American Electoral Reform: An Argument for Rank Choice Voting
Graphic by Taylor Whirley
Voter turnout is one of the most crucial measures of civic participation. Higher voter turnout is a sign of the vitality of democracy, while lower turnout is often associated with voter apathy and a greater mistrust of the political process. Although more Americans voted in the 2020 presidential election than any other in the last century, about one-third of eligible voters failed to cast a ballot — and, by a wider margin than in the past, it is because these nonvoters simply did not want to.
The notion that voters are experiencing psychological – rather than institutional – barriers to voting is a widespread phenomenon. A survey commissioned by NPR and the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern found that a majority of U.S. adults who did not vote in the recent presidential election did not cite impediments to going to the polls. Instead, these respondents chose not to vote due to widespread sentiments of political alienation and apathy. Even as the percentage of nonvoters narrowed to the smallest proportion in 120 years, a concern still surrounds the 80 million Americans who had deep-seated reasons for not casting ballots in 2020. These reasons were often rooted in antipathy to politicians, the political process, and the impact of government on their lives. While it must be acknowledged that the majority of nonvoters (70 percent) were not registered to vote in 2020, only 29 percent of this year’s nonvoters surveyed blamed not being registered as their main reason for skipping the election. Instead, abstaining from voting was justified by a lack of interest in the election, the feeling that their vote “wouldn’t make a difference,” or a general dislike for the majority candidates.
Why is this a problem? While nonvoters and voters often share similar views on a number of issues, nonvoters are more likely to be younger, Latino, less-educated, and politically independent. People in groups that vote less are more likely to have their needs ignored by politicians, yet the lingering sentiments against the American political system have become a lasting challenge for campaigns and civic groups looking to expand the vote. Faith that the democratic process matters is a bigger challenge to overcome than simply teaching people how to vote.
Both federal and local governments have a tangible interest in sustaining, if not increasing, voter turnout in elections. Across regional and national constituencies, representatives on the ballot have considerable potential to bring about serious political change and, therefore, pursuing a more perfect electoral institution is a great concern for the general public.
An argument will be made, then, that ranked-choice voting should be implemented across Virginia not only in its potential to increase voter turnout, but in its observed ability to incorporate more opportunities for voters to express their political opinion, disqualifying the notion that participants should free ride because their vote doesn't matter.
WHAT IS RANK-CHOICE VOTING?
A ranked-choice voting system (RCV) is an alternative electoral system in which voters can rank candidates by preference on their ballots. Instead of a plurality (“first-past-the-post”) system which currently dominates elections in the United States, RCV would implement a majority system. Sometimes called “instant run-off voting,” RCV allows voters to choose their candidates in order of preference by marking candidates as their first, second, third, and subsequent choices. The votes are tabulated in rounds, with the lowest-ranked candidates eliminated in each round until only two candidates remain. The candidate who is determined to have received the majority of the votes (more than 50 percent) in the final round of tabulation is declared the winner. RCV differs from the current method of voting as voters only choose one candidate for each office and the winner is determined by plurality.
To reiterate, plurality voting – in which the candidate with the greatest number of votes wins – is the standard practice in most American elections. As a result, it is common to witness elected offices filled by candidates who were not supported by the majority of voters. In races with only two candidates (excluding write-ins), it is certain that one will receive a majority of votes. Without a majority requirement for victory in smaller races of three or more candidates, however, a winner may be elected with far less than half the vote. In this regard, the prospect that the winner of an election may have been disliked by a majority of the population becomes a reality. Oftentimes this is where a disillusionment with the electoral system emerges: the prospect of minority rule in single-seat elections, such as mayor or governor.
This problem is compounded within primary elections that use plurality voting. Party primaries often see a variety of candidates from across the political spectrum vying for a single nomination. This frequently leads to a party’s nominee representing a large and diverse constituency in the general election after only garnering the support of a small fraction of the electorate. The same candidate can then go on to win again in the general election without a majority of voters’ support.
As an alternative, ranked-choice voting is more fair than plurality voting procedures. The democratic standard ought to be majority rule as a fundamental principle of republican governance, a method which produces majority winners and replaces plurality elections wherever they are used.
WHAT DOES SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION LOOK LIKE?
