How does ranked choice voting impact campaign strategy and third-party candidates?

1. Why campaigns stop playing zero-sum politics and start courting rivals’ voters

RCV changes incentives so candidates have a stake in being acceptable to supporters of other contenders, prompting positive, issue-oriented campaigns and formal cross-endorsements. FairVote guidance issued in March–May 2025 explicitly recommends courting a broad electorate, educating voters about ranking mechanics, and forming alliances—tactics tied to victories cited in San Francisco and Alaska examples ^{[1] [2]}. Cross-endorsement case studies documented by FairVote show coordinated campaigns where mutual ranking appeals translated into electoral wins, though the organization concedes that isolating cross-endorsement as the causal factor is difficult due to many campaign variables ^[2]. These strategic shifts align with legal and academic advocacy arguing RCV reduces incentives for negative campaigning and elevates coalition-building as a path to victory ^[4].

2. The spoiler problem tamed, but not a guaranteed third-party breakthrough

RCV materially reduces the spoiler effect by allowing voters to rank third-party candidates first and transfer preferences if their top choice is eliminated. Multiple analyses note that this feature lets supporters vote sincerely without risking wasted votes, which theoretically should lower barriers for third-party participation and accountability of major parties ^{[5] [4]}. However, empirical evidence on increasing the number of third-party winners remains inconclusive: some studies and reports show increased willingness to support minor-party candidates and possible boosts in performance, while others insist that structural thresholds, district composition, and political resources still limit breakthroughs ^{[6] [5]}. Thus, RCV changes voter behavior incentives more reliably than it guarantees more third-party officeholders.

3. Who benefits electorally — minorities, women, and coalition builders

Data from FairVote and later studies suggest RCV can help candidates of color and underrepresented groups by enabling vote transfers and reducing split-vote dynamics. A 2024 FairVote analysis found that Black and Hispanic/Latino candidates saw larger proportional vote increases between rounds compared with White winners, indicating RCV’s potential to amplify community representation when multiple same-group candidates run ^[8]. Practically, that means campaign strategy under RCV often includes outreach across communities and encouraging broad ranking to secure transfers. These benefits are context-dependent: success requires sufficient base support and effective messaging to attract second-choice rankings, and administrative factors like ballot clarity can mediate outcomes ^[7].

4. Implementation risks: mismarking, voter education, and equity concerns

RCV’s complexity introduces operational challenges that shape strategy and outcomes. A March 2025 study analyzing over 3 million cast vote records found a 4.8% rate of improper markings—overvotes, overrankings, and skips—which can disproportionately affect racial minorities and lower-income voters if education and ballot design are inadequate ^[7]. Campaigns therefore allocate resources to voter education and simple, friendly messaging about ranking mechanics, not just persuasion. Administratively, jurisdictions must invest in clear instructions and robust ballot counting procedures to prevent inadvertent disenfranchisement; failure to do so can blunt RCV’s intended inclusivity and skew strategic calculations about where to focus outreach ^[7].

5. Mixed evidence, clear strategic takeaways for candidates and parties

Across the recent analyses, the firmest empirical conclusion is that RCV alters campaign calculus: candidates pursue broader coalitions, promote civility, and seek cross-endorsements and second-choice support as central tactics ^{[1] [2] [3]}. The system reliably reduces spoiler incentives and can improve representativeness in some contexts, including boosting prospects for candidates of color ^{[5] [8]}. Yet the claim that RCV will routinely elect more third-party officeholders is not fully borne out by current evidence; outcomes depend on local political landscapes, electorate preferences, and administrative quality, including voter education to reduce mismarks ^{[6] [7]}. Campaigns operating under RCV therefore treat ranking mechanics and coalition outreach as strategic priorities while recognizing structural limits to third-party breakthroughs ^{[1] [5]}.