Introduction

“Top Four” or “Top Five” refers to an all-candidate preliminary election in which four or five candidates advance, combined with a ranked choice voting (RCV) general election. Whereas many general elections are safely Republican or Democratic, and are therefore effectively decided in partisan primary elections, Top Four or Top Five is designed to bring more competition and better choices to general elections. 

We, as national election reform organizations, are committed to supporting local actors in deciding which reforms are best for their state. We suggest that where Top Four or Top Five is pursued, the following new policy recommendations will concretely respond to any concerns and help ensure enduring success:

• Advance four or five candidates to the general election and use RCV to ensure the candidate with the broadest support wins.
• Ensure equal and reasonable ballot access and party rights for all candidates.
• Allow parties to endorse candidates (including cross-endorsements) on the preliminary and general election ballot, through their own privately funded process (e.g., convention, caucus, or primary).
• Automatically advance all candidates to the general election if fewer than 4 or 5 candidates enter the race.

As reformers, we acknowledge that many voters are dissatisfied with their current choices and frustrated with political parties, but it is simultaneously true that political parties are a vital part of modern democracy. Parties help give voters information about their choices, organize to win elections, and help elected officials organize and govern when in office. In addition, acceptance from parties makes reform easier to win and sustain. Therefore, the changes recommended in this document keep intact the basic structure of Top Four and Top Five, but rethink its implementation details to empower voters and parties alike in new ways to support candidates of their choice. 

We also want to emphasize the fundamental value of offering voters meaningful choices in the general election. Preliminary (i.e. primary) elections, without exception, have substantially lower turnout than general elections – with electorates that are on average far older, whiter, and wealthier than those in the general election. Advancing fewer than four candidates risks disempowering general election voters and limiting access for minor parties. The ideal number of candidates to advance for single-winner offices is four or five.

This document details these recommendations and weighs other relevant policy choices. We also emphasize that while Top Four or Top Five is a suitable model for single-winner elections, it need not preclude opportunities to advance other impactful reforms like proportional representation. 

Signed,

FairVote, Partners in Democracy, RepresentUs, and RepresentWomen

Policy Recommendations

1. Advance four or five candidates and use RCV in the general election

Top Four or Top Five voting¹ presents voters with a set of choices in the general election that is both robust and manageable.

Advancing at least four candidates reduces the risk of strategic gameplay by candidates in the preliminary round, and provides voters in the higher-turnout general election a sufficient number of choices to ensure a representative outcome. Especially if/when major parties consolidate their support around one candidate per office (see Recommendation #3), advancing four or five candidates provides ample opportunity for third party and/or independent candidates to compete in the general election. 

Every consideration has a tradeoff, and there may be diminishing returns to advancing more than five candidates for a single office.² In addition, four- or five-candidate general elections may facilitate smoother election administration relative to larger candidate fields. For example, with some ballot layouts, providing five rankings per office will allow two contests to be listed on the ballot page side-by-side, maximizing the number of races that can fit on the ballot. 

After advancing four or five candidates, RCV should be used in the general election to identify a majority winner. RCV has a 100+ year record of delivering voter-preferred outcomes and improving representation. The technology required to implement RCV is already in place in much of the United States, and RCV has a strong legal foundation, having been upheld against every federal constitutional challenge brought to date. Where RCV is used in the U.S., voters largely use the opportunity to rank,³ and report that they understand and support RCV.⁴

2. Ensure equal and reasonable ballot access and party rights for all candidates

Ballot access requirements (signature requirements and/or filing fees) should be equal and reasonable for all candidates filing to run and compete in the first stage. 

Party recognition and/or public funding rules should also be keyed to several meaningful and reasonable levels of public support to ensure that more parties are capable of forming, growing, and competing on a level playing field. For example, parties could become “qualified” (i.e., able to endorse candidates on the ballot and/or receive public campaign finance funds) based on meeting any of the following criteria:

• Running candidates in at least X preliminary election contests;
• Advancing candidates to at least X general election contests;
• Attaining at least X% of the vote in any round of a statewide preliminary or general election tabulation;
• Electing a candidate in any state or federal general election contest; or
• Registering at least X voters as party members.

These reforms would encourage minor parties to develop and run candidates in otherwise-less-competitive seats in order to build their power and support. Qualification requirements that look solely to performance in previous elections are an obstacle to newer and smaller parties. This is especially true when parties can only qualify by meeting such requirements in a statewide election, like for governor or president, which are the most expensive and resource-intensive elections in which a party could compete, and are also the elections in which voters may be least willing to spend their vote on a candidate from a smaller party. Giving parties flexibility in ballot qualification options will allow them to run candidates strategically and grow organically. This may also improve choices for voters, increase diversity on the ballot, and drive turnout from minor-party voters. 

If a state permits candidates to self-identify with a party on the ballot, any party recognition or public funding rules based on past election performance should allow any party to choose to receive qualified status (or funding) based on the performance of candidates that identify with that party, but, in the interest of avoiding any unnecessary legal question, should not require any party to rely upon such indicators. 

