Ranked Choice Voting Initiatives Massively Fail
Majorities in nine states vote to maintain partisan elections.

Initiatives related to ranked choice voting in political primaries and general elections were on the ballots in eight states and the District of Columbia. On the ballots were also an initiative that would repeal ranked choice voting (RCV) and restore plurality elections in Alaska, and to prohibit ranked choice voting in Missouri.
RCV lets voters rank candidates for political office by preference instead of choosing just one. If no candidate gets a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. Voters who picked the eliminated candidate as their top choice have their votes transferred to their next preference. This process repeats, eliminating the lowest-ranked candidates and redistributing votes, until one candidate achieves a majority.
First-past-the-post plurality party primaries exacerbate political polarization because candidates are generally chosen by each party's base consisting of relatively few but highly ideological voters. This setup pushes candidates to adopt more extreme positions to gain favor with primary voters.
Proponents of RCV argue that it helps ensure the winner has broad support and allows voters to express multiple preferences, creating a more representative outcome in multicandidate races.
Cato Institute scholar Walter Olson argued in 2021 that RCV "should hold a lot of attraction, I believe, for those of us with libertarian views." Why? Because libertarians, he observes, "tend to be aware that the so-called political spectrum does a poor job of capturing important facts about candidates; the ones we recognize as best (or worst) on matters of liberty and the rule of law do not necessarily line up neatly along a party spectrum. For libertarians, as for other groups, RCV respects and incorporates the complexity of actual voter preferences."
Federal courts have consistently ruled that RCV does not violate federal constitutional and statutory requirements with respect to freedom of speech, freedom of association, and equal protection under the law. Specifically, courts have found that RCV in primaries and general elections does not violate political parties' free speech rights because it neither limits parties' ability to express their positions nor restricts their freedom to support chosen candidates. RCV simply changes the mechanics of how votes are counted without suppressing party messaging or candidate competition.
While not all the votes have yet been counted, ranked choice voting appears to have been strongly rejected by voters in nine states. Only voters in Washington, D.C., chose to adopt RCV.
Let's take a look at the results.
Arizona Propositions 133 and 140: The first would amend the constitution to require partisan primaries and the second would amend it to permit the adoption of ranked choice voting in elections: Both were rejected (by 59 percent to 41 percent and 58 percent to 42 percent, respectively). Basically maintaining the state's current semi-closed primary system.
Colorado Proposition 131. Top-four ranked choice voting in primary elections and RCV for both federal and state general elections: rejected by 55 percent to 45 percent.
Idaho Proposition 1. Top-four ranked choice voting in primary elections and RCV for both federal and state general elections: rejected by 69 percent to 31 percent.
Montana Constitutional Amendment 126. Top-four ranked choice voting in primary elections for both federal and state general elections: rejected by 52 percent to 48 percent.
Montana Constitutional Amendment 127. Requires a majority vote to win state and federal general elections: rejected by 61 percent to 39 percent.
Nevada Question 3. Top-five ranked choice voting in primaries and RCV for both federal and state general elections: rejected by 54 percent to 46 percent. Note that a ranked choice voting amendment to the state constitution passed with 53 percent of the vote in 2022. (Amendments must be passed in two successive state general elections.)
Oregon Measure 117. Ranked choice voting in primary and general elections for federal and state executive offices beginning in 2028: rejected by 60 percent to 40 percent.
South Dakota Constitutional Amendment H. Replace partisan primaries with top-two primaries for state and federal elections: rejected by 66 percent to 34 percent.
Washington, D.C. Initiative 83. Semi-open primaries and ranked choice voting for all elections, beginning in 2026: adopted by 73 percent to 27 percent.
What about the initiatives that would repeal and prohibit ranked choice voting?
Alaska Ballot Measure 2. Repeal top-four ranked choice voting in primaries and general elections: too close to call now but it's 51 percent to 49 percent for repeal. Note that RCV squeaked through in 2020 with 50.55 percent vote in favor.
Missouri Amendment 7. Prohibit ranked choice voting and require plurality primary elections: prohibit wins 69 percent to 32 percent.
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
RCV sucks. I had to vote six times for the same potus candidate. In my town, the bottom three of Stein, Oliver, and West captured fewer than twenty votes combined.
This whole process too to get them on the ballots sucked, they paid these shills to get signatures inorganically via continual harassment outside of every establishment you could think of ie gyms, stores, parks etc. I can only imagine how much money was spent to get the signature to get these on the ballot then the messaging afterwards.
Thank god. What we really need is to make the voting and counting process more complicated and open to abuse.
Those Western initiatives were all attempts by former Californians to pollute their new state with bad ideas. RCV was merely the way to disguise jungle primaries
Alaska elected a Democrat due to RCV and CA came surprisingly close to putting Larry Elder in office.
In practice, it seems less likely to result in a better representation of the electorate.
That Democrat got 30ish percent of initial votes while gop candidates got over 60. Not exactly representative of the electorate.
In practice, it seems less likely to result in a better representation of the electorate.
