Oregon Voters Will Decide Whether To Embrace Ranked-Choice Voting
Will the Beaver State join Maine and Alaska?

Oregon citizens will soon have the chance to shift their elections to a ranked-choice voting system. On Sunday, Oregon's legislators approved sending H.B. 2004 to the voters in 2024. If the referendum passes, federal and statewide elections will shift to a ranked-choice system. Counties and cities will also be permitted to implement ranked choice for many local elections.
On ranked-choice ballots, voters don't just choose one candidate for office (though they can if they want). Instead, they rank candidates in order of preference. To win a ranked-vote election, a candidate must receive more than 50 percent of the vote. If no candidate wins a majority in the first tally, the votes are tallied again, but the candidate with the fewest votes is excluded. For voters whose first choice was the ejected candidate, their second choice becomes their vote in the second tally. This process continues until one candidate gets a majority of the vote.
Ranked-choice voting has been adopted in Maine, Alaska, New York City, and other locales. FairVote, a non-profit that advocates for implementing ranked-choice voting systems, has a map here.
If voters approve, Oregon will be the first state to implement ranked choice with the legislature's support. In Maine and Alaska, it was implemented via ballot initiative, and in Maine, it had to overcome significant legal resistance from some Republican politicians. In Alaska, the implementation of ranked-choice voting led to the election of the first Democrat in 50 years to Congress. That's because Republican candidate Sarah Palin is such a divisive figure even in her state that many voters who top-ranked another Republican candidate (Nick Begich) declined to choose Palin as their second choice. As a result, Democrat Mary Peltola won the seat, prompting Palin and some other Republicans to attack ranked-choice voting's legitimacy. Lawmakers in Florida and Tennessee have banned ranked-choice voting in their states (in Tennessee's case, overruling the will of Memphis voters who supported it).
But lest anybody think it's just Republicans opposed to a particular election system, you'll find opposition in places where one party's operatives have much control over which candidates are put before the voters. In New York City, prominent Democratic leaders attempted to stall the implementation of ranked-choice voting that citizens approved in 2021. Before Eric Adams was elected mayor, he criticized ranked-choice voting.
And in Washington, D.C., the local Democratic Party also rejects using ranked-choice voting for city elections. Party leadership voted against it in 2021, and they rejected it again earlier this year, putting out a statement that said, in part, "Our priority is to ensure that every vote is counted and that the voice of each voter is accurately represented, without introducing additional complexities that could hinder voter engagement and participation."
But there's little evidence that ranked-choice voting hinders voter engagement and participation. FairVote notes New York City saw its highest turnout in 30 years when ranked-choice voting debuted in its 2021 primaries. The group points to several other locations that saw increased turnout after implementing ranked-choice voting. Voters who have filled out a ranked-choice ballot say they are not confused by the system.
Ranked-choice voting gives some teeth to voters who don't want to support divisive candidates or campaigns propped up by the machinations of local party officials. It is not some electoral silver bullet. Nothing is. But the goal of ranked-choice voting is to elect candidates most voters are willing to live with. Not for nothing, the system also allows voters to support third-party candidates without worrying that they're throwing their votes away.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Will the vote for Ranked Choice Voting allow ranked choice voting?
1. Yes
2. No
3. The Rent’s too damned high
Excellent work, Mike. I greatly commend your effort because I currently generate more than $36,000 each month from just one simple web business! Even with just $29,000, you may start developing a reliable vs-10 online income and these are just the most basic internet operations occupations.
click here……> workingbitecoin.com
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, I’m now creating over $35,400 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job online! I do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28,400 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
.
.
Just open the link————————————————>>> http://Www.OnlineCash1.Com
“No confidence” should be an option on any ballot. If it takes the majority, a new election is required for that office, with prior candidates barred from running.
More clear: “None of the Above” in red letters for every office.
Just what I was thinking. The only way for people to know how ranked choice voting really works is to demonstrate it. Need many more options than ‘Rent is too high’ – eg Free ice cream today if you vote, None of the above, None of the below – with another dozen or so choices.