3. Allow parties to endorse candidates (including cross-endorsements) on the preliminary and general election ballots

Partisan notations on the ballot can provide an important cue for voters at the ballot box. In a Top Four or Top Five system, there are multiple ways to approach ballot notations. For both the preliminary election and the general election, we recommend allowing party endorsements on the ballot. 

Parties may nominate a candidate (or candidates) through a mechanism of their choosing (with that candidate’s consent), and only that candidate would receive the “Party Nominee” label on the ballot. For example, parties could hold a privately funded convention, caucus, or primary election before or after the preliminary election. This would empower parties to uplift candidate(s) of their choice. 

This also addresses the concerns of both “open primary” advocates (i.e., that taxpayers should not have to fund primary elections in which nonpartisans cannot participate) and parties (i.e., that party members should be able to endorse their party’s nominee on the ballot).  

This policy choice can also help minor parties align their voters around a clear preference to maximize their odds of reaching the general election. Combined with Recommendation #2, privatizing party nominating contests also introduces an additional element of fairness for minor parties. Under the “publicly funded party primary + general election” model that most states use, major parties are effectively subsidized by tax dollars, but minor parties are not unless they qualify for the state-run primary as well (and in most states, minor parties face higher ballot access requirements). Under this policy as recommended, all parties would be responsible for funding their own nominating contests.

We also recommend allowing multiple parties to endorse the same candidate (with that candidate’s permission) using aggregated fusion voting. Under this approach, parties would have the ability to endorse a new candidate in the general election if, for example, a party’s nominee does not advance to the general election.

There are two ways to address notations for non-endorsed candidates:

1. In states with party registration, the candidate can choose to have their party registration (or lack thereof) by their name (e.g., “Registered Republican”). 
   • Allowing both party endorsements and registration to appear on the ballot creates greater options for candidates who prefer the same party to offer different visions for “what the party is or should be.” One question worth further study is whether voters may be confused by the distinction between, say, “Registered Republican” and “Republican Nominee.” 

OR

2. The candidate may express their affiliation in language of their choosing, subject to a word and/or letter limit, e.g. “Liberal,” “Progressive,” “Conservative,” “Constitutionalist,” etc.
   • With this option, candidates would run under more targeted banners befitting their ideologies. There would be no potential risk of confusion between party-endorsed and party-identified/registered candidates, since only the former would be notated on the ballot,⁵ unlike option #1. This may also decrease vote-splitting between minor-party candidates, increasing their chances of advancing a candidate. This option is the “strongest party” version of Top Four / Top Five Voting and arguably the most aligned with existing political science literature on the importance of fostering coherent and responsible parties. 

In addition to the pros and cons stated above, the choice may consider existing state practices and preferences. For example, in states that do not register voters by party, or in states (like Washington) where candidates may already express their affiliation in language of their choosing, Option #2 may make for a more natural transition. 

Below is a sample ballot for Option #1:

Of course, under either option, parties and candidates would still have the ability to distribute “how-to-vote” campaign materials. This may include a ranked endorsement of a slate of candidates, or suggestions of which other candidates or parties to rank 2nd or 3rd. In Australia, which has used RCV for over 100 years, parties hand out “how-to-vote” cards. Research shows these recommendations are effective, as voters tend to follow party cues. 

4. Automatically advance all candidates if there are not enough declared candidates to need a preliminary election

If the number of candidates running is equal to or less than the number who will advance to the general election (ideally four or five), there is no need to hold a preliminary election. Automatically advancing those candidates to the general election ballot will help voters and election officials by simplifying and saving space on the primary ballot. 

This policy also gives voters more choices in the general election by reducing the risk that any candidates drop out of the race after the preliminary election due to limited campaign funds, disappointing results, or strategic coordination. Finally, this policy may encourage more candidates to enter uncontested or uncompetitive races by reducing the overall burdens associated with running for office. Increasing entry from a wider range of candidates may help reduce polarization and improve political representation. 

5. Simultaneously advance opportunities to use proportional ranked choice voting, where possible

Multi-winner elections using proportional representation offer a promising reform option to simultaneously foster robust competition, faithful representation, and a more inclusive politics. Advocates should take care to ensure that efforts to adopt Top Four or Top Five systems do not unintentionally foreclose any meaningful opportunities to advance proportional representation. Proportional ranked choice voting is one of the highest impact reform options available for legislative elections and warrants consideration whenever its adoption might be possible.

At the same time, there will always be some single-winner elections (such as state governor or U.S. Senator) and there may be states where shifting to multi-winner legislative districts does not appear achievable on the short- or medium-term horizon. Moreover, while Top Four or Top Five voting and proportional representation are often viewed as two different and conflicting reform pathways, we believe these reforms are not fundamentally incompatible. 

Under the Fair Representation Act, for example, states may continue to use Top Four or Top Five primaries for multi-winner elections.. See Policy Consideration 7 for more details on how primaries may be conducted.

For any Top Four or Top Five system being considered in a state with existing multi-winner offices, reformers should consider utilizing this same winnowing method and utilizing proportional ranked choice voting in the general election. And, if political conditions are appropriate, reformers may consider expanding the number of offices that elect multiple winners (such as legislative races) as part of the overall reform package.

