It’s amusing to see a suggestion that RCV would elect more polarized candidates, since the common criticism from the idealists of both parties is that it elects moderates and centrists. This article doesn’t suggest a better solution, and the article makes it clear that our present election system produces very polarized representatives. The test is whether RCV is better than other systems, not whether it is perfect – no system is perfect.
The suggestion that an RCV winner is the last standing and not the most supported is simply wrong. The winner is the last standing because the winner is the most supported. The basic feature of RCV is that it elects someone that most voters support by providing an instant runoff between the top vote-getters. If most people want a moderate, most people will rank the moderate first. The way that RCV would elect polarized candidates is if the majority of the voters are polarized. Thus, a conservative district or city will elect conservatives under RCV, while a liberal district or city will elect liberals. The elimination of vote-splitting keeps a conservative city from being represented by liberals and vice-versa. I would suggest that is the fair result. The suggestion that an independent would be eliminated after the first round by coming in third or lower to both the inflatable frog and the January 6 “Patriot” is simply implausible – perhaps one, but not both.
There is a difference between state and federal elections on one hand, and local elections on the other hand. Local elections are non-partisan, meaning that party affiliation is not listed on the ballot. At the state level, party affiliation is listed. In the governor race and other statewide elections, the best way to use RCV would be to eliminate the primary or send the top five candidates from the primary to the general election, and use RCV in the general election. RCV would eliminate vote-splitting between candidates from the same party. Because voters of both parties vote in the same election, it would be difficult for an extremist of either party to win an RCV election.
RCV doesn’t solve polarization by itself. The social media algorithms, campaign contributions and other factors also need to be addressed. But because RCV ensures majority winners, it is a step toward addressing polarization.
- Paul Haughey, Legal Chair and Board member of CalRCV (and UC Irvine class of 1976).
By definition, "voters" mean those that voted in the final round. It's hard to build a majority of voters who don't vote. So it is a majority of those voters.
This needs to be viewed in comparison to other systems. Huntington Beach, for example, in 2024 had 8 candidates for 3 seats, with each voter having 3 votes. The top vote getter had only 19% of the vote - a clear minority. Most of those voters were probably the same voters for the other two elected candidates. In 2022, there were 18 candidates for 4 seats, and the winners had only 12-13% of the voters. RCV winners have much more support than that.
The alternative many cities use is a runoff election. The problem with a separate runoff election is that the turnout is typically little more than half of the general election turnout. Those voters who didn't vote are like RCV voters who didn't indicate enough choices. But with RCV, more voters are at the election, so there are more many voters supporting the winner than for a separate runoff.
re: "By definition, "voters" mean those that voted in the final round. It's hard to build a majority of voters who don't vote. So it is a majority of those voters."
A voter is the person who is entitled to vote (or who casts a ballot), not someone whose ballot remains active through the final round of a ranked-choice tabulation. Every eligible person who casts a valid ballot is a voter. The ballot they cast may become inactive or exhausted in later rounds if it contains no continuing preference for the remaining candidates (depending on the jurisdiction's rules). The fact that a ballot is exhausted does not mean the person ceases to be a voter.
OK, with your definition, by comparison to a general election and separate runoff election several months later, everyone who voted in the general election, but didn't vote in the runoff is still considered a voter for the runoff. There needs to be an apples to apples comparison to evaluate the advantages of RCV, not some abstract definition of terms.
I think it would do more good than you give it credit for, Professor. RCV fundamentally changes people's incentive structures at both the individual and party levels.
At the individual level, it gives those who are most likely to choose third-party or fringe candidates an opportunity to rank more centrist candidates in their 2nd and 3rd positions. Remember all the crowing about Jill Stein? At least some of those voters would be likely to rank Harris second. Since Stein is not a viable candidate, their votes would have gone to Harris. This outcome would be the opposite of the "center-squeeze" you mention in the article. I get that the center squeeze can happen. It happened in an IRV election in Alaska in 2022. But overall, outcomes from RCV tend to be better than first-past-the-post voting.
