Imagine walking into the voting booth and being allowed to say not just “who is my favorite?” but “who is my second favorite, and my third?” That is the core idea behind ranked-choice voting, and it has become one of the most debated election reforms in America.
Supporters call it a fix for spoiled votes and nasty campaigns. Critics call it confusing and unnecessary. Here is how it works, and where each side has a point.
Quick answer: In ranked-choice voting, you rank candidates in order of preference. If no one wins a majority of first choices, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their voters’ ballots move to their next choice, repeating until someone has a majority. Supporters say it reduces “spoiler” effects and rewards broad appeal. Critics say it adds complexity, can slow results, and has produced mixed evidence on its promised benefits.
How ranked-choice voting works
Most American elections use “plurality” voting, sometimes called first-past-the-post. You pick one candidate, and whoever gets the most votes wins, even if that is well short of a majority. In a race with five candidates, someone can win with 30 percent of the vote.
Ranked-choice voting (often shortened to RCV) changes the ballot. Instead of one mark, you number the candidates: 1 for your top choice, 2 for your next, and so on. You usually do not have to rank everyone.
The counting, step by step
- All first-choice votes are counted. If one candidate has more than half, that candidate wins and the count ends.
- If no one has a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated.
- Ballots that ranked the eliminated candidate first are moved to each voter’s next-ranked candidate who is still in the race.
- The votes are recounted. Steps 2 and 3 repeat, round by round, until one candidate holds a majority of the ballots still active.
Your vote never counts twice. It counts once, for your highest-ranked candidate still in the race. If your first choice is eliminated, your ballot simply continues on to your second.
Single-winner and multi-winner versions
The version described above is for choosing one winner, such as a mayor. It is sometimes called instant-runoff voting, because it mimics a runoff election without calling voters back to the polls. A related version fills several seats at once, such as a city council. Voters still rank candidates, but winners need only a share of the vote, which tends to produce more proportional results. This second form is more common internationally than in the United States.
Where it is used
RCV is not a theoretical idea. Maine uses it for primaries and for federal general elections. Alaska adopted it for general elections through a ballot measure, though that system has been contested and revisited. A number of cities, including some very large ones, use it for local races. Some states use ranked ballots for overseas military voters in runoffs. Outside the United States, Australia and Ireland have used ranked ballots for a long time.
The picture is also moving in the other direction. Several states have passed laws banning or restricting RCV. Because adoption and bans keep changing, check your state or local election office for what applies where you live.
The case for ranked-choice voting
Supporters make several arguments, each worth taking seriously.
It reduces the “spoiler” problem
Under plurality voting, two similar candidates can split a vote and hand victory to a third candidate that most voters like less. Voters know this, so many vote for the “lesser evil” rather than their true favorite. With RCV, you can rank a long-shot candidate first without wasting your vote, because your ballot moves on if that candidate is eliminated. This connects to a broader pattern explained in our guide to why America has a two-party system.
Winners need broader support
Because a winner must reach a majority, candidates have an incentive to appeal beyond their base and to be a reasonable second choice for rivals’ supporters. Backers argue this can soften campaigns, since attacking a rival may cost you that rival’s voters’ second-choice rankings.
It can reduce the need for separate runoffs
Many places hold a second election when no one wins a majority. That costs money and often draws far fewer voters. RCV folds that runoff into one trip to the polls.
It may open the door to more candidates
If voters are no longer afraid of “wasting” votes, supporters argue, independents and smaller parties have a fairer shot, and primaries become less dominated by the most intense factions.
Every voting system rewards some behavior and punishes other behavior. The real question is which behavior we want to reward.
The case against ranked-choice voting
Critics are not simply defending the status quo. Their concerns deserve a fair hearing too.
Complexity and voter error
Ranking is a new skill for many voters, and the counting rules are harder to explain than “most votes wins.” Ballots can be spoiled if voters mark the same rank twice or skip ranks. Research and experience suggest that voters generally adapt, but error rates can be higher at first, and the burden may fall unevenly on communities with less access to voter education.
Slower and less transparent results
When a winner depends on multiple rounds, results may not be final on election night. Depending on the state’s rules, ballots may need to be centrally tabulated after polls close. Critics worry that waiting weeks, in a time of low trust, feeds suspicion even when the count is accurate.
The “exhausted ballot” problem
If you rank only one candidate and that candidate is eliminated, your ballot has no further effect. Because of this, the winner’s “majority” is a majority of the ballots still in play, not necessarily of everyone who voted. Critics say this undercuts the claim of a true majority. Supporters reply that the same is true of any runoff where some voters stay home.