It doesn't. It arbitrarily inflates the vote count, caps the ceiling, and conflates definitions to make it look like someone who appeared on 30% of the ballots got 50+1% of the votes.
The same way FPTP conflates, e.g., the majority of voters with the majority of the public except with an added layer of distortion.
Ironically, it would have passed if it was an RCV .
Yes, if the ballot choices were:
- I love RCV
- Let's try RCV
- What is RCV
- No
And the first three counted as approval.
+1.
In Seattle, we get:
1. Stalin
2. Mao
3. Pol Pot
4. Guy with boot on his head.
Leftist Media: Really, the problem with Harris campaign was that she didn't have enough time to campaign and educate the public as to her policies and ideals. Enough time to differentiate herself from her predecessor.
Also Leftist Media: Voting for all the candidates, everywhere all at once, in rank order is how we best ensure the electorate gets exactly what they want.
If you mean instant runoff voting, write "IRV" unless you mean a different way of resolving the ranked choices.
Also, could you possibly be less clear about Missouri?
This fucking first-top-three-past-the-ranked-post-multiple-choice-descending-triple-recount-70%-of-the-50%-of-the-20%-of-the-9% shit just needs to stop.
YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Majorities in nine states vote to maintain partisan elections.
Wait, what? Why would elections ever be wholly non-partisan?
"I don't believe in anything, vote for me!"
*looks over*
"Oh yeah? Well I don't believe in anything either, that's why you should vote for me!"
Wait, what? Why would elections ever be wholly non-partisan?
Between AI, crypto, RCV and a couple of other things, the old adage "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." could use a "Any sufficiently befuddled mind can be rendered incapable of distinguishing science from magic." for modern audiences.
"Proponents of RCV argue that it helps ensure the winner has broad support "
OR
RCV ensures the eventual winner did not have a majority.
It astonishes me that people make comments like this about RCV. It's not only false, it's obviously false, and doesn't even apply the criticism evenly besides.
RCV does not ensure the eventual winner did not have a majority. If someone captures a majority, they win outright.
Normal elections generally do not require a majority, but plurality.
RCV does ensure that the eventual winner has a majority of the votes in the final pairwise competition generated by iterated rounds of voting, while skipping the process of holding more and more elections.
In my state a "normal election" is the candidate who gets a majority of votes wins, if no one gets a majority the top two face off in a runoff election and, unless there is a tie, the winner is the one with a majority. In the rare case of a special election there is a jungle primary and the top two face off in the general election. The problem with that is if one party fields one candidate and the other fields several there is no party primary so the general election is a matchup between one party's majority winner and another's plurality winner.
Yeah, see, there are real ranked-choice voting methods that try to actually reflect the collective preferences of the voters (as much as Arrow's Impossibility allows), and then there's shit like Instant Runoff Voting, which Alaska uses.
RCV is garbage and the only people for it are the one who keep losing or as in Kalifornia system it keeps your choices to one party.
RCV either gives you the fixed party candidate or it gives you the participation trophy candidate and we don't want them running anything. look you were the least liked you are now in charge
Majorities in nine states vote to maintain partisan elections.
Ron, are you under the assumption that ranking your non-sequiturs makes them more or less stupid as well?
I have officially given up on my fellow Americans now. There is zero chance that anything other than emotional rah-rah political team rallies will determine the quality of candidates in the future; that issues rather than slogans will be discussed; that polarization and increasingly violent hostile confrontations will reverse course or even slow down; or that deficit spending, the worldwide war on everything, policing reform or the national debt will improve before bankruptcy hits unexpectedly, or before the infrastructure has deteriorated beyond the point of no return after the currency collapses. Glad I won't live to see it, but I feel bad for my children and grandchildren.
I think I actually am getting tired of winning.
I think California could save a lot of money if they just have a ballot initiative to block non-Democrat candidates from all ballots in the state. Better yet, constitutionally block having more than one candidate to choose from period.
There is no reason why voters in California needed to suffer the triggering effects of seeing the name Trump when they went to vote.
Ranked Choice Voting has resulted in Democrats winning. That means the system itself is leftist.
I was hoping you used up all your straw in the other thread.
Imagine how many empty bottles are laying around his duck taped lawn chair.
Good.
Pure Partisan-Bias isn't central to anyone but Democrats anyways.
Part of their [WE] Identify-as mob RULES absolutely ideology.
I say good riddance to bad rubbish.
Ranked Choice is convoluted, hard to explain to casual voters (especially seniors), and, for people who are already leery of the integrity of our election system, it adds an extra layer of complication for them to be skeptical of.
For my money, I'd like to see Approval Voting (https://electionscience.org/education/approval-voting).
Basically, one voter, one ballot. You can approve as many or as few candidates for any office as you wish. Majority win. If more than one candidate has a majority, most votes wins.
Simple to explain and grasp. No spoilers. No lesser of two evils. Just approve who you want.
I would got even a step further and add a "disapproval" system to it. If no candidate gets a majority, then all of them are "disapproved". New special election for that office and all current candidates are disqualified for that office during that election cycle.
