Ranked choice voting makes ballot measures better
Ballot measures are an important part of direct democracy in the United States, allowing citizens to vote directly on policies. Yet sometimes, ballot measures require more than a binary answer. In these cases, ranked choice voting (RCV) has significant advantages over other ways of voting. Notably, it can prevent “strategic voting,” and pick a policy that reflects a majority of voters.
How can RCV improve ballot measures?
There are many ways to structure a ballot measure that presents more than two options to voters. They include:
- Plurality voting
- Delayed runoffs
- Multiple-step questions – usually, the first question asks whether or not to preserve the status quo, and a second question asks which alternative to use if the status quo is rejected.
However, all of those methods pose significant problems. With plurality voting, a policy may be adopted even if a majority of voters vote against it. With a delayed runoff, turnout may decrease between the initial vote and the runoff, picking a policy that does not reflect the whole electorate. With all three methods, voters may feel pressure to vote “strategically” to block their least-favorite option, instead of voting honestly for their favorite.
Ranked choice voting avoids these problems. It functions as an “instant runoff,” where all voters can weigh in on the final decision in one, high-turnout election. Voters can vote honestly, knowing that if their top choice can’t win, their vote counts for their next choice.
Case study: The Puerto Rico Status Act
The status of Puerto Rico has been subject to much debate in recent years, and support is growing in Congress for a binding referendum on the subject.
A recent proposal, the Puerto Rico Status Act (H.R. 2757), would put three options on the ballot: independence, statehood, and free association. There would be a runoff election weeks later if none of those options garnered above 50% of the vote. Delayed runoffs like this risk a significant drop in turnout, meaning a smaller fraction of voters could make the final decisions. Runoffs also unnecessarily duplicate costs, since poll workers and equipment must be brought out a second time. A top-two runoff election with only three options eliminates the possibility of vote-splitting changing the outcome. However, RCV could produce the same result without requiring a runoff, saving voters’ time and taxpayers’ money.
Moreover, a competing Senate version of the proposal would add a “status quo” option to the ballot measure. A measure with four options could see an outcome determined by vote-splitting, even with a runoff. It’s not hard to imagine Puerto Ricans who want a middle-of-the-road option splitting between free association and the status quo, advancing a binary choice between independence and statehood to the runoff. RCV prevents vote-splitting by letting voters with similar views consolidate around a viable option they can accept.
Case study: Seattle election reform ballot measure
In 2022, Seattle held a ballot measure on reforming city elections. The measure included two questions: whether to adopt a new voting method at all, and whether approval voting or ranked choice voting should be the new method. Ranked choice voting won the second question with 75% of the vote, but the first question barely passed with 52% in favor. Some power brokers in the city encouraged Seattlites to vote “no” on the first question because of strong reservations against approval voting, even though they preferred RCV over the status quo.
This gamesmanship illustrates how the results of a multiple-step ballot measure can depend on what the public expects the results of one question to be. A ballot measure using ranked choice voting could have presented approval voting, RCV, and the status quo in a single question, avoiding gamesmanship.
Conclusion
Ranked choice voting can greatly simplify ballot measures that require more than two choices. Expensive runoffs aren’t needed, and the problems with multi-step questions are avoided.
A growing number of organizations are already using ranked choice voting to make consensus decisions. For example, Spokane, Washington selected its beautiful new flag through a binding ranked choice vote in 2021. In Canada, the residents of Asbestos, Quebec selected a new town name – Val-des-Sources – through ranked choice voting. It’s time for cities and states to improve their ballot measures with ranked choice voting.
This is the seventh post in FairVote’s ongoing #PutRCVOnIt series, where we examine how RCV works in conjunction with, and improves, other election reforms. We acknowledge that there are many ideas for improving American democracy, but also that no reform is a silver bullet. We explain why RCV is a key piece of the puzzle, and how it fits in with other pieces.
