Rank the Vote
How we can improve political engagement, prioritize problem-solving, and promote true freedom of choice when it comes to casting a ballot.
When voters went to the polls last November, whether they voted on Election Day, voted early, or mailed in their ballots, their choice was clear: Donald Trump or Joe Biden. There was no third option unless you “wasted” your vote on the Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen, the Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, or Kanye West.
Many Democrats held their nose to vote for Biden simply because he’s not Trump. Some Republicans stayed home because the prospect of voting for a Democrat wasn’t enough to overcome their disdain for Trump.
Wouldn’t it be better if people simply voted for who they think would do the best job?
The Duopoly
The Democrat-Republican duopoly creates a scenario in which we must often pick between “the lesser of the two evils.” 56% of Biden supporters cited “he is not Trump” as their top reason for backing the Democrat from Delaware.
On January 6th, Trump supporters broke into the Capitol Building to stop Congress from certifying November’s election results. At least five Americans died as a result of this, as UC Davis historian Greg Downs puts it, “vigilante anti-democratic paramilitary violence.” While rioters occupied the House and Senate, strolled the Capitol’s halls, and seated themselves at representatives’ office desks, President-elect Biden channeled the words of Abraham Lincoln in an address to the nation:
We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just - a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless.
- Abraham Lincoln, December 1, 1862: Closing Paragraph in Message to Congress
Lincoln’s remarks highlighted the lasting importance of eradicating slavery and squashing the Confederacy’s insurrection. Our current partisan divide has not resulted in over half a million deaths like the Civil War, but blood was shed and lives were lost inside our Capitol Building.
In his Farewell Address, George Washington warned against political parties. He admonished the very idea of partisanship, saying that “the spirit of party,”
Serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.
- George Washington, September 19, 1796: Farewell Address
Our splintered society is creating an environment in which people may abhor one another for no reason other than political identity. This unfortunate and existential division, as visualized below, is quite literally tearing us apart.
Why Can’t We Get Things Done?
We can disagree without being disagreeable. Internet silos and the Outrage Economy have combined to create a Democrat-Republican echo chamber dichotomy with an “us vs. them” mentality. We surround ourselves with those who confirm our beliefs, at least partly because we overestimate how difficult it is to engage with opposing political points of view. How can we compromise if we can’t even talk to one another?
Our collective ability to challenge our ways of thinking is becoming more and more scarce. This is hurting the American experiment.
Our political system has been corrupted to benefit those already in power. Rather than solve problems for their constituents, politicians are hard at work keeping hot-button issues unresolved; they then use these issues to rile up their respective bases and win their party’s primary elections. The job description of a politician has changed from “improve your constituents’ standard of living” to “get re-elected.”
Why is it that Congress’ approval rating was just 15% the day before Election Day, but 95% of incumbents won their re-elections?
Electoral issues like gerrymandering, voter disenfranchisement, and campaign finance all play a part. Each one of these system-level problems requires steadfast and dedicated attention so that our elections can more accurately portray the will of the people. Solving these issues will likely take years of coalition building.
However, a simple and easy-to-implement solution, Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), is already gaining momentum.
We need an electoral system that gives people an honest opportunity to elect politicians who will focus on solving problems, not just getting re-elected. Ideally, voters would be able to recognize if and when an elected official does their job well instead of just fanning partisan flames. At least one study suggests that we already prioritize policy solutions and dedicated public service when picking our politicians.
Ranked Choice Voting may allow us to finally vote these problem-solvers into office.
Ranked Choice Voting
What is Ranked Choice Voting (RCV)?
Ranked Choice Voting is a voting system that allows voters to rank multiple candidates in order of preference rather than being limited to just one. Ranked Choice Voting ensures that the election winner has the broadest support possible. This is a departure from our current system of plurality voting; in plurality voting, also known as “first past the post,” the candidate with the most votes wins regardless of how many people voted for all the other candidates.
For example, during my Junior year at Stevens Tech in Hoboken, New Jersey, Ravi Bhalla was elected Mayor with 32.8% of the vote in 2017. That means 67.2% of Hoboken voters chose somebody else.
In Maine’s 2010 election, Republican Paul LePage became Governor with only 38.1% of the vote. Independent candidate Eliot Cutler won 36.7% of the vote and Democrat Libby Mitchell received 19.2% of the vote. Two other Independent candidates received a combined 6% of the vote. At the end of the day, 61.9% of Maine voters voted for someone other than Paul LePage. Nevertheless, the plurality of votes he received thrust him into office where he went on to veto more bills than all Maine Governors had in the previous 100 years, combined.
How should over 60% of Hoboken and Maine residents feel? One of the biggest reasons people decide not to vote is because they feel that their vote doesn’t matter. Seeing someone win with as little as 20% or 30% of the vote can only increase apathy.
How Does Ranked Choice Voting Work?
