Recommendations for combining ranked choice voting and fusion voting
Background
- Ranked choice voting (RCV) is advancing in jurisdictions that currently use fusion voting or are considering fusion voting.
- RCV can be combined with fusion voting to reap the benefits of both. This memo outlines the options for doing so and recommends best practices.
Key Terms
- Ranked choice voting: Voters rank the candidates, and an “instant runoff” determines a majority winner.
- Aggregated fusion: Each candidate gets one line on the ballot, and every party endorsing that candidate appears alongside the candidate’s name.
- Disaggregated fusion: Each party gets its own line on the ballot. Multiple parties may list the same nominee on their line, meaning candidates may appear multiple times on the ballot.
Option 1 (recommended): RCV + aggregated fusion
With aggregated fusion, each candidate gets one line on the ballot, and the party (or parties) nominating the candidate appear underneath or next to the candidate’s name. Aggregated fusion can be incorporated into an RCV ballot without major changes to ballot design or the tabulation process, as shown below. This model gives voters ample information on which parties support which candidates, and gives minor parties maximum flexibility in determining how they want to exercise power, whether by nominating their own candidate or cross-endorsing a major-party candidate. Minor parties can choose either approach without risk of playing spoiler.
| Candidate | 1st Choice | 2nd Choice | 3rd Choice | 4th Choice | 5th Choice |
| Emily Campbell Libertarian Party Nominee | |||||
| Mateo Garcia Republican Party Nominee & Moderate Party Nominee | |||||
| Naomi Lang Independent | |||||
| Dwayne Bragg Green Party Nominee | |||||
| Priya Patel Democratic Party Nominee & Working Families Party Nominee | |||||
| Write-in ____________ |
In almost all jurisdictions, we believe combining RCV and aggregated fusion offers the most readily available and promising path to reap the benefits of both reforms.
Option 2 (recommended): RCV, then fusion voting
If a jurisdiction does not have fusion voting and political considerations make the simultaneous pursuit of RCV and aggregated fusion difficult, we recommend first adopting RCV as a standalone reform and then adding aggregated fusion.
Fusion voting aims to strengthen the role of minor parties and help solve the“vote-splitting” problem by allowing minor parties to cross-endorse a major party candidate. However, this can come at a cost. Minor parties can be discouraged from running their own candidate(s) and elevating their own issues and brand. Further, when minor parties choose not to cross-endorse (or when independent candidates run), vote-splitting and/or non-majoritarian outcomes can still occur.
RCV, on the other hand, allows minor parties to run their own candidates, and therefore build an identity, without fear of “splitting the vote.” Minor parties can exercise political influence by negotiating with major-party candidates for the minor party’s “second-choice” ranking. And RCV guarantees that candidates are elected with majority support from the voters.
Finally, single-winner RCV helps advance multi-winner RCV (or “proportional RCV”) – a rapidly growing form of proportional representation and the only form of proportional representation with a history of adoption in the United States to date.
RCV can increase the influence of minor parties, eliminate vote-splitting and the “spoiler effect,” and create political conditions that are more favorable for the later adoption of aggregated fusion and/or proportional representation. For these reasons, if only one reform can be pursued at a time, we recommend RCV first.
Option 3 (not recommended): RCV + disaggregated fusion
Combining disaggregated fusion with RCV raises novel questions about ballot design, vote tallying logic, and voting system programming. While disaggregated fusion can be combined with RCV, doing so would require new developments from voting system vendors, software updates, and voting-system recertification, all of which may lengthen the timeline and/or increase the cost of implementation. Because of this – and because RCV can be more easily combined with aggregated fusion to reap the benefits of both reforms – we recommend that jurisdictions considering RCV and/or fusion utilize Option 1 or Option 2 above.
For jurisdictions that already use disaggregated fusion (i.e., Connecticut and New York), one simple first step may be to adopt RCV for party primaries, as New York City did in 2019. We encourage reformers in these jurisdictions who would like to expand RCV to the general election to contact FairVote Action to discuss how best to navigate the policy and implementation details associated with this approach.
Additional policy analysis is available in FairVote’s Position on Fusion Voting.