They Claim It Is Better

How is it better?

Ranked choice voting (RCV) offers several advantages that proponents argue make it a better voting system compared to traditional plurality-based systems. Here are some key benefits of ranked choice voting:

1.         Majority Winners: RCV ensures that the winning candidate has majority support. By allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, RCV considers the full spectrum of voter preferences. It promotes the selection of candidates who can attract broad support, rather than candidates who might win with a narrow plurality but lack majority support.

2.         Elimination of Spoiler Effect: RCV eliminates the "spoiler effect" where similar candidates split votes, potentially allowing a less popular candidate to win. With RCV, voters can rank their preferred candidate first without the fear of wasting their vote. If their first-choice candidate is eliminated, their vote is transferred to the next-ranked candidate, ensuring their voice is still considered.

3.         Reduction of Tactical Voting: RCV reduces the incentive for strategic or tactical voting. Voters can express their true preferences without concerns about vote splitting or negative consequences. They can rank candidates based on their genuine preferences, rather than feeling pressured to vote strategically for a perceived frontrunner or against a disliked candidate.

4.         Positive Campaigning: RCV encourages candidates to engage in more positive and inclusive campaigning. Since candidates need to appeal to a broader range of voters to secure higher rankings, they have an incentive to build coalitions and reach out to a diverse electorate. This can lead to more issue-based campaigns, reduced negativity, and increased collaboration among candidates.

5.         Increased Voter Choice: RCV expands voter choice by allowing voters to support their preferred candidate without fear of "wasting" their vote. Voters can rank candidates beyond the traditional binary choice, empowering them to express their nuanced preferences and support candidates who align closely with their values.

6.         Cost and Time Efficiency: RCV can potentially be cost-effective by eliminating the need for separate runoff elections and reducing negative campaigning. It streamlines the electoral process by determining the majority through ranked preferences, saving time and resources associated with additional elections.

7.         Representation and Inclusivity: Proponents argue that RCV promotes more representative outcomes by ensuring that candidates with broader appeal are elected. It can provide a platform for diverse voices, reducing the barriers for candidates from underrepresented communities and encouraging a more inclusive political landscape.

It's important to note that the benefits of ranked choice voting can vary depending on the context and implementation. Supporters of RCV argue

that it leads to fairer and more inclusive elections, encourages positive campaigning, and enhances voter satisfaction and representation. However, the

effectiveness of any voting system also depends on factors such as voter education, implementation procedures, and the specific political landscape of a

jurisdiction.

 Why it is not Better

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) is criticized for failing to uphold the principle of "One Person, One Vote." This is because RCV allows some voters multiple opportunities to influence the outcome, while others only have one chance. In RCV, second-choice votes only count for those whose first choice has been eliminated. This can lead to an unrepresentative outcome, as demonstrated by the 2009 Mayoral RCV election in Burlington, Vermont, which eventually led to the repeal of the system.

RCV attempts to address the issue of vote-splitting, but it can still occur in any round of the voting process. Additionally, RCV doesn't eliminate the spoiler effect, which allows major parties to discourage support for third-party candidates by propagandizing against them.

RCV also results in higher rates of spoiled ballots compared to traditional Choose-One Voting, particularly among lower-income voters and historically marginalized communities. Errors such as equal rankings, skipped rankings, and double rankings are common. RCV imposes limitations on the number of candidates a voter can rank, potentially preventing them from expressing their true preferences.

Another criticism is the possibility of a false majority. RCV stops tabulation when a candidate is the top choice on a majority of remaining ballots, even if another candidate is preferred on more ballots overall. This means that only a fraction of the rankings are considered, potentially excluding the candidate who is actually more preferred by voters.

RCV also requires centralized counting, leading to logistical challenges. For example, in Maine, where RCV was adopted in 2018, ballots need to be shipped to a central location for additional voting rounds, causing delays in determining the election outcome. The lack of batch summability makes the process time-consuming and less transparent.

Overall, RCV faces criticism for its potential to undermine the principle of "One Person, One Vote," increase ballot errors, limit voter preferences, and create logistical challenges in the counting process.

https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-a-disaster-in-disguise/