The policy that best addresses this issue is the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting. Maine’s Department of The Secretary of State explains Ranked Choice Voting or Instant Runoff Voting as allowing “ voters to choose their candidates in order of preference, by marking candidates as their first, second, third, and subsequent choices.”(Maine.gov) The votes are then counted in rounds, with the lowest candidate being knocked out until there are two candidates (or one if it is a primary) left. Unlike plurality, the votes counted for the person knocked out don't just disappear. Everyone who put that knocked out candidate as their first choice gets their second choice counted towards the candidates left. By the time there are two (or one) candidates, every voters’ voice is heard and the candidate with a majority of the vote (over 50% at that point) would win. Ranked Choice Voting solves many of the flaws that commonly occur in Wisconsin elections. Rob Richie, CEO, and president of FairVote, gave an example during an interview with Sam Seder to show how intuitive Ranked Choice Voting is. He said “If you went into your local ice cream store and said, ‘gosh I really want strawberry ice cream today’ and you go in and they say ‘well we don't have strawberry ice cream’ and you say ‘well do you have butter pecan at least?’ That's your second choice; [so] if strawberry finished last in an election you [would have] to settle on butter pecan.” (Sam Seder: Youtube.com) If strawberry was the candidate that was your top choice but they took last (or was unavailable in the ice cream situation) then your vote would go to your second choice, butter pecan.
As mentioned before, Ranked Choice Voting solves the two main problems in the plurality system: the spoiler effect and gerrymandering (Fairvote.com). Both of these undermind voter choices and create a greater chance of unfair representation of the population. First, Ranked Choice Voting ensures that geography is not the main criterion when it comes to representation and assigns winners proportionally (Fairvote.com). Candidates focus on not only being voters’ number one choice but their second and/or third. This virtually eliminates the need for gerrymandering districts and causes more positive run campaign. David Packman, a political analyst, provided an example: “If you have a lot of people in Maine, for example…[who say] ‘really I like the third party candidate from the rent is too high party but I’m worried if I vote for him, [the candidate] who I really don't want coming in second...might come in first.’ Well [Ranked Choice Voting] solves it because you say ‘my number one choice is the rent is too high guy but then my number two choice is Hillary Clinton.’ If [the] rent is too high guy does not have enough votes to remain after round one, then your vote would be credited to Hillary Clinton.”(David Packman: Youtube.com) This is an example of how the spoiler effect is eliminated, giving the voters more choice.
There are, however, people opposed of Ranked Choice Voting succeeding the plurality system. A big reason for not wanting to change the system is just that: change. Many people are afraid of change and having to learn to use a new ballet. There is an overwhelming concern that making ballots that are more complicated will either confuse voters or deter them from voting completely (LVW.org). In Minneapolis, Minnesota, two systems are fused together-using Ranked Choice Voting for some elections and plurality for others. According to a video on Fairvote.com, an overwhelming number of Minneapolis voters expressed that the ballot used was user-friendly and easy to learn (Fairvote.com). As well, change is necessary and is the only thing that can cause progression.
Another criticism is the cost and efficiency of switching to a Ranked Choice system. A Ranked Choice system would require new computers and/or a very labor intensive count with a paper trail for recounts (LWV.org). It cost Maine approximately $250,000 to run their primaries under Ranked Choice Voting (Maine.gov). However, this argument falls apart after you analyze the Senate election in Florida’s 2018 midterm election. After a close race lead to a machine recount, the voting machines overheated, causing skewed results and chaos. This recount, according to FGCU political professor Peter Bergerson, could cost upward of ten million dollars* (NBCNews.com); for that much money, the results should at least be more reliable and accurate. Voting machines should be replaced more often than they are in many states already. Ranked Choice Voting may spark a well-needed replacement of machines. It would make sense to replace old machines with new Ranked Choice Voting capable ones. That could, in the end, divert a tie and cause fewer recounts, saving upwords of ten million in the first place. However, if there did happen to be a tie, the recount results would come out more accurate with new technology.
There are some minor disadvantages of switching to a Ranked Choice Voting system that will have to be addressed as time goes on. With a Ranked Choice system, though unlikely, not reaching a majority is still possible. If many votes did not rank all the candidates, the results could come up with no majority winner. Also, the vetting process is limited. Sense Ranked Choice Voting allows more candidates to have a fair shot at the position, the theoretical vetting process is limited. However, a new primary system would likely be put in place as time went on (LWV.org).
There are other policies that address the problems with the plurality system. One other policy that could be used to address the problem is range voting. Range voting is a system that has voters score each candidate on a scale of either zero to nine or zero to 99. Some proposed ballots have a “no opinion” option, which is rarely included on Ranked Choice ballots (RangeVoting.org). This gives the voter an option to not hold a stance on a candidate, whereas, in Ranked Choice Voting, it is expected (though not required) that a voter ranks all the candidates they like. Range Voting obviously gives voters way more power of choice than in the plurality system. It even gives voters more responsibility than in a Ranked Choice system. This directly addresses the issue at hand, voter representation and the value of a vote. All votes count to the maximum.
Despite the advantages of Range Voting, there are crucial issues that make this policy less viable than a Ranked Choice system. One of the most important aspect to consider when forming a policy is its potential to pass and become law. Range Voting holds little public support mainly because only a minority of the population knows of it and/or understands it. Unlike Ranked Choice voting, there are no other states that show a successful example of how this policy could work statewide. (RangeVoting.org) State legislatures would likely not back such an untested policy. As well, Range Voting is generally more confusing and more involved than Ranked Choice voting. Giving a numerical value to a candidate would likely cause more uncertainty in voters. For example, it is harder to decide if a candidate is a 23, 24, or 25 because the numbers are so close together. At a certain point, rewarding a candidate a numerical value becomes just picking random numbers close to where you stand. It is easier to decide who you support more rather than how much more you support them.
Plurality Preferential Block Voting is a policy similar to Ranked Choice Voting. This means that its advantages are similar: it creates more voter choice and gets rid of spoiler candidates and lessens gerrymandering. The main difference is what options are on the ballots. With Plurality Preferential Block Voting, voters choose what two candidates are their top choices and rank the remaining (aceproject.org). Though this does create choice, it pushes voters to have two candidates be equal when, in reality, people often have a favorite. Although this policy is better revered than Range Voting, it is also less known and under tested at the state level (aceproject.org). Unlike Ranked Choice Voting, data is limited and legislatures would likely favor the better tested and almost equal policy of Ranked Choice Voting.