So what is the claimed benefit to Ranked Choice Voting? Does the article say?
Summary, not in any order:
decreased political polarization
better opportunities for 3rd party candidates
less negative campaigning
increased participation of minorities and other BIPOCS* [this claim is the most wild and ridiculous]
Excellent work, Mike. I greatly commend your effort because I currently generate more than $36,000 each month from just one simple web business! Even with just $29,000, you may start developing a reliable vs-10 online income and these are just the most basic internet operations occupations.
click here……> workingbitecoin.com
I can’t stop reading “BIPOCs” as “bipolar coloreds”.
I’m still not sure why it’s not hugely offensive to just lump all non-whites into one big pile.
It’s like the many colors of the rainbow flag, a coalition of oppression.
“Summary, not in any order:
decreased political polarization
better opportunities for 3rd party candidates
less negative campaigning
increased participation of minorities and other BIPOCS* [this claim is the most wild and ridiculous]”
My response:
Bullshit
When has that ever happened
Laughs mockingly
What ever helps you sleep at night
Democrats win more elections
Only when the Republicans run lunatics.
Begich people voting the Democrat #2 is a pretty solid ‘You Suck Ass’ at Sarah Palin.
When done the ‘Alaska Way’, it eliminates the mismatch between the primary and general electorates.
You get to be a ‘proper Democrat’ and vote for the (D) as #1 – but Murkowski as #2 because you really, really don’t like the alternative…
Or you get to vote for Mr Begich as #1 – but the Democrat as #2 because Sarah Sucks.
Both of these happened in the 2022 election – Murkowski was ‘saved’ from an inter-party challenge by Democratic crossovers…
And a Democrat won a Congressional seat because Republican supporters of the ‘normal’ Republican (Mr Begich) ranked the Democratic option #2 above Sarah Palin…
The alternative:
Party-primaries nominate unelectable ‘MAGA’ candidates, whom then go on to lose to their Dem opponent because of GOP cross-over votes… Unless one of the primary losers is really good with write-in votes or runs as an independent.
For sound economic perspective go to https://honesteconomics.substack.com/
Ranked choice is a vote obfuscation model based on the ” throw your vote away” fallacy.
Rather than giving voice or streaminlinging elextections ranked choice changes the dynamic. The option people pick in an election may not be the same as what they’d select in a run off between specific opponents.
In the end it’s just another panacea people are latching on to in exchange for the illusion of choice.
So your argument is that as the Arrow Theorem means no perfect 3+ candidate system exists (I simplify a little) we should stick to a system which favours a 2-party/1-candidate per party system.
It is a hell of a lot better way to do things than party-primaries…
People get to express their preference among all the candidates – rather than just the one presented to them by their party’s primary-electorate (Which trends very small, and very extreme in both cases).
Ranked choice voting is better than any other system, but it only works by itself when there is only one office to fill, like Governors or single-representative states or the President. When more than one office is to be chosen at the same level, as in Congressional Representatives or state legislature representatives or city councils, ranked choice voting should be accompanied by proportional representation at-large voting to ensure that each party or political alignment has a reasonable chance of winning at least one seat.
Basically yes. But short of doing that (which I don’t see anytime soon sadly) ranked choice is the best we can do.
to quote raspberry ” Wow, what a terrific way to say “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about and have no rebuttal. Great stuff.“
ranked choice is the best system that is feasible. with the 50% requirement, it ensures anyone elected has real consent of the people.
but at large positions are a terrible idea. i don’t know why you think this needs to be included in RCV in any way. power should stay as close to the people as possible, and at large positions are intended to push power away from the local. at large positions work well in a political organization, where cohesive platforms and messaging is the goal, but for government office they deliberately dilute the power of local electorates on who represents them.
They are trying to conflate proportional/at-large representation with RCV because they don’t actually have a good honest argument against RCV.
And they hate RCV because it ends the ability to stuff an extremist nutcase on the ballot in the primary & expect everyone to ‘Vote for the (R)’ even if nobody actually supports what the candidate is running on….
