nominated usually win.

Ranked Choice Voting makes primary elections and run-offs unnecessary. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is sometimes referred to as “Instant Run-Off Voting” (IRV). With voters able to rank numerous candidates in order of preference, Ranked Choice Voting narrows the field of candidates and results in the candidate with the broadest support winning election to office.

“Top Two” and “Top Four” systems where the field is narrowed to two or four candidates in a primary is a form of ranked choice voting, but it is not as efficient as Ranked Choice Voting.

Increased voter participation

It should not be surprising that more voters vote in countries with some form of proportional representation experience. When voters feel that their vote matters, they are more likely to vote.

Change if you want it - but no big change if you don't.

A lot of people are intimidated by change. And ranked choice voting is a major change in the way we conduct elections. However, voters who are reluctant to embrace new ways of voting do not have to do anything different with ranked choice voting. They can simply cast a single vote for a single candidate and stop there. Voters who want to take advantage of RCV, however, should be able to do so. Voters should be able to list a reasonable number of candidates in order of preference.

Proportional Representation

The systems of ranked choice voting that have been adopted in the United States so far have only been for elections with a single winner. When ranked choice voting is used to elect the members of a legislative body with multiple member districts it results in a form of proportional representation. To use John Adams’ language - equal interests among the people have equal interests in the representative assembly. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – another primary principle of democracy.

Ranked choice voting is even more powerful when combined with multiple member districts for electing members of a legislature. It results in a form of proportional representation – with political parties or other collections of like-minded voters holding a percentage of the seats in a legislature equal to the percentage of the votes the top candidates from each party receive in an election. Legislatures with proportional representation more accurately reflect the will of the people – another primary principle of democracy.

Breaks the Duopoly (Two-Party System)

“Winner-take-all” systems with single member districts are nearly always dominated by two major parties. Countries with some form of proportional representation (like RCV with multimember districts) nearly always have more than two viable political parties. With more candidates running, both within parties and from different parties, RCV gives voters a much broader range of choices. No more "lesser-of-two-evils" elections.

Neutralizes Gerrymandering

Research has shown that the effects of gerrymandering are neutralized in legislatures electing at least five members from each district. With state-wide, at large elections, gerrymandering is eliminated completely. Electing members of a legislative body "at large" or from multi-member districts also neutralizes distortions in representation resulting from the uneven distribution of partisan voters.

More voters are represented

Increasing the number of members elected from a district also increases the chances that voters who support minor parties and independent candidates will be represented. Experience has demonstrated a strong correlation between the number of candidates elected from a multiple-members district and the number of parties represented in a legislature.

All elections are competitive and every vote matters

The method by which we choose our representatives in Congress, state legislatures, and local governments has failed to even come close to constituting ideal representative assemblies. We have not managed "to prevent unfair, partial, and corrupt elections".

The fact that we have a two-party system (a duopoly) typically limits voters to a choice between the candidates representing the two dominant political parties, which many voters have come to consider a choice between the "lesser-of-two-evils". The combined effects of gerrymandering, natural distortions in representation resulting from uneven partisan distribution, and the advantages of incumbency make most districts "safe" for the candidates of one of the two major parties makes matters even worse. With less than 10% of the elections being competitive, voters in more than 90% of congressional districts are left with something worse than a choice between the lesser of two evils - no meaningful choice at all.

The fact that a challenger has almost no chance of winning keeps many potential candidates from running and makes it extremely difficult for those who do run to raise the money and recruit the volunteers necessary to run a viable campaign. With RCV in multi-member districts, every election is competitive. Every vote matters.

Ranked Choice Voting on Issues

Combining Ranked Choice Voting with referendums would provide voters with a simple method for choosing between several different proposals addressing a single issue or problem.

For example, rather than simply voting for or against raising the minimum wage to a single dollar amount, voters could be offered a range of choices (no increase, $15 per hour, $50 per hour, et cetera) and allowed to rank their choices in order of preference. Or, regarding a public option for health care, voters could choose between repealing the Affordable Care Act with no replacement (which has been proposed numerous times by Republicans in Congress), Medicare-for-All (which has been proposed by some Democrats in Congress), or a public option (sometimes described as “Medicare for All Who Want It”).

The tabulation method would be the same as for candidates.

Popular Election of Presidents Using RCV

Avoiding a foreseeable constitutional crisis

A sizable majority of voters in America are even more upset than usual this year about the choices for president being offered by the two major political parties. Neither major party candidate has a positive approval rating.

All of the candidates listed on the sample ballot (right) were on the ballot in one or more states in 2020. There will be other candidates on the ballot in most states this year, but without ranked choice voting in place, voters who cast their ballot for alternative candidates are almost certainly casting "wasted votes". If enough votes are cast for alternative candidates the "spoiler effect" may lead to the major party candidate, who would have won in a head-to-head match-up, losing electoral votes in some states, because of the wasted votes cast for other candidates. That can lead to the candidate with the most popular votes nationwide losing in the Electoral College, as happened in the presidential elections of 2000 and 2016.

If a minor party or independent candidate were to actually win enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from winning a majority of the electoral votes, within the system that is in place, that would trigger the even more anti-democratic process provided for in the 12th Amendment, with the House of Representatives electing the president, with each state having a single vote, regardless of size.

We need to amend our Constitution to provide for direct election of the president using ranked choice voting. That will allow us to eliminate primary elections (saving a considerable amount of money), give voters more choices, without triggering anti-democratic procedures, and ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference).

The Electoral College has overruled the voters (the popular vote) in two of the last six presidential elections. This is blatantly undemocratic. It is time to abolish the Electoral College and move to direct election of the president and vice-president by the people, using ranked choice voting to ensure that the winning candidate has the support of a majority of voters (at some level of preference).

We have, so far, avoided an even more antidemocratic process for electing the president that would be triggered if one or more independent or third-party candidates won enough electoral votes to prevent any candidate from receiving a majority of the electoral votes. In that event, the 12th Amendment, as it stands, provides for the House of Representatives to elect the president with each state, regardless of population, casting a single vote. The vice-president would be elected by the Senate.

Within the present system, voting for any candidate other than one of the two major party candidates is almost certain to be a “wasted vote” because none of the other candidates have a realistic chance of winning a plurality of the votes. In an election that is closely contended by the two major party candidates, the “spoiler effect” may result in the candidate who would have won a majority of the votes in a two-person race losing. That was the case in 2000, when Ralph Nader got enough votes in Florida, most of which would otherwise have gone to Al Gore, to tip that state (and the election) to George W. Bush.

By allowing voters to cast votes for more than one candidate and rank their choices in order of preference, ranked choice voting eliminates concerns about wasted votes and the spoiler effect for voters who include the major party candidate they prefer somewhere among their choices.

This is the proposed text of a constitutional amendment that would provide for the direct election of the President by popular vote using Ranked Choice Voting:

The material on this website is adapted from a soon to be published book: Government by the People: A Citizen's Guide to Making America a Perfect Democracy by Winston Apple.

This website was created by, is maintained by, and paid for by Winston Apple,

Government by the People