Recognizing the problems of plurality voting, a few states and municipalities across the country have begun to use the system. Maine, Alaska, California, and Minnesota are just three of the thirteen states that have successfully adopted and implemented RCV in public elections at either the federal, state, or local level. RCV has provided a way to improve voting and elections in three key ways:
1. Encourages Civility and Less Negative Campaigning
A traditional plurality voting system incentivizes political candidates to engage in negative campaign tactics. Elections are viewed as a “zero-sum” game that usually boils down to a choice between two major party candidates. Instead of affirmative, issue-based campaigning, candidates focus their energies on attacking each other and distinguishing themselves through negative messaging. Candidates also have a clear incentive to disregard independent and third-party candidates who will not garner enough votes to pose a tangible threat. RCV, however, removes the motivation to campaign negatively and increases civility among candidates by fostering more choice, more competition, and a greater need for cooperation. To succeed, candidates must reach and attract a broader subset of voters, balancing efforts to win first-choice votes with not alienating other citizens who might rank them as their second or third choice.
2. Advances a Greater Number of Diverse Candidates
Plurality voting, which often results in a contest between two candidates from the major political parties, suppresses independent and minor party candidates. Yet the suppression of candidacies does not affect all equally — it often disproportionately affects political actors with the least political experience and influence. This includes first-time candidates, young candidates, female candidates, candidates of color, and low-income candidates. RCV eliminates this problem and encourages more people to run for office. This phenomenon is evident in a Minneapolis, Minnesota case study where the number of candidates for local office nearly doubled after RCV was introduced. Not only did more candidates run for office – the field increased from 25 candidates in 2005 to 47 in 2013 – but local races became more competitive.
RCV also encourages a more diverse population of candidates. More diversity means greater representation of demographic groups that are traditionally underrepresented. By eliminating the problem of vote splitting, candidates from underrepresented groups do not have to worry about competing for voters under the RCV system.
Diversity also takes shape in the views and policy platforms presented by candidates. RCV promotes broader participation and grants more choices by accommodating multiple candidates in single-seat races. Moderate, independent, and third-party politics may be championed without fear of spoiling the election and voters may support candidates without fear of wasting their vote. Thus, RCV solves the problem of choosing between the “lesser of two evils” and fosters cooperative campaigns built on a more robust discussion of issues.
3. Saves Jurisdictions Money
Plurality voting is expensive. Multiple rounds of voting for a single office can be costly and time intensive for localities to administer. By one estimate, election administration costs an average of one to two dollars per resident per election. Multiple rounds of voting pose a burden not only on taxpayers, but also on poll workers and election officials. Candidates are also forced to raise campaign funds for successive elections. RCV alleviates this problem of plurality voting by instituting a single election through ‘instant runoff voting.’ RCV has the capacity to replace primary, general, and runoff elections by requiring only one election to produce a majority winner. The financial benefits of RCV is well documented: As one example, the city of San Francisco saved $1.2 million in 2004 with the adoption of RCV by avoiding four runoff elections. This was more than enough to offset the one-time costs associated with the transition to a RCV system (including voter education). The implementation of RCV in San Leandro, Berkeley, and Oakland, CA also led to a reduction of cost. Between the three cities, seventeen runoff elections were prevented in just three election cycles. Ranked-choice voting, thus, will save government money normally required to manage multiple rounds of voting.
VIRGINIA AND RANKED-CHOICE VOTING
In Virginia, House Bill 1103 (2020) gave cities and counties the option of trying ranked-choice voting in elections for local governing bodies beginning in July of 2021. Within this local pilot program of ranked choice voting systems, the bill defines RCV as the method of casting and tabulating votes in which voters rank candidates in order of preference and a winner is determined by a majority threshold adjusted depending on the number of seats to fill. If a candidate is not successful through first-choice votes, a process of eliminating and electing candidates through rounds of redistributing ballots is conducted until a winner is decided or all the seats are filled. To date, the Arlington County Board is the only local government to adopt the new method, officially approving a trial run of ranked choice voting in a local primary election in June. The new election system will only be in place for the primary elections of local county board seats and will not apply to any other election contests. Until more Virginia localities choose to incorporate the system, however, ranked-choice voting will remain as an option in party-run nominating processes such as conventions or firehouse primaries only. There are few barriers to instituting this electoral system, as state election officials have already adopted regulations for how government-run ranked-choice elections would work, yet local governments have been slow to implement RCV.
Ranked-choice voting might be the future in Virginia, but it will take time to build public understanding and acceptance of this approach to conducting party nominations and elections. Different voting systems impact representation in government in terms of ideology, race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, experiences, interests and other characteristics. Ranked-choice voting may be the key to increase diversity in candidates and policy, revolutionizing voter participation.