The same would have been true in the CA Governor's race. People who voted for, say, Porter, would likely have ranked Becerra or Steyer second. Those who voted for Ware would have ranked Steyer second. It would have increased Steyer's likelihood of making it into the race (though that may not have been the best outcome for Dems, honestly).
At the party level, RCV can encourage cooperation. Remember the NYC mayoral race? Mamdani and Lander worked together to encourage people to vote for them 1 and 2 (in the order that they saw fit).
In addition, it encourages the proliferation of more parties. The Democrats are currently in a low-level war with the DSA about what it means to be a Democrat. At this point, DSA candidates only option is to say that the Democrats are a big tent and to run as Democrats. With RCV, that would not be the case. This would lead to more coalition politics, and that has its own issues, but I think its defintely worth a try.
First-past-the-post forces people into an all-or-nothing scenario. At least RCV gives people a way to express their preferences in an ordered way.
Thank you for publishing this article! Ranked Choice Voting has many advantages over "plurality", single-choice voting, and I invite those interested in learning more about RCV by visiting two reputable, nonpartisan orgs, Cal RCV Coalition and FairVote:
RCV solves a number of issues that we see with our current plurality elections, one being that the winner is often elected by a minority of voters. But also, we see candidates viciously attack each other and run negative attack ads.
And we've seen this happen just recently in our state governor's race with the candidates slinging mud at each other, instead of focusing on the issues.
We already have proof that RCV drastically minimizes the mud slinging and encourages more positive campaigning with the 2025 NY City mayoral election. Many don't realize that NYC uses RCV for the *primary* election, but not for the general election.
And during the general election, Mamdani was upset when he was viciously attacked during the general election. HOWEVER... the mayoral PRIMARY election -- which uses RCV -- was a positive election in which the NYC voters saw the candidates worked collaboratively, and with some candidates cross-endorsing each other (Mamdani and Landers).
With RCV elections, both enthusiastic support and broad support are needed to win. Therefore, candidates will still want to be the 2nd and 3rd choice votes of their competitors’ voters. With RCV, this provides a disincentive for candidates to personally attack their competitors, which will annoy those voters. Instead RCV encourages candidates to focus on the issues.
if you need further proof that RCV produced a more civil NYC mayoral election, read the article from FairVote:
Yes. RCV changes people's incentives, which I don't think is quite noted in this piece. There is also less incentive for candidates to engage in negative campaigning, since they want to capture people's second- and third-place choices.
Reading thru the FairVote comments here, and their website helps immensely!
Considering conservative Judge Craig Griffin just ruled that Huntington Beach must go over to RCV, rather than the districting model requested by the plaintiffs, why were we not mentioned?
This is a big step, a puzzling step, and clearly a step our contentious city council doesn’t want at all. Bringing in this component would have been smart.
The judge's decision said that the best district the plaintiff's proposed had only 33.9% Latino voters, and thus would not solve the problem of Latino representation. By using proportional RCV, and making the elections non-staggered so all 7 councilmembers are elected at once, it is possible to elect a councilmember with only 12.5%. The citywide Latino voter share is 16.4%, so they could elect a representative this way. The proportional part of the remedy means different blocks of voters in the city can elect a number of councilmembers proportional to the size of their block of voters - whether that block is by race, party, or conservative v. liberal.
I’m finding that voters have a problem with the long ballots and complexity. RCV would not help that. I do like the top two primary and I think it’s worked well for Ca.
It’s amusing to see a suggestion that RCV would elect more polarized candidates, since the common criticism from the idealists of both parties is that it elects moderates and centrists. This article doesn’t suggest a better solution, and the article makes it clear that our present election system produces very polarized representatives. The test is whether RCV is better than other systems, not whether it is perfect – no system is perfect.
