What Is Ranked-Choice Voting?

Ranked-choice voting (RCV), also known as instant-runoff voting, is an electoral method in which voters rank candidates in order of preference instead of selecting only one. Ballots are counted in rounds. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and that candidate’s votes are redistributed to the remaining candidates based on each voter’s next preference. This process repeats until one candidate holds a majority. RCV is used in various elections around the world, from local municipal races to national parliamentary contests.

A Brief History of Ranked-Choice Voting

The concept of ranking candidates dates back to the 19th century. The system was independently developed by Thomas Hare in England and Carl Andræ in Denmark, both advocating for proportional representation. In the United States, RCV was first adopted for city council elections in places like Ashtabula, Ohio, in 1915. It gained renewed interest in the early 2000s as a reform to address polarization and plurality wins. Today, RCV is used in over 50 jurisdictions in the U.S., including statewide elections in Maine and Alaska, and municipal elections in cities like San Francisco, Minneapolis, and New York City. Internationally, it is the standard for national elections in Australia and Ireland.

Benefits of Ranked-Choice Voting

Proponents argue that RCV delivers a range of democratic and practical advantages over traditional first-past-the-post (FPTP) voting.

1. Ensures Majority Support

In FPTP, winners can be elected with far less than 50% of the vote when multiple candidates split the electorate. RCV ensures that the eventual winner has broad support by requiring a true majority, reducing the risk of “spoiler” candidates and enabling voters to support their genuine first choice without fear of wasting their ballot.

2. Encourages Positive Campaigning

Candidates must appeal beyond their core base to earn second- and third-choice votes. This incentive often discourages negative attacks because alienating another candidate’s supporters may cost those secondary votes. Studies of RCV elections, such as those in San Francisco, have found that campaign tone becomes more civil and issue-focused.

3. Reduces Wasted Votes and Strategic Voting

Under FPTP, voters often face a “lesser of two evils” dilemma and vote strategically for a viable candidate rather than one they truly prefer. RCV allows voters to rank honestly without worrying that their vote will be wasted if their favorite loses, because their ballot will be transferred to their next preference.

4. Increases Voter Participation and Representation

Research from the Ranked Choice Voting Research Group shows that RCV can boost voter turnout, especially among younger and more diverse populations. Because voters feel their ballots carry more weight and they can support multiple candidates, engagement tends to rise. Additionally, RCV has been linked to greater diversity in elected offices: women and candidates of color have performed better in RCV systems, possibly because traditional primary systems can be more polarizing.

5. Eliminates Costly Runoff Elections

Many jurisdictions hold separate primary and general runoff elections that are expensive for taxpayers and see steep drop-offs in turnout. RCV achieves the same majority result in a single election, cutting administrative costs and reducing voter fatigue. New York City, for example, saved an estimated $20 million in 2021 by using RCV in its primaries instead of holding separate runoffs.

Challenges and Criticisms of Ranked-Choice Voting

Despite its benefits, RCV also faces legitimate concerns that require careful consideration.

1. Voter Confusion and Ballot Errors

Voters accustomed to picking one candidate may find ranking multiple candidates confusing. In some early implementations, error rates on ballots were higher, with voters skipping rankings or overvoting. However, experience shows that error rates drop significantly after one or two election cycles, especially with robust voter education. FairVote’s research indicates that error rates in cities like Minneapolis fell below 1% after the first use.

2. Higher Administrative Costs and Complexity

Implementing RCV requires new ballot designs, tabulation software, and training for election officials. The initial transition can be expensive—some small jurisdictions report costs of $100,000 or more for new equipment and public outreach. Over time, however, these costs may be offset by eliminating separate runoff elections.

3. Delayed Results

Because vote counting involves multiple rounds of redistribution, final results can take longer to announce, especially in large jurisdictions. For instance, New York City’s 2021 mayoral primary took more than a week to produce a final winner. While not a barrier to implementation, this delay can fuel mistrust if not communicated clearly to the public.

4. Strategic Voting Still Exists

Some voters attempt to “game” the system by ranking a less-preferred candidate first to influence elimination order. While RCV reduces strategic voting compared to FPTP, it does not eliminate it entirely. Sophisticated campaigns may also encourage supporters to “bullet vote” (rank only one candidate) to deny second-choice support to rivals, though this tactic is rarely effective in large electorates.

5. Voter Fatigue and Cognitive Load

In races with many candidates—sometimes a dozen or more—voters may feel overwhelmed ranking all of them. Many jurisdictions limit the number of rankings a voter can make to five or six, which reduces strain but may still alienate some voters who feel unprepared. Critics argue that RCV places an unfair burden on voters with lower literacy or less time to research.

How Ranked-Choice Voting Works: A Step-by-Step Example

To make the process concrete, consider a hypothetical election with three candidates: Adams, Brown, and Chen. There are 100 voters. Voters rank candidates 1, 2, and 3.

  1. First round: Adams gets 45 first-choice votes, Brown gets 35, Chen gets 20. No candidate has a majority (51 votes). Chen is eliminated.
  2. Second round: The 20 ballots that had Chen first are redistributed to their second choices. Suppose 12 of those ballots have Brown as second choice, and 8 have Adams. Now Adams has 45+8=53 votes, Brown has 35+12=47 votes. Adams wins with a majority.
  3. Conclusion: Note that Brown had the most first-choice votes in the second round but lost after redistribution, which sometimes surprises voters unfamiliar with RCV.

