The Plurality Party Continues: Plurality Wins in the General Election
The US Senate in Georgia is once again going to a runoff election. Neither incumbent Democrat Raphael Warnock nor Republican challenger Herschel Walker won 50% of votes in a race that could have huge policy implications over the next six years. The GA Senate race evidences the “plurality problem” – that in most US races, candidates can emerge with less than a majority of votes. Georgia reconciles this by holding what is typically a costly, lower turnout runoff. However, most states don’t reconcile this problem at all.
In the November 8th election, 7 candidates are on track to win US House, US Senate, or other high profile statewide elections with a “plurality” (less than 50%) of votes. This typically happens when a third party or independent candidate enters the race. When three or more candidates compete, a candidate doesn’t need 50% of votes to beat their opponents. For example, Laura Kelly (D) won re-election for Governor of Kansas with 49.2% of votes. Republican challenger Derek Schmidt won 47.5% of votes, independent Dennis Pyle 2%, and Libertarian Seth Cordell 1.1%. More people voted against Kelly than voted for her.
Plurality wins are more common in primary elections, where a potentially unlimited number of candidates can run and split votes, whereas most general elections have been narrowed down to a derivative two choices. However, in general elections with more than two choices, the “spoiler effect” can allow a candidate to go into office without a true mandate from their voters. Moreover, the pressure for candidates not to be a “spoiler” often prevents them from running, hence why we mostly have two choices on Election Day.
The fault for this dynamic lies not with third party or independent candidates. Ballots should offer meaningful choices among several competing visions that reflect the ideological makeup of the electorate. The fault lies with a system that allows competition to interfere with the emergence of a deserving winner.
Ranked choice voting (RCV) presents a strong solution to the plurality problem. RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference to produce a winner who most voters can accept. RCV is also known as “instant runoff voting,” meaning the system can produce a winner without asking voters to return to the polls. In general elections, RCV allows voters to express their honest preferences without worrying about spoiling the race for other candidates with a clear mandate to lead.
Take the recent election for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, for example. Maine uses RCV for federal elections and state legislative primaries. Neither frontrunners Jared Golden (D) nor Bruce Poliquin (R) had a majority of first choice votes, with independent Tiffany Bond earning 7%. In the second round, Bond’s voters had their vote counted towards their next choice, and Golden emerged with 53% of votes. RCV allowed Bond to run and inject competition and ideas into the race while still electing a deserving winner.
RCV can uplift and balance the American ideals of competition and fairness, but faster and at a lower cost than traditional runoff elections. And we know this because it’s already working in real time. Learn more about where ranked choice voting is being used.