After Paul LePage was elected to his second term in 2014, this time with 48.2% of the vote, Maine voters decided that something needed to change. In the 2016 General Election, Maine voters approved a ballot initiative to adopt Ranked Choice Voting with 52% of the vote.
In Maine’s first test of Ranked Choice Voting, Democrat Jared Golden won Maine’s 2nd Congressional District race in 2018, ousting the Republican incumbent, Bruce Polquin, by around 3,000 votes. Polquin had originally led Golden after Election Day but failed to reach the 50% + 1 vote majority required to win outright.
This triggered what’s known as the “instant runoff” process. Specialized computer software sorted through voters’ rankings to eliminate non-viable first choices and redistribute their second choices accordingly. This instant runoff process only took several minutes, and after realignment, Golden had reached 50.5% of the vote and won the Congressional seat.
In 2002, San Francisco adopted Ranked Choice Voting, and this explainer video does a great job visualizing how the “instant runoff” process unfolds:
In 2019, New York City voters also chose to bring Ranked Choice Voting to their municipal elections. Its first true test will be this summer when New Yorkers elect a new mayor for the Big Apple.
In November 2020, Ranked Choice Voting was on the ballot as a statewide initiative in both Massachusetts and Alaska. Massachusetts, unfortunately, did not adopt Ranked choice Voting as the proposal received 45.2% of the vote, but Alaskans voted in favor of it with 50.5% of the vote. This move will bring Ranked Choice Voting to Alaska’s general elections, including the presidential election, beginning in 2022.
Here is the text of the Ranked Choice Voting portion of Alaska’s ballot initiative:
This act would establish ranked-choice voting for the general election. Voters would have the option to “rank” candidates in order of choice. Voters would rank their first choice candidate as “1”, second choice candidate as “2”, and so on. Voters “1” choice would be counted first. If no candidate received a majority after counting the first-ranked votes, then the candidate with the least amount of “1” votes would be removed from counting. Those ballots that ranked the removed candidate as "1" would then be counted for the voters' “2” ranked candidate. This process would repeat until one candidate received a majority of the remaining votes. If voters still want to choose only one candidate, they can.
Ranked Choice Voting is used in municipalities throughout the United States. This includes Oakland, Burlington, Santa Fe, Salt Lake City, Memphis, and Minneapolis. It is also used nation-wide around the world—from India, the world’s largest democracy, to Australia and Ireland, who have been using Ranked Choice Voting for over 100 years!
Why Ranked Choice Voting?
In places where Ranked Choice Voting is adopted, voters can expect their political experiences to improve. Ranked Choice Voting can:
Increase the prominence of Independents and 3rd parties
40% of voters are Independent, so the idea of only being able to choose between a Democrat and a Republican alienates many. Ranked Choice Voting allows you to vote for who you want and ensures your vote matters. It means no more choosing between the lesser of two evils or worrying about “wasting” your vote on a candidate who won’t win.
Shift election campaigns toward more positive messaging
If a politician wants you to consider them as your 2nd or 3rd preference, then they should campaign with civility and positivity. Voters are generally more likely to support someone who isn’t actively making enemies.
Empower women and people of color to run for office
Since Ranked Choice Voting eliminates the idea of a “spoiler” candidate, more people view running for office as a possibility. Winning seems more within reach, so people from underrepresented demographics may decide to run for office. Ranked Choice Voting opens the door to new candidates running in and winning elections, especially non-traditional and diverse candidates. It also removes the fear of like-minded voters splitting votes between candidates with similar viewpoints.
Save villages, towns, cities, and states money
Ranked Choice Voting can eliminate excess costs associated with traditional runoffs. In New York City, the Independent Budget Office estimates that, by instantly realigning voters’ choices, the city could save as much as $20 million for each election cycle that requires a runoff.
Decrease polarization
An electoral system that prevents politicians from winning with as low as 20% or 30 % support would encourage citizens to meet in the middle. With Ranked Choice Voting, winning candidates must have broader support to win. That means that candidates must reach out and listen to more communities to build a winning coalition.
What’s Next?
If any of these benefits jump out to you as a valid reason to support Ranked Choice Voting, then I encourage you to learn more about the policy and get involved wherever you can. The Ranked Choice Voting movement is quickly gaining steam, and organizations like FairVote and Rank the Vote are working hard to build grassroots support. In New York State, Ranked Choice NY is doing the same.
Ranked Choice Voting won’t end political partisanship. It won’t assuage the anger of Trump supporters. It won’t be the panacea that some Democrats desire.
But maybe—just maybe—it will allow cooler heads to prevail in our elections. We need calm and thoughtful leaders to guide us through uncertainty, and allowing voters to truly vote their consciousness is a step in the right direction. If we get more pragmatic, problem-solving politicians in office, then we can begin to actually solve issues like environmental conservation and economic security for individuals, families, small businesses, and communities sooner rather than later.