Ranked choice voting is nothing but the shiny new thing that appeals to the tech-adjacent disruptor generation. It has the same “benefits” as most other modern innovations: It’s new! It’s different! It annoys the old people! But does it actually work? Who cares!
Wow, what a terrific way to say “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about and have no rebuttal.”
Great stuff.
And a great counter, Raspberry Bidet.
“My rebuttal and defense of this outstanding new election method is to insult you EBHS.” – Your pal, Raspie.
Except EBHS did not actually advance an evidenced argument that could be rebutted. Given that there are well-known analytical arguments available on both sides, the mere posting of a prejudice about RCV does suggest that the poster doesn’t actually know enough about RCV to advance such arguments. As it happens, EBHS is smart enough to know the arguments, so I assume s/he was just too lazy to state them – in which case, RD’s response is both wrong and warranted.
Now that I know raspberrydinners is “angry” jeffy I can see the tics.
Still pissy there, Inceljeffy?
It works quite well.
The results for AK-Sen were identical to the last time a bunch of looney-tunes nutcases tried to primary Lisa Murkowski: Democrats crossed party lines to save her.
The fact that they did it via RCV rather than a write-in campaign doesn’t change any.
Idiots just need to stop trying to primary Murkowski & getting mad when they lose.
Blue states voting to make it easier to stay blue doesn’t matter, nor is there anything that red states should emulate.
Ranked choice gives third parties a greater chance of getting elected. Inherently, therefore, opposition to ranked choice voting means you do not want to give third parties a greater chance of getting elected. And that is true whether you’re blue or red.
We are not a parliamentary country. That is the only circumstance under which ranked choice actually works.
Please explain why RCV doesn’t work in a system where the executive is separate from the legislature and is elected separately, but does work in a system where the executive is elected as part of the legislature.
Because all parliamentary governments are coalition governments. There are very few exceptions to this. As such, there is way more differentiation between the parties.
All third parties in the US inevitably copy the bigger ones because, hot take alert, there is no actual market for what the third parties ostensibly sell.
The point of RCV isn’t solely 3rd-party representation.
It’s getting the GENERAL ELECTORATE rather than a PRIMARY ELECTORATE to choose the candidate.
For example, let’s look at Arizona. AZ has had Republican Senators for decades – up until the AZ primary electorate (much smaller than the general electorate) started picking candidates who are dead-on-arrival.
But… What if instead of letting the MAGA-heads pick the GOP’s candidates in a low-turnout primary… AZ had RCV…
What if there was no primary and the *GENERAL* electorate got to rank all the GOP and DEM candidates in each race by order-of-preference…
It’s highly likely that AZ would have produced different Senate results in 2022, as the party wouldn’t go into the general election with Blake Masters and Kari Lake dragging them straight to the bottom….
It’s getting the GENERAL ELECTORATE rather than a PRIMARY ELECTORATE to choose the candidate.
No. Not unless you intend on outlawing parties. Otherwise you will always get the greatest panderer.
Because all parliamentary governments are coalition governments.
Wrong. That’s simply factually untrue. Where parliamentary systems use a first-past-the post approach, non-coalition governments are normal and coalitions are the exception. It’s generally when you have PR that coalition governments tend to arise. If the US had PR, then the US too might have a Congress of coalitions – which is pretty much how Congress necessarily worked before the establishment of parties.
This strikes me as though you’re just throwing shit out there because you don’t like RCV because reasons,
You are confusing ranked-choice with proportional representation.
RCV is a replacement for primaries. It is not, in fact, common in parliamentary systems.
It does not change the single-member-district system we use to apportion our legislative bodies.
It simply removes the issue of ‘wasted votes’ pressuring people to vote for candidates they don’t actually support ‘because that person can win’ or ‘because that is the choice made for me in the primary’.
Then it’s a horrible replacement, since the point of a primary is a party’s voters expression of choice, which, by definition, is always a self-selecting sample.