Odd outcomes are possible
Mathematicians have shown that no ranked system is perfect. In rare cases under RCV, a candidate who would beat every rival head-to-head can be eliminated early, and in other rare cases, getting more support can theoretically hurt a candidate. These situations are uncommon in practice but real, and critics point to some actual elections as examples.
The evidence on its big promises is mixed
Studies of civility, turnout, and the diversity of candidates have not produced a clean, consistent verdict. Some find small positive effects, some find little change, and results depend on place and design. Honest advocates and honest critics both acknowledge that RCV is not a cure-all for polarization, which has deeper roots described in our explainer on what polarization is.
Plurality vs. ranked-choice at a glance
| Question | Plurality (one choice) | Ranked-choice |
|---|---|---|
| How you vote | Pick one candidate | Rank candidates in order |
| Winner needs | Most votes, even without a majority | A majority of ballots still in play |
| Spoiler risk | Higher when similar candidates split votes | Lower, though not eliminated |
| Counting | Simple, usually fast | Multiple rounds, sometimes slower |
| Separate runoff needed | Sometimes, in places that require majorities | Usually not |
| Main concern | Strategic voting and split votes | Complexity and ballot errors |
Follow the incentives
Few election reforms are as tangled up with self-interest as this one. Parties and incumbents tend to favor the rules that elected them. Minor parties and independents often favor changes that would give them a chance. Reform groups, consultants, and ballot-measure campaigns have their own motivations, too—much like the competing interests and institutional resistance sometimes attributed to the deep state. This does not make anyone’s arguments wrong, but it helps explain who pushes and who resists.
Voting rules shape strategy: who runs, how they campaign, and how voters decide. That is why the same reform can look like rescue to one group and a threat to another. For a simple way to examine such fights, see our upcoming piece on following the incentives in any political fight.
It also helps to remember that RCV is one tool among many. District lines, primary rules, and campaign money shape elections too. See our guides to gerrymandering, primary elections, and how campaigns are funded for the wider system.
A reform can be well designed and still oversold. Both can be true at once.
Facts, interpretations, and values
It helps to sort the debate into three kinds of claims.
- Facts: How the counting works, where RCV is used, and that no system is mathematically perfect. These can be checked.
- Interpretations: Whether RCV reduces negativity, helps third parties, or confuses voters. Evidence exists but is mixed and context-dependent.
- Values: Whether a winner should need a majority, how much simplicity matters, and how to weigh expression of preference against ease of counting. Data cannot settle these for you.
Two thoughtful people can accept all the same facts and still disagree, because they weigh the values differently. Naming that is often the first step toward a more useful conversation, which our guide on talking about politics with family explores.
Think about it: If you could design a ballot, what matters most to you: simplicity, certainty on election night, a guaranteed majority, or the freedom to support lesser-known candidates without fear? What would you give up to get it?
Key takeaways
- Ranked-choice voting lets you rank candidates; if no one has a majority, last-place candidates are eliminated and votes transfer to next choices.
- Supporters cite fewer spoiler effects, broader appeal, and savings from avoiding separate runoffs.
- Critics cite complexity, slower counts, exhausted ballots, and rare odd outcomes.
- Evidence on civility, turnout, and candidate diversity is mixed and varies by place.
- No voting system is perfect; each rewards certain strategies, and incentives shape who supports which reform.
- Laws on RCV are changing quickly, so check your state and local election office for current rules.
To see how this fits the bigger picture, explore our guide to who has power in America, or browse the full Power & Incentives category.
Frequently asked questions
What is ranked-choice voting in simple terms?
Instead of picking one candidate, you rank them in order of preference: first choice, second choice, and so on. If no one wins a majority of first choices, the last-place candidate is eliminated and those ballots move to each voter’s next choice. This repeats until someone has a majority of the votes still in play.
Does ranked-choice voting favor one party?
There is no clear evidence that it consistently favors either party. Its effects depend on local conditions: how many candidates run, how voters rank them, and what the alternative system would have produced. Supporters and critics can be found on the left and right, and the reform has been adopted and banned in both red and blue places.
Is ranked-choice voting the same as instant-runoff voting?
For single-winner races, the two terms usually describe the same method. Ranked-choice voting is also used as a broader label that includes multi-winner versions, where voters rank candidates and several seats are filled, sometimes called proportional ranked-choice or single transferable vote.
Can ranked-choice voting be used in presidential elections?
Not directly for the national outcome, because the Electoral College decides the presidency. Some states have used ranked-choice ballots for their presidential popular vote, but the state-by-state electoral vote system sits on top of any ballot design. Our guide to how the Electoral College works explains why.
Why do some places ban ranked-choice voting?
Opponents argue it is confusing, slows results, or changes who wins in ways voters did not expect. Some states have passed laws prohibiting it, while others have adopted it for some or all elections. Rules change often, so check your state and local election office for current law.