In this column, two journalists write about their opposing viewpoints on controversial issues. This month, Audrey will be making the argument for adopting a system of ranked choice voting for political candidates, and Phoenix will be making an argument in opposition.
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is a practice in electoral politics where, instead of choosing a single candidate in a process called plurality voting, voters rank candidates by their first choice, second choice, and so on. Voters can choose to rank more than one candidate, but they may not place the same candidate in their ranking twice.
This electoral practice is meant to ensure the winning candidate receives over 50% of the vote. All first choices are counted first. If a candidate receives 50%, then that candidate wins the election. If no candidate reaches 50%, then the last-place candidate is eliminated. The ballots for the eliminated candidate are then redistributed based on their next highest choice. If a candidate reaches 50% after redistribution, then that candidate wins. If not, then the process repeats: eliminate the lowest candidate and redistribute votes until a candidate surpasses 50%.
Currently, most U.S. states and districts use plurality voting or “first-past-the-post voting.” In this system, every voter selects one candidate, and the candidate who receives the most votes wins. Recently, some states and districts have adopted ranked-choice voting for statewide, primary, or general elections. According to the National Council of State Legislatures, "Alaska and Maine are the only states to use ranked choice voting for statewide elections. Some cities in the U.S. use ranked-choice voting for general elections, including St. Paul, Minn., Portland, Maine, and several cities in the San Francisco Bay Area. Other locations, including New York City, use ranked choice voting in primary elections. Cambridge, Mass. and Minneapolis, Minn., use ranked choice voting in multimember districts." In this article, Audrey (on the left) will debate why U.S. States and Districts should continue or adopt ranked choice voting systems. Phoenix (on the right) will make the argument for why ranked choice voting should not be utilized.
Argued by: Audrey Roetling
Argued by: Sir Phoenix C. Robinson
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is designed to produce electoral outcomes that more accurately reflect the collective preferences of the majority. Unlike traditional single-choice voting systems, RCV enables voters to rank candidates in order of preference. This system ensures that voter preferences are taken into account, even if a voter's top choice is eliminated, thereby enhancing the representativeness of the election result. The process is simple, with voters just coloring in the corresponding bubbles for their choices, much like how children might rank their favorite colors: "First purple, then pink, then blue!" Then, if the first-choice candidate does not win, people are still able to contribute to helping their second or third choice win.
By contrast, the current Plurality Voting system can allow candidates to win without a true majority. In the 1968 election, according to Britannica: “Overall, Nixon won 43.4 percent of the vote to Humphrey’s 42.7 percent, and Wallace captured 13.5 percent." This result indicates that the winner may have lacked broad support, which undermines the legitimacy of the outcome. This leads to a lack of political participation, either because people believe that their votes do not matter, or because voters believe that neither of the two parties represents any of their personal values. RCV may even encourage more voter turnout now that the people have more options to represent them.
RCV has the potential to enhance overall voter satisfaction with elected officials by fostering outcomes that more closely reflect the electorate’s diverse preferences. By allowing voters to rank multiple candidates, RCV encourages the participation of third parties and independent candidates, reducing the dominance of the two-party system. This multiplicity of choices can broaden political representation and give rise to candidates who appeal to a wider spectrum of ideological views, including more moderate policy positions that bridge the divide between parties. Furthermore, RCV incentivizes candidates to appeal to a broader electorate, as they must often seek second and third-choice rankings from individuals outside their core base. This promotes more respectful campaigns, since negative attacks on opponents risk alienating potential supporters who would more likely place them as second-choice candidates that are well-mannered towards their first choice. This encourages candidates to focus on policy proposals to get outcomes that more accurately embody the will of the electorate, rather than harsh competition against the opposing party.
Overall, RCV represents the collective majority, suggests higher voter satisfaction and encourages campaigns that are policy-based, include a variety of perspectives, and are more respectful. RCV allows the electorate to be represented, regardless of necessarily winning their first choice in the election.
Ranked-choice voting is unbeneficial to the advancement of democracy. This technique of voting is complex and most citizens need diagrams to help grasp the process. A good system of voting is one that everyone can understand with ease, not one where someone would need to watch a twenty-minute YouTube video on it to get a basic understanding of the system.
One of the reasons I have such disdain for ranked-choice voting is that it creates a system in which some of the least favorite candidates have a shot at winning an election. It is no better than the electoral college. According to the City of Portland, ranked-choice voting typically offers a six-person ranking from best to worst. If a candidate does not win over 50% of the votes, then the least-voted candidate's votes will be distributed to the voter's second choice. If there is still nobody, then the process continues until someone has over 50% of the vote. This system allows for a candidate who originally got 25% of the popular vote to beat one who got 45%. What kind of democracy is that? When a system of voting just complicates what should be a simple democracy, it becomes an unnecessary bureaucratic bulk, which is a shallow attempt at disrupting democracy instead of enhancing it.
According to the Institute for Responsive Government, out of nine states that voted on the addition of RCV in 2024, seven of them rejected it in total. This includes the State of Oregon. This demonstrates that, regardless of partisanship, states understand that ranked-choice voting is not beneficial.
Voting method is a topic that is frequently debated in democratic societies. As technology and knowledge advance, scholars and politicians alike are always trying to devise a "better" way of voting. The answer to the great vote debate has never been simpler. RCV complicates what could alternatively be a very simple popular vote. While ranked-choice voting looks good on paper, at the end of the day, it is more straightforward and thus beneficial to maintain popular choice voting.
Now that you have read the argument in favor of ranked choice voting and the argument in opposition, it is up to you to decide if the United States is better off sticking to a system of plurality voting or if it would be better to take up a system of ranked choice voting.