And what if the primary voters persistently pick candidates who don’t have a prayer (Which is where the GOP is now)???
Why should the general electorate have candidates chosen-for-them by a small and unrepresentative minority?
More Republicans would win, if we used RCV instead of primaries.
Primaries give us doomed candidates that have no chance, because of the difference between what primary-voters want, and what the average ‘Republican-leaning’ voter will put up with before jumping ship to the Dems….
Tough shit. They can join the party and vote against those candidates. You’re free to join and free to leave them.
Show one time it did that retard. It gives some voters extra votes over others. No wonder you support it.
I support whatever leads to more people being at least reasonably satisfied with their representation, and where that representation more closely reflects overall voter preferences.
No wonder you’re opposed to it.
It doesn’t give anyone extra votes.
It just eliminates the primary scam, whereby candidates who have no fucking chance in the general election (Hi there Sarah Palin) get nominated by an extreme minority of their party.
You’ll note, JesseAz, it is the commies that are all for it.
I wonder why.
Ah, the new definition of communist: ‘a capitalist who opposes Trump”.
It has nothing to do with staying blue.
If anything, it allows the red minority *more* representation because you can rank the (R) candidate you like most #1 and the least-awful-Dem #2.
The idea that there is a ‘blue bias’ to RCV comes from the simple fact that when faced with ‘Republican, Democrat, MAGA’ as choices enough Republicans will switch parties to make sure MAGA loses.
That doesn’t change without RCV. It just means those people vote Democrat straight-up, rather than putting down ‘GOP, Dem, ‘ for RCV
If anything, it allows the red minority *more* representation because you can rank the (R) candidate you like most #1 and the least-awful-Dem #2.
This will never happen, since they do not have enough votes for the outcome to change.
Except that they do.
Just like Democrats in Alaska have enough votes to change the outcome – if they vote for Lisa Murkowski instead of the Democratic candidate (which they have done, en masse, twice now – when nut-case types have tried to primary her).
By allowing people to rank candidates in order of preference, voters can express support for their own party’s candidate, but also weigh in on which of the other-party’s candidates should win if their party loses.
It is a moderating influence. Which is a good thing.
And what has the great moderating done in terms of legislation?
Nothing.
Considering that this moderating influence does not exist yet – RCV is only a thing in a handful of states – how would you expect it to do anything?
The Murkowski election still would have gone the same way without RCV. And Maine doesn’t really have any nationally-noticeable controversies…
Like I said elsewhere, Alaska-style RCV on a nationwide scale (or even just in Arizona) would have significantly changed the 2022 election – in a way that helped the GOP establishment & hurt both MAGA and the Dems.
Instead of Republican voters being faced with a Trump-was-robbed-in-2020 freak vs a Democrat – and opting for the Democrat in sufficient numbers to change the results…
You would have seen quite a few more GOP wins – just not the people who were nominated without RCV as the winners…
Because other “moderates” (in non-RCV states) get elected all the time. Their results are poor.
Your comment makes no sense.
I’m talking about RCV moderating Oregon politics. Non-RCV states are not relevant.
The results in 2022 were poor-est for people claiming ‘Trump Won 2020’ – even in states that are purple/red. Flushed the whole idea of a ‘red wave’ down the toilet to satisfy Orange Man’s ego…
RCV (done right) eliminates the chance that such a freak-show candidate will be your only choice from your party on the general-election ballot.
And I was making the point (throughout the thread) that there is no market for moderation. RCV won’t change that, which makes it worse than useless.
there is no market for moderation
The argument by personal assertion. Biden got elected. He was more moderate than most Democratic candidates and he was certainly more moderate than Trump.
And, just how is it good to have the opposition pick the senator for the other party.
Except if you want to sabotage what would be the choice of actual Republican voters, when the LieCheatSteal party knows their votes won’t count, except as a poison pill.
