Ranked-choice voting

Lens adapted to this topic: The case for RCV and the evidence behind it

Mainstream election researchers and reform analyses generally treat RCV as a plausible improvement over plurality voting, especially because it lets voters express backup preferences and can determine a majority winner without a separate runoff. The strength of the case depends on the specific RCV design, electorate, and implementation.

• RCV can reduce the risk that a candidate wins with only a limited base of support, while allowing voters to rank preferred candidates without necessarily helping a spoiler candidate.
• Instant-runoff counting can resolve a contest through successive transfers rather than holding a separate runoff election weeks later.
• Research reviewed by the American Bar Association reports clear benefits over plurality voting, while also examining effects on voters, candidates, campaigns, and turnout.
• RCV is not one single system: instant-runoff voting is common in single-winner elections, while other ranked systems can be used for proportional representation.
• Election authorities emphasize that voters retain a voice if their first choice is eliminated, although later rounds may take additional time after ballots are received.

Lens adapted to this topic: Dissenting evidence on RCV's limits and trade-offs

Serious critics contend that RCV is not a universally reliable replacement for plurality voting. Their objections focus on mathematical pathologies, the possibility of center-squeeze or other non-intuitive outcomes, ballot exhaustion and voter comprehension, and the claim that alternative systems such as approval voting may perform better.

• Critics argue that instant-runoff voting can fail to select a candidate who would defeat every other candidate in head-to-head comparisons, making its outcomes sensitive to the elimination rule.
• Some voting-theory critiques identify a center-squeeze spoiler effect and other mathematical vulnerabilities shared with plurality-with-elimination methods.
• Opponents argue that RCV can be difficult for voters to understand and that incomplete rankings can reduce a ballot's influence in later rounds.
• Critics contend that the system's added counting and implementation complexity can create administrative burdens and delay final results.
• Some reform advocates who reject RCV argue that approval voting would be a better alternative, citing RCV's alleged failures, repeal efforts, and limitations.