Ranked Choice Voting

Fifth in a series on moving toward a multiparty democracy

For the past few months, I’ve been taking deep dives into the importance of fixing American democracy (here and here), and thoughts about how we might do that (here and here). Today, I’m beginning to focus on what is actually happening.

The movement toward multiparty democracy in the United States now comprises two pieces: a very active, grassroots Ranked-Choice-Voting movement that has had early success in changing voting structures across the United States; and the Fair Representation Act currently stalled in Congress, awaiting Supreme Court decisions that may necessitate changes in how the Act is written.

Ranked Choice Voting Is a First Step

Ranked choice voting (RCV) is a relatively minor change to the electoral process that will have a major positive impact on American politics.  It is a straightforward change that makes sense to most people.  It can be used in elections for President, for the US Senate and the US House of Representatives as well as elections at every level from state legislature to school boards to city councils.  RCV can be used in single member districts or multimember districts.  It is an electoral change that states can make without any action from Congress, even for federal elections.  

As you can see from this page on the RankTheVote website, ranked-choice voting is already being used across the country.  Twenty-eight states include at least one jurisdiction that uses RCV.  Fifty-four jurisdictions across the country have used or enacted RCV.  

Below, from Lee Drutman’s Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop is an example of how it might work in a particular election with a sample ballot with five candidates.  The voter fills in the ellipses for their five choices. 

 The tallying of the votes might proceed as follows:

Let’s say after the first count the tally is:

Betsy Edelmann-Ryssdal (Republican)—30%
Jalil Smiley-McGraw (Democrat)—26%
Christine Horvath-Gonzales (Centrist-Independent)—24%
Susan McLaughlin-Malaki (Green)—12%
John Green-Bertrand (Libertarian—8%

The Libertarian, Green-Bertrand, finishes last in the first count and is the first to be eliminated.  Let’s say half of his supporters ranked the Republican next and half picked the Centrist-Independent next.  After the votes transfer, the new tally is:

Betsy Edelmann-Ryssdal (Republican)—34% (+4%)
Christine Horvath-Gonzales (Centrist-Independent)—28% (+4%, into second place)
Jalil Smiley-McGraw (Democrat)—26%
Susan McLaughlin-Malaki (Green)—12%

Now the Green candidate, McLaughlin-Malaki, is eliminated. Half of her next-choice votes go to the Democrat, half to the Centrist-Independent. After the votes are transferred, the new tally is:

Betsy Edelmann-Ryssdal (Republican)—34%
Christine Horvath-Gonzales (Centrist-Independent)—34% (+6%, into a tie for first place)
Jalil Smiley-McGraw (Democrat)—32% (+6%)

Now the Democrat, Jalil-Smiley McGraw is eliminated. Most of his second-place votes go to the Centrist-Independent, and the final tally is:

Christine Horvath-Gonzales (Centrist-Independent)—64% (+30%)
Betsy Edelmann-Ryssdal (Republican)—36% (+2%)

In a simple plurality election, the Republican candidate, Edelmann-Ryssdal, would win with just 30 percent of the vote.  But true-preference ranking showed her support was shallow. The Centrist-Independent, Christine Horvath-Gonzales, preferred in the first count by only 24 per-cent of the voters, wound up the winner. That's because lots of voters liked her second-best, as the reasonable alternative voters could live with even if their favorite candidate didn't win. She had the broadest support.

Of course, in a simple plurality election, Horvath-Gonzales might never have run in the first place, for fear of being a spoiler. Or she would have tried to run as a Democrat or a Republican, moving left or right to win either party's primary.

Voters who wanted a centrist would have had to choose between the Democrat and the Republican. So would voters who wanted a Libertarian or a Green candidate but who didn't want to waste their vote. With most voters locked into Democratic or Republican camps, both candidates would have focused primarily on turning out their bases.  Ranked-choice voting allows voters to vote their sincere preference without fearing they will “spoil” the election.  Ranked-choice voting thus encourages candidates who might not otherwise run, expanding the field of debate and giving voters more choice.

Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop (p. 177-180)

The website https://rankthevote.us describes the advantages:

Ranked Choice Voting gives a strong voice to all voters in our elections, and ensures candidates with the broadest support get to govern.

No more “hold your nose” votes.  Ranked Choice Voting is a simple change that gives voters the option to rank candidates for office in the order they prefer them: 1, 2, 3.

More Expression

As a voter, Ranked Choice Voting allows you to express your full range of views on the ballot — not just one.  You can vote for your true favorite, and you can compromise with your backup rankings.

Less Divisiveness

By allowing voters to rank candidates in the order they like them, Ranked Choice voting helps consolidate, rather than divide, competing factions.  Candidates need the support of the broadest possible coalition of their constituents — not just a vocal minority.

More Positivity

Ranked Choice Voting encourages positive campaigns.  Candidates need to earn the 2nd and 3rd choice votes of their opponent’s supporters by appealing to what they have in common.  With Ranked Choice Voting, politicians are rewarded for campaigning on issues and showing compromise, not for tearing down the other side.

One little-discussed advantage to ranked choice voting is that it allows for activist, third-party candidates to negotiate with a major party candidate for their support.  For instance, an activist campaigning for workers whose incomes have stagnated over the last forty years might agree to recommend his voters rank the Democratic candidate second if the Democrat agreed to support a bill to tax the wealthy and give tax benefits to the working class.  It’s the kind of negotiation that is common in Australia where they have had RCV for over a century,

Ranked choice voting is an important first step away from the current toxic hyperpartisanship.  It is a necessary precondition to a multiparty democracy, for it allows voters to vote for a third-party candidate without concern they will waste their vote.  This is positive in that it gives third parties a fighting chance, but I fear it will not in itself have the power to get us to a multi-party democracy because our two-party hyperpartisanship will overpower it and — except in particular local conditions — will rarely allow for the election of a third party.

Federal legislative change to mandate multimember districts for election to the House of Representatives will be necessary to actually make possible a multiparty democracy in the United States.

Next post: The Magic of Multiparty Democracy.