I get paid more than $140 to $170 per hour for working online. I heard about this job 3 months ago and after joining this I have earned easily $10k from this without having online working skills . Simply give it a shot on the accompanying site…
Here is I started.…………>>> http://www.Richcash1.com
FWIW I do not approve of the tyranny of the majority; but the tyranny of the minority is decidedly no improvement, and a system which makes tyrannies of either type less likely is prima facie a good thing.
I don’t give a shit whether in the short term it is alleged to favour one party or the other, though I suspect that most of the right-wingers here have had their view on RCV conditioned by Sarah Palin’s loss.
the truth is that it really does not favor anyone, at least in the current climate. a district that leans one way will still lean that way, it just might have to tally the numbers for the second choice to get there.
what opponents fear is people understanding that they don’t have to vote for B as the first choice to keep A from getting elected. they can vote for the C that they really want. if A has the votes to win on the first round, they still had the votes if you vote for B instead of C. if C gets the lowest, you can put B as your second choice and still keep A from being elected. even fully embraced, the same preferred candidate will tend to win.
where the fear comes in is that, once people understand this, they might vote in larger numbers for third parties on that first choice. and that would destroy the illusion that what they are selling is what people actually want. it will expose that they can only win as the second choice of a lot of people who really want something different. only talking to the extremist base will begin to lose it’s effectiveness.
Yes. But it seems that the GOP supporters here fear that RCV is simply a way to get Democratic candidates elected – possibly because they cannot conceive that someone might act on principle or in good faith to support a better voting system, because they cannot conceive that they would do such a thing when it might disfavour their party.
They’re pissed about Murkowski & Pelota wining in Alaska – mostly due to party-switching (Republicans ranking (D) Pelota #2 to sink Palin, and Democrats ranking Murkowski #2 to block Tshibaka). That’s it.
The dumbest part about it, is that this sort of party switching is STILL allowed even without RCV & would still have happened.
None of the people who voted ‘(R) Begich, (D) Pelota’ would have voted for Palin in the general election – as an example…
Ranked choice voting allows candidates who are not extreme enough to win either party’s primary a shot at winning elections. Voter turnout for primaries is typically abysmal. That means that you end up with the 5% on the far left choosing the Dem candidate & 5% on the far right choosing the Rep candidate. Ranked choice allows moderates (as in what the electorate considers moderate – not commentors) to get elected.
Even with the extreme gerrymandering, this will help moderate our politics.
Now if election districts were all created by nonpartisan bodies (allowing for the possibility that such bodies can be created) then we might get real reform.
The SCOTUS just ruled a nonpartisan districting map for AL, created by an algorithm, Unconstitutional because it didn’t group enough Blacks together in safe districts
What the hell does that have to do with a discussion of RCV?
Did you happen to read the post I was responding to?
The ‘opposition’ to ranked-choice on the GOP side is 100% driven by a temper-tantrum over Murkowski’s win…
This stupidity ignores the fact that Murkowski not only COULD win without RCV, she did so *as a write-in candidate* the last time the far-right tried to primary her.
The reality is that RCV would be *immensely* helpful to Republicans (but not MAGA) nationwide, as it would end the trend of extreme, unelectable candidates being nominated in low-turnout primaries – then going on to bomb the general election.
People like Roy Moore, Kari Lake, Doug Maristrono, Memhet Oz, and so on would no longer be able to worm their way onto the ballot and then blow the race….
It was used in a nearby city and the “original” third place holder ended up as the mayor, she was absolutely terrible, and was tossed out in the next election.
This is lazy voter balloting.
If you can’t figure out who the best person is, stay home and don’t fuck it up for the people who do.
Ranked choice voting or as we call it in Australia “preferential voting” has been in operation in Australia for well over a century and there are no complaints about its operation.
That’s because Australia doesn’t have a dust-cloud of stupidity that regularly settles over it.
RCV eliminates primaries.
Primaries are for political parties to choose their candidate.
Why should taxpayers pay for political parties to choose their candidates?
learn what RCV actually is. because it is not what you seem to think it is.
Ending mail-in voting (open doors to fraud) would do a lot more.