Critics argue that Ranked Choice Voting complicates elections and undermines voter participation.

Ranked Choice Voting: More Choices, Better Elections?

Proponents of ranked choice voting (RCV) argue that it offers voters more choices and reduces negative campaigning, as candidates strive to appeal to a wider audience.

However, Jason Snead, executive director of the Honest Elections Project, questions whether RCV actually improves elections. While it may provide more options for voters, Snead believes that the real issue lies in the complexity it introduces when there are multiple races and candidates on a single ballot.

“You’re making voting more complex by increasing the informational burden in order to be able to participate because now you don’t just have to know about one or two candidates—the major party candidates in the election—now you have to know about four or five candidates,” Snead told The Epoch Times.

According to the Ranked Choice Education Association, RCV requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate receives a majority in the first round, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their supporters’ votes are redistributed to their second choice. This process continues until a candidate secures 51 percent or more of the votes.

While some argue that RCV is better suited for primaries, where the goal is to select the strongest candidate with broad support, others remain skeptical. They believe that choosing political candidates is fundamentally different from choosing ice cream flavors and that voters may not be familiar with all the candidates in down-ballot races.

The Cost of Implementing RCV

One concern raised by critics is the cost of educating voters about RCV. Jurisdictions that adopt RCV often spend significant sums of money on voter education initiatives. For example, Alaska reportedly spent around $3 million, while New York City allocated approximately $15 million for voter education.

Additionally, the time it takes to count RCV ballots can be a cause for concern. Critics argue that the extended tabulation process may undermine confidence in the election results.

Support and Opposition

FairVote, a major proponent of RCV, claims that it is supported by individuals and organizations across the political spectrum. However, critics like Snead argue that FairVote is funded by left-wing donors.

While RCV may have its supporters, it also faces opposition. A survey conducted in Arlington County, Virginia, found that nearly 61 percent of respondents were against using RCV in a general election. Many cited difficulties in understanding the tabulation process and suggested that RCV may be better suited for single elections rather than general elections.

As the debate over ranked choice voting continues, the question remains: Does RCV truly offer more choices and improve elections, or does it introduce complexity and potential drawbacks?