Single-choice voting may be the only form of voting you know if you’ve grown up in the United States. You select one person, but if you want to deter from one of the two major party candidates (Democrats and Republicans) you have to decide on whether or not you are “wasting” your vote — that is if your third party candidate has a chance of winning at all.
There is a newer voting form that has been popping up in various cities and states across the country: Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). RCV allows voters to rank candidates on the ballot from favorite to least favorite. If no candidate reaches 50% of the vote to win, then the candidates with the least votes are eliminated and second choice votes are counted. You repeat this process down the rankings until someone receives majority support. It should be noted that it is not required to vote for more than one person.
One clear benefit of RCV is that it allows voters to avoid feeling pressured into voting for an establishment candidate against their preferences. As part of the rise of political polarization in the U.S., many districts have become “safe,” in which the incumbent is almost guaranteed to win. The reelection rate for House members in 2024 was 96.6% and 88% for Senate members, according to Open Secrets. A lack of competitiveness in combination with low voter turnout highlights an increasing trend in single-choice voting or, “lesser-of-two-evils” voting.
This type of voting forces voters to choose between the “lesser of two evils,” in this situation the establishment parties, Democrats and Republicans. Many voters may prefer a third-party candidate, but believe they cannot win. As both parties move toward the ideological fringes, voters often settle for the closer option, contributing to the rise of “safe” districts.
RCV could reduce the effects of political polarization by offering a secure way to vote for a candidate with differing views from establishment candidates, without risking people’s votes, and in effect incentivize electoral competition overall. Even if third-party candidates don’t automatically begin to win elections after the institution of RCV, earning a larger percentage of the vote in the beginning could give them momentum for future elections.
Another reason why it’s hard for challengers to win against establishment candidates is name recognition and campaign finances. Establishment candidates already have their names out there from running previous campaigns, maybe backed by big donors, and considering many voters are not informed, they tend to be influenced by psychological influences like name recognition. These financial and status-related barriers disproportionately affect young candidates, candidates of color, female candidates, and low-income candidates.
These types of candidates are also coincidentally the type that can provide more diverse perspectives to legislative debates, and help to innovate beyond what establishment candidates may generally think. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found 42% of Americans believe electing more candidates from diverse backgrounds could improve policy. As far as substantial evidence, since the impact of RCV in terms of diversity is a relatively new research area, it’s currently impractical to declare this a causal relationship. However, there are a few studies that point to RCV and more diversity being a correlated relationship at minimum.
Analysis from a 2021 “Politics and Governance” article found that RCV promoted a greater representation of women. In the 2020 election cycle, women were 39% of candidates, but won 42% of seats. They had a higher success rate of 27% compared to the 23% rate of men. RCV is shown to result in more candidates overall, which can perhaps dilute the effects of diverse racial representation. Nevertheless, a 2021 Fair Vote report found candidates of color performed better in RCV elections than non-RCV ones, suggesting RCV can at least help non-white candidates build broader electoral support.
RCV looks to counteract an additional trend in the current political schema — negative campaigning. This is where candidates prioritize spreading negative information about their opponents to damage their public image. If a candidate is too negative during the campaigning season and doesn’t do enough to justify why they should be receiving votes, they could move down the rankings. Or they could miss out on second — and third — choice votes in general by not having enough broad appeal, and accidentally alienating voting blocs with negativity in their ads.
A few surveys reveal that people perceive their election cycles as less negative when RCV is used. In one survey from 2014, 29% candidates from across seven RCV cities reported their opponents describing them in negative terms. Whereas, this figure was 40% in non-RCV cities. A 2025 study found RCV elections resulted in more positive content in newspapers, more attempts to reach out to other candidates, and candidates campaigning for more than first-place votes on X.
Some people may presume that RCV would cost more than single-choice elections to run. One example could be that it may take the workers more time to count until a candidate reaches a 50% vote majority. However, RCV provides an opportunity for multiple rounds of elections to be condensed. In some cities and states, they have runoff elections where if no one reaches 50% of the vote, they have another special election with just the top two candidates.
For example, the 2020 Senatorial runoff election in Georgia cost taxpayers about $75 million extra. On the other hand, inherently in RCV there is a system for if no one achieves 50% — you simply go down to the second or third choice. Plus, the voting equipment they use in the state is already designed to be capable of RCV.
Lastly, there are concerns that RCV may require voter information campaigns in order for people to adapt to the new system. While this could be helpful to some degree, surveys show that RCV is quite intuitive to understand. In Alaska, 84% of voters say it’s simple, and 82% in Maine and 91% in Portland, Oregon agree. The 2025 Democratic primary for the NYC Mayoral race was highly contested with newcomer Zohran Mamdani scoring national headlines. 78% of voters in this race ranked more than one candidate, demonstrating a preference for the ability to do so.
Recently, in Michigan where I live, there has been a push to make RCV available statewide. Three Michigan cities passed initiatives to use RCV in their cities in 2023, but current state rules don’t allow for it. On top of this, the Michigan House passed a bill to permanently ban RCV across the state in 2025, although it has not passed in the Senate. Ranked Michigan Vote is a group that was collecting signatures to include a RCV ballot proposal in the 2026 general election, but unfortunately did not meet the deadline. They have confirmed they will retry in 2028, so if you live in Michigan and believe in this initiative, look up how you can volunteer to help!