Introduction

In ranked choice voting (RCV) elections, more votes count meaningfully. If a voter’s first choice doesn’t advance to the final round of the RCV count, that voter’s ballot counts for whichever finalist they ranked highest.

This means more votes count toward the decisive outcome than in choose-one elections, where only some voters weigh in between the candidates who stand a chance. 

Consider the real-life example of the 1992 presidential election. Nationwide, Bill Clinton won 43% of the popular vote, George H.W. Bush had 37%, and Ross Perot had 19%. In a choose-one election, Perot’s voters had no say in the decisive outcome between Clinton and Bush. With RCV, they could have.

FairVote analyzed the results from single-winner RCV elections in the United States, and found that RCV causes an average of 17% more votes to directly affect the outcome between candidates who actually have a chance at winning – equivalent to millions more voters casting a meaningful vote.

Methodology

Our dataset includes all single-winner RCV elections with three or more candidates since 2004. This includes over 400 races through January 2024. 

We include races that were decided based on voters’ first choices only (in one round), as well as races that went to an RCV count – using multiple rounds to identify a majority winner. Our dataset is available upon request.

To determine how many more votes count meaningfully because of RCV, we compare the vote share for the top two finalists in the final round of the RCV count to the vote share for the same two candidates in the first round. The additional votes counting for finalists in the last round reflect extra voters who cast a meaningful vote because of RCV.

Naturally, in races decided in the first round, there is no RCV count and the number of additional meaningful votes is zero.

Across all contests, the average increase in votes counting for finalist candidates is 17%. In contests that went to an RCV count, the average is 30%. Below are three examples of how RCV makes more votes count meaningfully.

Example 1: A race with two strong front-runners

In elections that are dominated by two major-party candidates, RCV gives more voters an impact by allowing third-party or independent voters to rank backup choices. When trailing candidates are eliminated, voters still have a say in the contest between the two finalists.

In Maine’s 2nd Congressional District in 2022, incumbent Democrat Jared Golden and Republican challenger Bruce Poliquin together earned 93% of the vote, while independent candidate Tiffany Bond earned 7%. If the race didn’t have RCV, the 7% of voters who chose Bond would not have a say between the finalists.

Instead, the finalists faced off in an “instant runoff,” and Bond’s voters got to participate – with their ballots counting for their second-choice candidates.

Nearly 17,000 Maine voters (or 5% of the total) had their ballot count toward a finalist because of RCV. 78% of Bond voters chose to rank a backup choice, while 22% did not.

Results from Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, 2022

Example 2: A crowded race with no clear front-runner

Many elections do not have obvious front-runners, particularly nonpartisan races. In choose-one elections with no obvious front-runners, voters can be left puzzling over how to ensure their single vote can be most impactful. A voter will want to vote for a candidate who can win, but may not know which candidates are competitive.

In RCV elections, voters simply rank the candidates honestly, knowing their vote will count for a finalist if their top choice can’t win.

In Santa Fe, five candidates ran for mayor in a competitive race in 2018. Several were current or former city councilors, or had other government experience. Without strong public polling in the race, voters didn’t know which candidates were most viable.

In the RCV tabulation, Alan Webber and Ronald Trujillo’s vote totals increased by 51% compared to their first-choice totals. That 51% represents approximately 6,700 voters whose first choice wasn’t a finalist, but who still had a say in the final outcome because of RCV.

Results from Santa Fe’s mayoral election, 2018

Example 3: A race with a first-round majority winner

Roughly half of RCV races are decided in the first round because one candidate is the first choice for more than half of voters. In those cases, RCV does not make any more votes count meaningfully because there are no later rounds of counting.

We include one example here to explain the presence of these races in our dataset. They still qualify as RCV races with three or more candidates, so we’ve included them in our totals.

This example of a first-round majority winner is San Francisco Mayor London Breed, who won re-election in 2019. Despite a crowded field of six candidates, Breed won a majority of voters’ first choices.

Results from San Francisco’s mayoral election, 2019

Maximizing meaningful votes in RCV elections

Ranked choice voting makes more votes count meaningfully because voters have the option to rank backup choices in case their favorite candidate doesn’t make it to the final round.

Delayed runoff elections also have this feature, but they require additional time and money, and often suffer from a steep decline in voter turnout. In fact, in 53% of runoffs, the winning candidate wins fewer total votes than they earned in the first round of voting – something that is not possible with ranked choice voting. With RCV, the number of votes counting for finalists can never decrease, making it superior to delayed runoff elections.

In RCV elections, some voters choose not to rank all candidates, and they may have their ballot become “inactive” in the final round if they do not rank a finalist. However, inactive ballots are a function of the RCV tabulation that makes more votes count meaningfully; the number of inactive ballots will always be just a subset of the greater number of voices that can be heard because of RCV. The rate of inactive ballots in all RCV elections is 6%, three times less than the additional 17% of ballots that RCV counts in a meaningful way.

Just by using RCV, policymakers are ensuring that more voices are heard and that more votes count in a meaningful way. However, there are additional strategies to maximize the number of meaningful votes.

First, policymakers should include a robust voter education program when they adopt RCV. Good voter education programs should be community-oriented, emphasize how to correctly fill out a ranked ballot, and encourage voters to use multiple rankings if they like multiple candidates.

Second, candidates and campaigns can increase the share of voters that make a meaningful impact in the final round by encouraging voters to rank them, even as a second choice. By encouraging voters to fully rank their ballots, campaigns can impact voter behavior and help to increase their own chance of winning, or at least increase their supporters’ likelihood of influencing the outcome.

About the author