In 1915, the town of Ashtabula, Ohio, became the first city in America to adopt ranked-choice voting (RCV). RCV is an electoral process in which voters rank the candidates on the ballot from most to least favorable. It was repealed there in 1960 due to an effort by Republican party officials to increase representation and diversify their local governments.
RCV has had a long and controversial history in the United States, where efforts to install it have always been met by fierce opposition. If no candidate reaches 50 percent of the vote share, the candidate with the lowest percentage is disqualified and the votes for that candidate are tabulated with the voter’s second choice. This process of elimination continues until a candidate reaches a majority of the vote share.
RCV allows voters to express their true preferences and allows candidates to address issues pertinent to voters. Proponents of RCV point to events like the election of Mary Peltola — the first Alaskan to be elected to the House of Representatives since 1972 — in 2022. As Deb Otis, director of research and policy at FairVote, said: “[Alaska voters] elected Mary Peltola to the House, who is considered one of the most moderate Democrats in the House in a race that included a couple of real hardliners who would not be considered moderate by any definition.”
Without RCV, a more extremist candidate that would have failed to represent the consensus voice of Alaskans, and accurately represent their interests, would have been elected.
RCV is already taking a foothold in some jurisdictions, such as New York City, Minneapolis and San Francisco, as well as Maine and Alaska, which use RCV for all federal and state elections. Ranked choice voting is on the ballot across America this year in states such as Colorado, Nevada and Oregon. But for America to have fairer and less polarized elections, it must be adopted on a national level.
RCV has been proven to elect candidates who better reflect voter interests and are more moderate. In this sense, RCV combats extremism in an age of increasing political division. Studies show that the United States is polarizing much faster than other democracies. Further, there is a deep divide when it comes to trust in the American government, with a Statista poll finding that 61 percent of Democrats say they trust the government and only 26 percent of Republicans say they do.
In a two-party system, in which candidates must take exceedingly polarized and fringe stances to win their races, extremism is bound to spiral out of control. That is why moderate candidates, both Republican and Democrat, are faltering. In Wyoming, Liz Cheney, a moderate Republican who stood up to Trump in the wake of January 6, was defeated in her primary by Harriet Hageman, an extremist Republican endorsed by Trump with Cheney garnering 28.9 percent of the vote compared to Hageman’s 66.3 percent. On the other side of the aisle, Democrat Jon Tester of Montana, a moderate Democrat who has centered his campaign around Montana-based issues, lost his reelection bid on Tuesday to Tim Sheehy, a far-right Republican, also endorsed by Trump.
The era of issue-based campaigns and loyalty to a candidate over a party is largely gone and is something that can effectively be brought back by RCV. We are better served when candidates cater to constituent needs and craft campaigns centered around improving the lives of the people they are running to represent than pledge allegiance to their party lines. RCV allows a return to issue-based campaigns and strengthens our democratic institutions by making it more difficult for reactionary extremist candidates to win.
Further, RCV empowers independent and third-party candidates, providing more options in a moment in which Americans are overwhelmingly dissatisfied with the two-party system. 63 percent of U.S. adults agree that a third political party is necessary. But, with the current set-up of elections, people often settle for the Democratic or Republican candidate in fear of not wanting to waste their vote. RCV rids the voter of this burden and allows Americans to express their true preferences. RCV also minimizes the spoiler effect of third parties.
The spoiler effect has long plagued our two-party system dating back to 1992 when Reform candidate Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote, aiding Bill Clinton in his path to the White House over incumbent George H.W. Bush, spoiling his chances of reelection. And in 2000, Ralph Nader, the Green party candidate, took votes away from Al Gore in key states such as Florida, which Gore only lost by 537 votes, handing the election to George Bush.
However, the implementation of RCV would allow those who align most with candidates such as Nader to vote for them without the worry of empowering the candidate they are least aligned with.
RCV has been criticized by both Democrats and Republicans. Republicans fear it would create an electoral landscape that they could not win in. Democrats cite concerns regarding the complexity of RCV and the overall challenges that would be associated with it.
But RCV has been implemented successfully at state levels and this should give us hope. The current draconian system does not have to be the end-all-be-all. We can, and should, advocate for a system that is more democratic and better serves us. Until the U.S. adopts RCV nationwide, our republic will remain flawed, divided and anti-majoritarian.
Alex Benach PO’28 is a first-year at Pomona from Washington, DC. He looks forward to the day he is able to rank his choices for elections up and down the ballot.
Facebook Comments