Ranked-choice voting asks voters to rank candidates in order of preference. If no candidate reaches a majority of first-choice votes, the last-place candidate is eliminated and their voters' second choices are redistributed. The process repeats until one candidate has a majority. Voters simply number their choices; the counting is more complex than the voting.
The Case For
RCV eliminates the spoiler effect — a third-party candidate can't cost a major-party candidate the race, because those voters can rank a major-party candidate second. It guarantees the winner has majority support after redistribution. And it creates incentives for less negative campaigning: candidates have reason to appeal to opponents' supporters as potential second choices.
The Evidence
Studies of cities using RCV find modest reductions in negative campaigning and some evidence of increased voter satisfaction. Turnout effects are mixed. The track record in the U.S. is still limited, though Australia's century-plus of use provides a longer baseline showing that the system functions stably in democratic elections.
"RCV doesn't transform politics. But it changes the incentive structure in ways that tend toward less polarization at the margins — and at the margins is where most political change actually happens."
The Critics
The most serious concern is ballot exhaustion — voters whose candidates are all eliminated and who didn't rank enough alternatives lose their vote in the final round. Critics also cite delayed results, complexity for voters, and the public education challenge, illustrated by Alaska's 2022 special election. Partisan critics on both sides have claimed RCV systematically disadvantages their party, a claim that shifts based on recent outcomes and lacks consistent empirical support.