Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is wrong with ranked choice voting?
Executive Summary
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) generates measurable problems in practice: empirical studies document higher rates of mismarked and rejected ballots, disproportionate confusion among lower-income and minority voters, and instances where the tabulation method yields winners who would lose head-to-head matchups. Advocates argue RCV reduces spoilers and encourages broader choice, but the evidence shows trade-offs between theoretical benefits and real-world administrative and equity costs that jurisdictions must weigh carefully [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Why ballots get tossed: voter confusion and mismarks that matter to outcomes
A large empirical analysis of over three million ballots across Alaska, Maine, New York City, and San Francisco found that about 4.8% of voters improperly mark RCV ballots, producing overvotes, overrankings, and skips that often lead to ballot rejection; these errors make RCV ballots roughly ten times more likely to be rejected than non-RCV ballots in the study sample, which directly affects voter representation and final tallies [1]. That study connects errors not to protest but to confusion, and other analyses of New York City primaries corroborate higher voidable overvote rates in lower-education and lower-income neighborhoods, showing a consistent pattern where complexity translates into discarded voter preferences [3].
2. Who bears the burden: equity concerns and ballot exhaustion among minority voters
Research indicates RCV can disproportionately reduce the electoral influence of some groups through ballot exhaustion, where voters' ranked choices are eliminated and their ballots cease to count in final rounds; this effect has been documented in New York City and Alaska and quantified in multiple studies as a nontrivial share of ballots exhausted by final tabulation, disproportionately affecting minority and non-English-speaking communities [2] [4]. These outcomes mean RCV’s promise of amplifying diverse preferences can be undermined by systemic inequities—voters with fewer resources or less access to information are more likely to see their ballots removed from decisive counts, which has direct implications for fairness and trust in the process [2] [4].
3. Administrative headaches: more equipment, longer counts, and harder recounts
Multiple analyses highlight that RCV increases logistical demands on election officials, requiring specialized equipment, lengthier ballots, and multi-round tabulations that can delay results and complicate recounts; documented cases include data entry errors that went undetected and even led to the wrong certification in at least one reported jurisdiction, illustrating how administrative complexity can yield high-consequence failures [6]. Critics underscore that recounts in RCV systems may be more difficult or impossible in practice when multiple rounds and exhausted ballots are involved, while proponents counter that these challenges can be mitigated with training and robust procedures, but the empirical record shows notable real-world strains during early-adoption elections [6] [7].
4. The method matters: IRV shortcomings and alternative systems on offer
Instant-runoff voting (IRV), the most common RCV form, fails some normative tests: the Burlington 2009 mayoral example is often cited where IRV elected a candidate who would lose each head-to-head contest against other options, illustrating failure of the Condorcet criterion and exposing nonmonotonic behavior in Hare-method tallying that can produce counterintuitive winners [5] [8]. Scholars propose alternatives—Condorcet methods or cardinal systems—that better satisfy theoretical desiderata; these critiques make clear that claims about “ranked voting” must specify which variant is used, because different algorithms shift risks between representativeness, strategic incentives, and simplicity [5] [8].
5. Political framing and policy responses: advocacy, backlash, and mixed empirical takeaways
Debate over RCV shows clear political and organizational fault lines: advocacy groups emphasize reduced spoiler effects and broader choice, while opponents cite increased elite advantage, confusion, and administrative risk; some organizations arguing against RCV have produced reports emphasizing ballot exhaustion and calls for bans, reflecting an agenda-driven focus that the wider empirical literature sometimes supports and sometimes complicates [7] [4]. The most policy-relevant takeaway is that RCV’s impacts vary by context—implementation quality, voter education, ballot design, and the specific counting method shape outcomes—so jurisdictions considering adoption face evidence that is mixed but concrete about trade-offs rather than uniformly favorable or fatal results [1] [4] [3].