The suggestion that an RCV winner is the last standing and not the most supported is simply wrong. The winner is the last standing because the winner is the most supported. The basic feature of RCV is that it elects someone that most voters support by providing an instant runoff between the top vote-getters. If most people want a moderate, most people will rank the moderate first. The way that RCV would elect polarized candidates is if the majority of the voters are polarized. Thus, a conservative district or city will elect conservatives under RCV, while a liberal district or city will elect liberals. The elimination of vote-splitting keeps a conservative city from being represented by liberals and vice-versa. I would suggest that is the fair result. The suggestion that an independent would be eliminated after the first round by coming in third or lower to both the inflatable frog and the January 6 “Patriot” is simply implausible – perhaps one, but not both.
There is a difference between state and federal elections on one hand, and local elections on the other hand. Local elections are non-partisan, meaning that party affiliation is not listed on the ballot. At the state level, party affiliation is listed. In the governor race and other statewide elections, the best way to use RCV would be to eliminate the primary or send the top five candidates from the primary to the general election, and use RCV in the general election. RCV would eliminate vote-splitting between candidates from the same party. Because voters of both parties vote in the same election, it would be difficult for an extremist of either party to win an RCV election.
RCV doesn’t solve polarization by itself. The social media algorithms, campaign contributions and other factors also need to be addressed. But because RCV ensures majority winners, it is a step toward addressing polarization.
- Paul Haughey, Legal Chair and Board member of CalRCV (and UC Irvine class of 1976).
Re: “The basic feature of RCV is that it elects someone that most voters support”
By definition, “most” means 50% of the voters plus 1. Here is why that is not necessarily the case:
* 100 people vote.
* By the final round:
* Candidate A: 46 votes
* Candidate B: 34 votes
* 20 ballots have become exhausted.
Only 80 ballots remain active, so Candidate A wins with 46 out of 80 active ballots (57.5%).
However, Candidate A received only 46 of the original 100 votes—not “most” of the voters.
By definition, "voters" mean those that voted in the final round. It's hard to build a majority of voters who don't vote. So it is a majority of those voters.
This needs to be viewed in comparison to other systems. Huntington Beach, for example, in 2024 had 8 candidates for 3 seats, with each voter having 3 votes. The top vote getter had only 19% of the vote - a clear minority. Most of those voters were probably the same voters for the other two elected candidates. In 2022, there were 18 candidates for 4 seats, and the winners had only 12-13% of the voters. RCV winners have much more support than that.
The alternative many cities use is a runoff election. The problem with a separate runoff election is that the turnout is typically little more than half of the general election turnout. Those voters who didn't vote are like RCV voters who didn't indicate enough choices. But with RCV, more voters are at the election, so there are more many voters supporting the winner than for a separate runoff.
re: "By definition, "voters" mean those that voted in the final round. It's hard to build a majority of voters who don't vote. So it is a majority of those voters."
A voter is the person who is entitled to vote (or who casts a ballot), not someone whose ballot remains active through the final round of a ranked-choice tabulation. Every eligible person who casts a valid ballot is a voter. The ballot they cast may become inactive or exhausted in later rounds if it contains no continuing preference for the remaining candidates (depending on the jurisdiction's rules). The fact that a ballot is exhausted does not mean the person ceases to be a voter.
OK, with your definition, by comparison to a general election and separate runoff election several months later, everyone who voted in the general election, but didn't vote in the runoff is still considered a voter for the runoff. There needs to be an apples to apples comparison to evaluate the advantages of RCV, not some abstract definition of terms.
Seemed to work pretty well for NYC primaries. Much more fair than what we have now
I think it would do more good than you give it credit for, Professor. RCV fundamentally changes people's incentive structures at both the individual and party levels.
At the individual level, it gives those who are most likely to choose third-party or fringe candidates an opportunity to rank more centrist candidates in their 2nd and 3rd positions. Remember all the crowing about Jill Stein? At least some of those voters would be likely to rank Harris second. Since Stein is not a viable candidate, their votes would have gone to Harris. This outcome would be the opposite of the "center-squeeze" you mention in the article. I get that the center squeeze can happen. It happened in an IRV election in Alaska in 2022. But overall, outcomes from RCV tend to be better than first-past-the-post voting.
