Ranked-choice voting (RCV)—sometimes called preferential or instant-runoff voting—is gaining support among election reformers. Calling it the “master reform,” proponents argue that RCV can boost voter turnout, reduce the power of money in elections, improve campaigns’ substance, eliminate extremists, and encourage new political parties. Skeptics worry that it could confuse voters, depress turnout, raise the costs of election administration, and either allow too many outsiders to win or privilege incumbents and well-funded candidates. Some of these concerns are overblown. But while experimentation with RCV is worthwhile, evidence and experience offer reasons to doubt that it can be a panacea for American democracy’s woes.
Among the many versions of RCV, the most common in the U.S. is a set of rules permitting voters to rank as many as five candidates in order of preference (rather than requiring them simply to vote for one candidate). In single-seat elections, if no candidate gets a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated; those who marked that candidate as their first choice will see their second choice counted instead. This process repeats until one candidate emerges with a clear majority, in many cases winning with a substantial number of voters ranking him as their second or third choice.
Read Full Article »