Big Idea: Ranked-Choice Voting
Ranked-choice elections, which allow voters to express their preference for third-party candidates without “splitting the vote,” could help bring disillusioned Americans back to the ballot box.
J. Patrick Patterson
![](https://imgproxy.gridwork.co/wYiov3kaS3ouJ0H07_5w2sRlhanwQOkU-P2AOOakCDs/w:900/h:657/rt:fill/g:fp:0.5:0.5/q:82/el:1/aHR0cHM6Ly9zMy51cy1lYXN0LTEuYW1hem9uYXdzLmNvbS9pbi10aGVzZS10aW1lcy80OTAxdy5PUGJpZ0lkLnZvdGluZy5qcGc.jpg)
ranked-choice vo•ting
noun
- an electoral system in which voters order candidates by preference, as an alternative to first-past-the-post systems
Sounds complicated.
It doesn’t have to be! Here’s how it works: If more than 50% of voters choose the same top candidate, we have a winner, same as ever. Otherwise — when no candidate crosses that threshold in the first round — votes for the least popular candidate get redistributed to voters’ next choice. Rinse and repeat until we have a winner.
OK, but why?
In our first-past-the-post system, third-party candidates are derided for “splitting the vote.” Here, it’s possible that most of the electorate hates the winner — or that someone can win office even if they largely ignore most voters. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) lets people vote their conscience without fear of helping their least acceptable candidate.
How popular is it?
According to FairVote, a nonpartisan organization that advocates for RCV, 51 jurisdictions across the country use it for all public elections — three counties, 46 cities and two states. Maine, in 2018, became the first state to use RCV in a federal election, followed by Alaska in 2022.
So far — contra complaints that RCV is a plot to confuse voters — voters have had little trouble navigating it. “Relatively few ballots in RCV elections contain an error, and even fewer ballots are rejected,” according to professors at Utah Valley University. And research compiled by FairVote shows a positive effect on turnout and voter outreach.
Perhaps that’s why, after Alaskans had their first RCV election, most voters said they felt their vote mattered more. In November 2024, Alaskans voted to keep it.
And several more jurisdictions voted to adopt RCV reforms in November, including Charlottesville, Va., Portland, Ore., Washington, D.C., and Westbrook, Maine. There’s a long way to go — similar statewide initiatives failed in Idaho, Colorado, Nevada and Oregon — but RCV is growing in popularity. Since 2016, the number of people living in areas with RCV has increased seven-fold.
So, no more nose-hold voting?!
RCV doesn’t necessarily promise better candidates, but proponents argue RCV fosters more civil campaigning (fewer cringey attack ads!), encourages a larger and more diverse field of candidates and reduces political polarization.
Tens of millions of people stayed home this Election Day. Reform efforts like RCV could be an exciting way to engage voters fed up with the status quo.
This is part of “The Big Idea,” a series offering brief introductions to progressive theories, policies, tools and strategies that can help us envision a world beyond capitalism.
J. Patrick Patterson is the Associate Editor at In These Times. He has previously worked as a politics editor, copy editor, fact-checker and reporter. His writing on economic policies and electoral politics has been published in numerous outlets.