Policy Considerations

This section weighs other decisions policymakers may be faced with when considering Top Four or Top Five voting. We describe the context for evaluating these various policy questions.

6. Write-in candidates

Voters should retain any existing ability to write-in a candidate of their choice on the preliminary and/or general election ballot. This allows voters to retain the fullest possible set of choices, and more opportunity for minor party and/or independent candidates to compete. 

For single-winner offices, we recommend allowing voters to rank five candidates, even in a Top Five race with write-ins allowed. If a voter chooses to rank a write-in in the general election, they would only rank four of the other names appearing on the ballot. Limiting voters to five rankings may allow for two RCV contests to fit side-by-side on some states’ ballots.⁶

7. Single-choice vs. RCV in the preliminary election

Single-choice voting in the context of a Top Four or Five preliminary election is a semi-proportional system (known as “limited voting” or “the single non-transferable vote”) and should provide a reasonably representative slate of candidates for the general election. However, using a multi-winner version of RCV in the preliminary election (as opposed to “pick one”) further socializes the ranked ballot, can help solve vote-splitting in crowded fields, and bolsters the preliminary performance of consensus candidates who might earn support across party lines. Either choose-one or RCV preliminaries are valid choices and this guide makes no recommendation between them.

Below are two options for using RCV in the preliminary election: 

• Proportional RCV: Candidates who receive a certain share of votes – the “threshold” – advance. The threshold is based on the number of candidates who will be advanced to the general election. When candidates are above the threshold, excess votes are distributed to voters’ second-choice candidates. When no candidate reaches the threshold, candidates are eliminated in the same manner as a traditional RCV tally. This repeats until the number of candidates who reach the threshold is equal to the number of candidates who will be advanced to the general election. Benefits of using proportional RCV include avoiding vote splitting, ensuring a diverse and representative set of candidates advance in proportion to their support among the preliminary election electorate, ensuring a majority of voters advance the most candidates, reducing the number of “types” of RCV being used overall, and normalizing the proportional RCV tabulation process.
• Bottoms-up RCV: This method uses an RCV tally and eliminates last-place candidates until the number of remaining candidates equals the number of seats to be elected. Benefits of using bottoms-up RCV include reducing vote splitting, ensuring the most popular candidates advance to the general election with the fullest reflection of their level of support from the preliminary election electorate, offering a simpler tabulation method, and potentially increasing opportunities for minor-party candidates to advance to the general election. Because bottoms up is semi-proportional, like choose-one voting in multi-winner races, a majority block of voters may not necessarily advance a majority of candidates to the general election. However, for single-winner races, the majority faction may well prefer this outcome because it would allow the faction’s most popular candidate to advance to the general election with the strongest possible showing of support. 

8. Additional rules addressing the death, disqualification, or withdrawal of candidates

One additional factor to consider in RCV elections is how to address the death, disqualification, or withdrawal of a candidate before the election. RCV elections present several unique options for these situations, beyond those available in choose-one elections. Options to consider include: 

1. If the death, disqualification, or withdrawal occurs before the ballot-printing deadline:
   • Allow the highest-placing candidate from the preliminary election to advance (fifth-place or sixth-place candidate, depending on whether the system is Top Four or Top Five).
   • Allow the deceased or disqualified candidate’s party or authorized designee to name a replacement. This will likely be the preferred method for political parties that may have already completed their nomination process. 
2. If the death, disqualification, or withdrawal occurs after ballot-printing:
   • The deceased or disqualified candidate still appears on the ballot but is considered a “withdrawn” candidate and should be treated as inactive during tabulation (i.e., a voter’s ballot will count for their next choice). 
   • Allow the deceased or disqualified candidate’s party or authorized designee to name a replacement, and all votes cast for the deceased/disqualified candidate count for the replacement candidate.

References

1. This system is sometimes referred to in the media and reform campaigns as an Open Primary and Ranked Choice Voting. Because the term “open primaries” can have multiple meanings in political science and legal contexts, we use the more precise “Top Four or Top Five” in this policy paper.
2. This discussion only applies to single-winner contests. For multi-winner offices, the number of candidates advancing to the general election should be expanded. In multi-winner contests, FairVote recommends advancing at least four more candidates than the number of seats to be filled. https://fairvote.org/report/ranking-limit-recommendations/ 
3. https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/#number-of-rankings-used
4. https://fairvote.org/resources/data-on-rcv/#voter-support-and-understanding
5. To ensure no such confusion, you may consider disallowing non-endorsed candidates from using a qualified party’s name in their label. However, this may preclude some candidates from using language they feel most accurately describes their political affiliation. This rule would also be highly sensitive to parties’ qualified status (i.e. if the Alaskan Independence Party is a qualified party, a candidate potentially could not label themself as an “independent” on the ballot). 
6. For multi-winner offices, we recommend allowing voters to rank “n+4” candidates, where “n” is the number of seats to be elected. See https://fairvote.org/report/ranking-limit-recommendations/.