Ranked choice voting produces better outcomes than plurality voting

What's this about?

People disagree about whether ranked choice voting gives better results than pick-one voting. In ranked choice voting, people rank choices instead of choosing only one.

What supporters say

• Voters can choose their true top pick and still rank a backup choice.
• This can lower the “spoiler” fear, where two like-minded choices split votes.
• Winners may need support from more groups, since second and third choices can matter.
• The last-round winner can earn more than half of the votes still counted.

What critics say

• A last-round win does not mean most people picked that person first.
• Some ballots stop counting when voters do not rank any choices left in the race.
• Ranked choice voting does not always make campaigns kinder or less harsh.
• Some studies link it to more voting, but they cannot prove it caused that change.

The bottom line

Ranked choice voting clearly helps people rank a favorite without wasting their vote. But we cannot say it gives better results in every way or in every place.

Ranked-choice voting, or RCV, lets voters rank candidates rather than pick only one. It offers clear advantages over plurality elections in some areas, especially by reducing “spoiler” worries, but the evidence does not show that it is better on every measure.

The case for

The strongest argument for RCV is that it can reduce the pressure to vote tactically. Under plurality rules, voters may avoid backing their true favorite if that candidate seems unlikely to win, fearing they will split the vote and help elect their least-preferred option. RCV allows them to rank that favorite first and list a backup choice, reducing this classic spoiler incentive. That is a meaningful improvement in voter choice and expression 1.

RCV also gives candidates an incentive to build support beyond their core followers. If no candidate wins outright in the first count, lower-performing candidates are eliminated and their supporters’ next choices are considered. A candidate may therefore benefit from being voters’ second or third choice, not merely from assembling the largest first-choice bloc. This can reward broader coalitions and may encourage less divisive politics, although evidence does not show that campaigns reliably become more civil in every place 2.

The final winner can also receive a majority in the last round of counting, rather than winning with only a plurality of first-choice votes. In that limited sense, RCV can produce a winner with support from most continuing ballots 3. That is often seen as more representative than a system in which a candidate can win with far less than half the initial vote.

There are also signs that RCV may help participation in some circumstances. Studies have identified possible links between ranked voting and voter mobilization, candidate contact and perceptions of campaign civility, including among younger voters. But these studies are observational: they suggest potential benefits rather than proving that RCV consistently raises turnout compared with plurality elections 4.

The case against

The biggest qualification to RCV’s majority claim is ballot exhaustion. Some voters rank only one candidate, or rank candidates who have all been eliminated. Once their ballot contains no remaining choice, it no longer counts in later rounds. The final winner may therefore have a majority of ballots still in play, but not necessarily a majority of all valid ballots originally cast 5.

RCV is also more complicated than marking one choice on a ballot. Voters must understand how to rank candidates, while election officials must explain transfer rounds, deal with incomplete rankings and run more involved tabulations. Official guidance in places such as Alaska and Maine reflects those added demands. Research also finds that ranking errors, skipped rankings and incomplete ballots can lead to rejected or exhausted ballots, potentially affecting people less familiar with the system more heavily 6.

Nor does RCV always select the candidate who would beat every other candidate in a head-to-head contest — known as the Condorcet winner. Instant-runoff RCV can fail that test. Analysis of Alaska’s 2022 special election showed such a possibility, though one election does not establish how often it occurs 7.

Other hoped-for benefits remain uncertain. Ranking candidates does not automatically make voters better informed or eliminate familiar biases such as ballot-order effects 8. And research on the election of candidates of color finds no uniform result: RCV has not shown either a guaranteed benefit or a guaranteed harm to demographic representation 9.

Comparing jurisdictions is difficult, too. Places that adopt RCV may already differ from plurality-voting places in political culture, competitiveness or election administration. That makes it hard to tell whether differences in turnout, representation or campaign behavior are caused by RCV itself.

The bottom line

RCV is a real improvement over plurality voting when the priority is reducing spoilers and allowing voters to express backup preferences. It can make it easier for people to support their preferred candidate without fearing they are wasting a vote, and it can reward candidates who appeal beyond a narrow base.

But the broader claim that RCV produces better outcomes overall is not established. Its gains come with tradeoffs: greater complexity, exhausted ballots, no guarantee of choosing a Condorcet winner, and uncertain effects on turnout, civility and representation. The evidence strongly supports a qualified judgment, not an unconditional endorsement: whether RCV is “better” depends on which democratic goals matter most.