This memo explains why proportional ranked choice voting is better than sequential ranked choice voting. Both are multi-winner forms of ranked choice voting (RCV), and the voting experience is the same; voters simply rank the candidates in order of preference. However, how winners are determined is different in each method.
Proportional RCV (also known as single transferable vote) picks winners who are representative of the whole electorate. Candidates win when they receive a certain share of votes. As a result, political or demographic groups pick winners in proportion to their share of votes cast.
Sequential RCV is “hyper-majoritarian” – the majority faction can essentially elect (or nominate) every spot and shut out the voice of minority factions.
Proportional RCV
Impact: In a 2-winner proportional RCV contest, each candidate needs support from more than one-third of voters (33.3%) to win. Overall, at least 2/3 of voters (or 66.6%) will elect someone they support.
With more winners, the threshold is lower. This lowers barriers for minority political or demographic groups to win representation (or advance from a primary to a general election). At the same time, a significant majority of voters will always elect a candidate of their choice, and if there is a majority bloc in the electorate, they will win most of the seats.
Where it’s used: Proportional RCV is used around the world, including in Ireland and Australia. In the U.S., it’s used by Albany, CA; Arden, DE; Arlington, VA; Cambridge, MA; and Minneapolis, MN.
Sequential RCV
Impact: Voters who already helped elect a candidate of their choice get a second “bite at the apple.”1 As a result, this system preserves majority rule, but also allows a majority faction to essentially determine who wins each seat.
Where it’s used: Utah’s legislature authorized a time-limited pilot program from 2019 to 2025 that allowed municipalities to use RCV for local elections, including sequential RCV for multi-winner contests. Several Utah cities used sequential RCV during the pilot’s lifespan. Sequential RCV was used in Australia in the early 20th century before being abandoned in favor of proportional RCV.
Side by Side Comparison
See the following mock proportional RCV vs. sequential RCV elections. Both examples assume the same set of ranked ballots.
In these examples, the Orange Party constitutes 55% of the electorate, and the Purple Party constitutes 45%. With proportional RCV, a candidate from each party wins one spot. With sequential RCV, the Orange Party wins both spots, meaning the Purple Party has no representation, despite making up nearly half of the electorate.
Though not all elections are partisan, the same logic applies to issue or demographic groups; proportional RCV identifies winners relative to their share of support in the electorate, and sequential RCV allows the majority faction to choose all winners.
In general elections, proportional RCV leads to more accurate representation. In primary elections, proportional RCV better represents the party by ensuring multiple factions within the party can advance a candidate of their choice, whereas sequential RCV may shut that faction out. For this reason, proportional RCV is the better version of RCV for multi-winner elections.
Comparison Table
| Proportional RCV | Sequential RCV | |
| Philosophy | “Different factions should earn representation based on their share of the electorate.” | “The biggest faction should have the power to win every seat.” |
| Threshold needed to win a seat | Varies based on number of seats to fill. For 2-seat elections, 33.3% + 1 | 50% + 1 |
| Equal for each voter? | Yes – 1 “single transferable” vote per voter | No. Voters who elect their first-choice candidate can also elect their second choice, while other voters’ voices are not heard. |
| Where it’s used | International standard for multi-winner RCV | Several cities in Utah |
- One could argue that proportional RCV also gives some voters a second “bite at the apple” via surplus votes. However, surplus votes only count as a fraction of a vote. Think of your vote like a dollar: If it only takes 90 cents to elect your first choice, you can spend the remaining 10 cents on your next choice. However, if you supported the candidate who won the first seat in a sequential RCV contest, you would get another full dollar, equal in power to those who have not yet helped elect a candidate of their choice. ↩︎