ranked choice voting
fAqs on rcv
Does RCV Save Money by Replacing Preliminaries or Runoffs?
Many local offices are elected in two rounds of elections. In some cases this is a preliminary election that winnows the field to two followed by a general election. In other cases it is a general election followed by a runoff election if no candidate won a majority.
In either case, the election that takes place on a day other than the general Election Day often suffers from weak and unrepresentative turnout, while raising issues of vote splitting in the first round and the possibility of disenfranchising military and overseas voters.
With RCV, a jurisdiction can enjoy the benefits of two rounds of voting in a single, more representative, higher-turnout election. This is why single-winner RCV is also known as “instant runoff voting.”
Can RCV save a jurisdiction money by eliminating the entire cost of a second election?
While helping promote majority rule and civil campaigning. This has been the motivation for the adoption of RCV in places like San Francisco (replacing runoffs) and Minneapolis (replacing primaries).
Are there reduced costs for candidates?
Ranked choice voting means reduced costs for candidates as well. Campaigning costs are significantly less when candidates have one election, instead of two.
Is it OK to choose just one candidate?
Yes. It’s important to note, though, that ranking multiple candidates doesn’t hurt your favorite candidate. It only stretches your vote further. If your first choice candidate is eliminated, your vote goes to your second choice. If your second choice is eliminated, your vote goes to your third choice candidate, and so on.
Candidates, hard drives, Saturday night plans — whatever it is, it never hurts to have a backup.
What if I don’t rank all of the candidates?
Ballot exhaustion occurs when when a voter chooses not to rank all candidates. The ballot is no longer countable in a tally because the candidate or candidates marked on the ballot are no longer in the contest. This can occur as part of ranked-choice voting when a voter has ranked only candidates that have been eliminated even though other candidates remain in the contest. Voters are not required to rank all candidates in an election.
In cases where a voter has ranked only candidates that did not make it to the final round of counting, the voter's ballot is said to have been exhausted. Consider this a strength because the voter made that decision. It is not unlike a traditional election in which a voter’s choice lost the race.
If a voter only votes for one or two candidates and those candidates go out in the first or second rounds, then that voter isn't participating in subsequent "instant runoff" rounds. Opponents of ranked choice voting continually bring it up, but they forget that this is about the will of the voter and when a voter chooses not to rank a candidate, there are many reasons why that happens.
Back to the point that the voter still fully expresses their will. What happens to those votes is what is interesting. In discussions with the Utah County Clerk's office, these ballots are separated from the rest of the ballots and scrutinized manually to ensure a voter's intent is reflected. That does cause a small increase in labor costs for the Elections staff, but well over half of Payson and Vineyard voters ranked all candidates making the increased time minimal for those small cities.
Around the country it is becoming more common to limit the number of choices. New York, for instance, allows you to vote for up to five choices.
Shouldn’t we have a primary?
RCV eliminates the need for a primary, which normally attracts somewhere in the realm of 30 percent of voters. In a nutshell, primaries are “very expensive polls.” RCV gives candidates a longer period of time to interface with their constituents, and to conduct their own internal polls. You could conduct a primary with RCV, but there is little advantage.
What about the participation of overseas voters (military, missionaries, ex-patriots)?
Protecting the right to vote for men and women serving overseas in the armed forces or living abroad is of the highest importance. Deployed military and other overseas voters encounter particular challenges during runoff elections and presidential nominating contests, largely because of their timing.
Federal law requires states to provide military and overseas voters with ballots at least 45 days before any federal election, but runoff elections require a new set of ballots. Sending a second set of ballots requires an enormous delay, driving down turnout in the runoff election.
In presidential primaries and caucuses, many candidates withdraw quickly after the first few primaries, before military and overseas ballots can be counted. Subsequent primaries may receive military and overseas ballots cast for candidates no longer in the race because those voters mailed their ballots before learning that their favorite candidate left the race.
With RCV ballots, a military or overseas voter can rank the candidates on a single ballot. If a runoff occurs, or if candidates drop out of a presidential contest, the ranked ballot is counted for whichever candidate in the runoff the overseas voter ranked highest.
Five states use RCV ballots to include overseas and military voters in runoff elections: Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. In addition, Springfield, IL has adopted this reform for local races.
What about other alternative voting methods?
RCV is by far the most time-tested and popular alternative voting method. You may read about other forms, including Approval Voting, Range Voting and others at FairVote.