This same logic scales to races with many candidates and multiple elimination rounds.

Comparing RCV with Other Voting Systems

RCV is one of several alternatives to FPTP. Understanding the comparisons helps evaluate its strengths and weaknesses.

RCV vs. Plurality (First-Past-the-Post)

FPTP is simple and familiar, but it often produces “spoiler” effects, forces strategic voting, and can elect polarizing candidates with a low percentage of the vote. RCV solves many of these issues at the cost of added complexity. In a 2020 study of U.S. cities, the Urban Institute found that RCV cities had higher turnout and more competitive elections than similar FPTP cities.

RCV vs. Top-Two Primaries

In top-two systems, all candidates run in a single primary, and the top two advance to a general election, regardless of party. This can lead to two candidates from the same party facing off, disenfranchising supporters of other parties. RCV maintains multiple candidates in the final round and allows voters to express fuller preferences, but it does not have a separate primary—or it may use a single RCV round to decide the winner outright.

RCV vs. Approval Voting

Approval voting lets voters select as many candidates as they like. It is simpler than ranking and still allows support for multiple candidates. However, it does not capture intensity of preference—a voter who “approves” of two candidates treats them equally, even if one is strongly preferred. RCV provides finer-grained preference data, which can produce more nuanced outcomes.

Real-World Implementations and Lessons Learned

Several notable examples illustrate how RCV performs in practice.

Maine

In 2018, Maine became the first U.S. state to use RCV for state and federal general elections. After a contested 2018 midterm, RCV was used in the 2020 presidential election for Maine’s second congressional district. Voters adapted quickly, and error rates were low. The system has faced legal challenges, but courts have upheld it. Maine’s experience shows that statewide RCV is feasible with proper planning and voter education.

Alaska

Alaska adopted RCV (combined with a top-four open primary) in 2020 via ballot initiative. In the 2022 U.S. House race, the system produced a winner—Mary Peltola—who was not the first choice of a majority in the first round but won after redistribution. The election drew national attention and demonstrated how RCV can allow for cross-party appeal, with many Republican voters ranking a Democrat as their second choice to block a more extreme Republican candidate.

New York City

New York City’s 2021 mayoral primary was the largest RCV election in U.S. history. Over 900,000 ballots were cast. Results took several weeks due to logistics and a simultaneous Board of Elections error. Despite the delay, voter satisfaction surveys found that most voters understood the system and found it easy to use. The city has since adopted RCV for its local elections permanently.

International: Australia and Ireland

Australia has used RCV (known there as “preferential voting”) for its House of Representatives since 1918. Voter education is built into the culture, and ballot invalidity rates are low. Ireland uses RCV for its Dáil (parliament) elections, where multi-member constituencies allow for proportional outcomes. Both countries’ long-term use shows that RCV can become a stable and accepted part of the electoral landscape.

Addressing Common Misconceptions

Many criticisms of RCV stem from misunderstandings. Here are some clarifications:

  • “RCV is too complicated.” Studies consistently show that after one or two uses, most voters find RCV easy to use. Research from the University of California found that over 80% of voters in RCV cities reported no difficulty.
  • “RCV disenfranchises voters who don’t rank enough candidates.” Ballots with incomplete rankings are never “exhausted” until all their ranked candidates are eliminated. Voters are free to rank as many or as few as they like; their ballot is still counted for as long as one of their choices remains.
  • “RCV leads to ‘minority rule’ because a candidate can win without the most first-place votes.” This is true but not antidemocratic—the winner ultimately receives a majority of votes when second preferences are considered. In a crowded field, the candidate with the most first-choice votes often lacks majority support, so redistribution reflects the broader will of the electorate.

Potential Reforms and Variations

RCV itself has several variations worth noting:

  • Instant-runoff voting (IRV): Used for single-winner races; the process described above.
  • Single transferable vote (STV): Extends RCV to multi-member districts, allowing proportional representation. Voters rank candidates, and a quota is set; surplus votes are transferred.
  • Contingent vote: A simplified version where all but the top two candidates are eliminated in one round, and second preferences on those ballots are redistributed. This speeds up counting but loses some nuance.
  • Bottom-two runoff: Instead of eliminating the lowest first-choice vote getter, the two candidates with the fewest votes are compared, and the one with fewer second-choice preferences is eliminated. This can be fairer but is seldom used.

The Future of Ranked-Choice Voting

As of 2025, over 60 U.S. jurisdictions use RCV in some form, and legislative bills to adopt it have been introduced in several states. Polling from Pew Research Center shows that public awareness and support are growing, particularly among younger voters. However, political opposition remains strong in some quarters, often fueled by partisan concerns about how RCV might affect electoral outcomes. The debate over RCV is ultimately a debate about what kind of democracy we want—one that prioritizes simplicity and speed, or one that prioritizes inclusivity, majority will, and reduced polarization.

Conclusion

Ranked-choice voting offers a compelling alternative to traditional plurality elections. Its ability to ensure majority support, reduce negative campaigning, and minimize wasted votes has earned it a growing number of adopters across the United States and worldwide. Yet challenges around voter education, ballot complexity, and counting delays are real and must be addressed with transparency and investment. As more data accumulates from jurisdictions that have implemented RCV, policymakers have a clearer picture of its trade-offs. For communities weary of divisive elections and spoiler candidates, RCV may be a step toward a more reflective and civil electoral system. The key is to proceed with careful planning, robust public outreach, and a willingness to adapt the system to local needs.