The same would have been true in the CA Governor's race. People who voted for, say, Porter, would likely have ranked Becerra or Steyer second. Those who voted for Ware would have ranked Steyer second. It would have increased Steyer's likelihood of making it into the race (though that may not have been the best outcome for Dems, honestly).
At the party level, RCV can encourage cooperation. Remember the NYC mayoral race? Mamdani and Lander worked together to encourage people to vote for them 1 and 2 (in the order that they saw fit).
In addition, it encourages the proliferation of more parties. The Democrats are currently in a low-level war with the DSA about what it means to be a Democrat. At this point, DSA candidates only option is to say that the Democrats are a big tent and to run as Democrats. With RCV, that would not be the case. This would lead to more coalition politics, and that has its own issues, but I think its defintely worth a try.
First-past-the-post forces people into an all-or-nothing scenario. At least RCV gives people a way to express their preferences in an ordered way.
Thank you for publishing this article! Ranked Choice Voting has many advantages over "plurality", single-choice voting, and I invite those interested in learning more about RCV by visiting two reputable, nonpartisan orgs, Cal RCV Coalition and FairVote:
https://www.calrcv.org/
https://fairvote.org/
RCV solves a number of issues that we see with our current plurality elections, one being that the winner is often elected by a minority of voters. But also, we see candidates viciously attack each other and run negative attack ads.
And we've seen this happen just recently in our state governor's race with the candidates slinging mud at each other, instead of focusing on the issues.
We already have proof that RCV drastically minimizes the mud slinging and encourages more positive campaigning with the 2025 NY City mayoral election. Many don't realize that NYC uses RCV for the *primary* election, but not for the general election.
And during the general election, Mamdani was upset when he was viciously attacked during the general election. HOWEVER... the mayoral PRIMARY election -- which uses RCV -- was a positive election in which the NYC voters saw the candidates worked collaboratively, and with some candidates cross-endorsing each other (Mamdani and Landers).
With RCV elections, both enthusiastic support and broad support are needed to win. Therefore, candidates will still want to be the 2nd and 3rd choice votes of their competitors’ voters. With RCV, this provides a disincentive for candidates to personally attack their competitors, which will annoy those voters. Instead RCV encourages candidates to focus on the issues.
if you need further proof that RCV produced a more civil NYC mayoral election, read the article from FairVote:
https://fairvote.org/new-york-mayoral-election-shows-need-to-expand-ranked-choice-voting/
Yes. RCV changes people's incentives, which I don't think is quite noted in this piece. There is also less incentive for candidates to engage in negative campaigning, since they want to capture people's second- and third-place choices.
Great article! It was well-written, thought-provoking, and very informative on a topic I didn’t know much about. Keep up the great work!
Amazing article and even more amazing author!!
RCV is very complex—I get it.
Reading thru the FairVote comments here, and their website helps immensely!
Considering conservative Judge Craig Griffin just ruled that Huntington Beach must go over to RCV, rather than the districting model requested by the plaintiffs, why were we not mentioned?
This is a big step, a puzzling step, and clearly a step our contentious city council doesn’t want at all. Bringing in this component would have been smart.
Oh well….
It’s hard to keep up with this crazy city.
The judge's decision said that the best district the plaintiff's proposed had only 33.9% Latino voters, and thus would not solve the problem of Latino representation. By using proportional RCV, and making the elections non-staggered so all 7 councilmembers are elected at once, it is possible to elect a councilmember with only 12.5%. The citywide Latino voter share is 16.4%, so they could elect a representative this way. The proportional part of the remedy means different blocks of voters in the city can elect a number of councilmembers proportional to the size of their block of voters - whether that block is by race, party, or conservative v. liberal.
I’m finding that voters have a problem with the long ballots and complexity. RCV would not help that. I do like the top two primary and I think it’s worked well for Ca.
Thanks for explaining this. I hadn't a clue!