This would give the benefit of forcing more candidates to appeal to the more moderate segment of society and would create a system of protest votes: voters could vote, but approve 0 candidates for a position; each of the votes would increase the overall tally and if enough people did that no candidate would get a majority.
Apparently you're the only one who finds ranked-choice convoluted or hard to explain. Meanwhile in the real world seniors don't actually find it hard to understand (What is your first choice? If that one doesn't win, who would you prefer instead? See? No problem!) And people who are leery of election security are already too far gone to be helped. Approval voting is two steps worse than the current two party system, so congratulations on totally losing the debate here! Of course, ranked-choice alone will not break up the two party stranglehold on Our Democracy (TM) - it would have to be an at-large statewide ballot with all candidates listed for ranking and any confusion would be eliminated by six-sigma-secure online ballots, but - never mind, you don't really want proportional representation, do you ...
"Approval voting is two steps worse than the current two party system, so congratulations on totally losing the debate here!" This pretty much sums up your response: wild accusation followed a claim for victory without offering any the slightest hint of an argument.
Still, I'll do my best to respond to a couple of claims:
"What is your first choice? If that one doesn’t win, who would you prefer instead? See? No problem!" That isn't how it "works", only how you vote within the system.
As to how it works, it depends... Ranked Choice Voting is not a single system, but can be one of several systems, including Instant Runoff and Single Transferrable Vote. Each has it one methods of deciding exactly what happens when a candidate doesn't reach the majority of the first, or possibly subsequent, tallies. So, for starters, this means you cannot give a "check single box, tally, majority wins" type of answer across the board. Even once you know the system, then you have to explain how the votes are tallied and if no clear winner, what happens the votes for the bottom candidate, and which votes get votes get shifted for the next (instant) runoff tally.
"Apparently you’re the only one who finds ranked-choice convoluted or hard to explain." That is patently absurd. Even a quick glance at some of the biggest proponent groups supporting RCV will show you complexity to voters as disadvantages of the system.
In addition to banning ranked choice voting, the MO ballot initiative also set requirements for:
- Requiring US Citizenship to vote in the state
- Requiring that the winner of a party's primary be their nominee in a general election
https://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/petitions/2024BallotMeasures
"Ranked Choice Voting Initiatives Massively Fail."
Do you hear that?
That's the political elites rejoicing and celebrating their victory over common sense and sanity.
More like the political elites are cursing because their election fraud tactics failed to pass. Unlike say the "general ticket" and "popular vote" 'democracy' = [WE] mob RULES absolutely.
Exactly right, the political class likes the political parties as they are. With real RCV the parties and primaries become irrelevant. What the political class has done, is bastardize RCV to give it a bad name with the “top 4” vote preceding the RCV. Thus, their celebration. Consider the groups raising money that goes only to party consultants (or almost all of it) – it wouldn’t be possible with a RCV, IRV or Approval voting system. Simply because the parties would become irrelevant, and consultants/pollsters/advisors/speech writers would have to align with a candidate instead of a party where the party insiders pick the candidate.
Note that many of the RCV measures start with a “top 4” or “top 5”, which means it really isn’t RCV, because that “top 4” allows the political parties to pick the candidates that get to participate in a RCV election (of only the top 4). Further, it requires two trips to the polling place, while real RCV doesn’t (Approval Voting is also better than the top 4 followed by RCV).
And BTW, Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is essentially the same as RCV, provided the politicians don’t have primaries, though IRV, RCV and Approval voting are all superior to winner by plurality, and could be used in party primaries but given typically only one party is allowed to vote in a primary (and only registered members of the party may vote in it), it will produce a candidate that reflects only those voting in the primary, not necessarily a candidate that appeals to a majority of voters.
If you want political parties (not a good thing IMHO) that choose the candidate, reject RCV, IRV and Approval Voting.
ranked-choice-voting-initiatives-massively-fail
Can I get a Hallelujah?!
Can I get an AMEN?!
.
So, what you are saying is that proponents of RCV are delusional.
RCV doesn't reduce polarization, it increases it. The only way for a third party to break the two-party system under RCV is to campaign either to the left of the left, or to the right of the right, then both beat the other candidate on their own side _and_ retain all the preferences from those disaffected voters whose first choice came third. 98 times out of 100 the result is still the duopoly wins. 1 time in 100 an outright-communist wins with center-left preferences, and 1 time out of 100 a local right-wing populist wins with center-right preferences.
Good.
In case last night didn't make it crystal clear for everyone, people are wise to the Democrat's BS now more than ever. And they're DONE with it.
Pretty sad that the LP has to hope for gimmicky bullshit like this. How much of a vote is a 2nd choice? Half? 3rd choice = 1/3? You thought Arizona was going to take a long time to count...
Good! As we've seen in places like europe, this has been a scheme largely invented for elites to pick and choose which voters and groups get to have a say and which can be easily ignored. If anything we should outlaw political parties all together.