Fact-Checking Ranked-Choice Voting: What the Evidence Actually Shows

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is rapidly moving from a niche political science concept to a mainstream American reality. Currently reaching nearly 14 million voters across 49 cities, counties, and states, the system represents one of the most significant shifts in how Americans vote in a century.[1]

The mechanics are straightforward: instead of selecting a single candidate, voters rank their preferences—first, second, third, and so on. If a candidate secures more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes, they win immediately, just as they would in a traditional election.[2][7]

If no candidate reaches that majority threshold, an "instant runoff" is triggered. The candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and their supporters' votes are automatically transferred to their second choices. This process repeats until one candidate crosses the 50 percent mark.[2][7]

As the system spreads, advocates have made bold promises: RCV will reduce toxic polarization, increase voter turnout, and eliminate the "spoiler effect" of third-party candidates. Critics, meanwhile, warn of voter confusion and depressed participation.[7]

To separate political rhetoric from reality, researchers have begun analyzing decades of electoral data. The emerging evidence paints a nuanced picture of a system that delivers on several key promises, but is not a magical cure for all democratic ailments.[2][7]

The most prominent claim surrounding RCV is that it reduces political polarization and encourages civil campaigning. Because candidates often need second- and third-choice votes to win a tight race, the theory suggests they are disincentivized from viciously attacking their opponents.[1][2]

Real-world data provides some support for this theory. A review by the American Bar Association noted that voters in RCV jurisdictions frequently report perceiving a more positive campaign environment and greater civility among candidates.[2]

The 2022 congressional races in Alaska—a state that recently adopted RCV—offered a high-profile example. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and Democratic Representative Mary Peltola actively cross-endorsed each other, building broad bipartisan coalitions that ultimately secured both of their victories.[1]

However, formal mathematical models suggest the polarization benefits have limits. A 2023 study by researchers at New York University found that RCV's ability to elect moderates depends heavily on the specific distribution of voters.[4]

The NYU researchers identified a phenomenon known as the "center squeeze." In a highly polarized electorate, a broadly acceptable moderate candidate might actually be eliminated in the first round because they lack a passionate, extreme base of first-choice voters, leaving only the polarized extremes in the final rounds.[4]

The second major debate centers on voter turnout. Does giving voters more choices bring more people to the ballot box? The data here is decidedly mixed, depending on which elections are being compared.[3][7]

In New York City's 2021 mayoral primary—the largest deployment of RCV in U.S. history—turnout surged. Nearly one million voters participated, representing a 22.6 percent increase compared to the city's previous open primary in 2013.[5]

Yet, a comprehensive difference-in-differences study presented at the Election Science, Reform, and Administration Conference analyzed over 200 cities and found that RCV actually decreased general election turnout by roughly 3 to 5 percentage points.[3]

The vital caveat to that finding is how RCV handles runoffs. Traditional delayed runoff elections notoriously suffer from massive voter drop-off, often seeing participation plummet by 30 percent or more. By consolidating the process into a single day, RCV ensures the final, decisive round of counting is conducted with a vastly larger electorate.[3][7]

Finally, skeptics frequently argue that RCV is simply too confusing for the average voter, leading to errors and "exhausted" ballots that don't count in the final tally.[6]

Exit polling consistently refutes the confusion narrative. In Alaska's 2022 elections, 85 percent of voters reported that the RCV system was "simple," and 73 percent successfully ranked multiple candidates on their ballots.[1]

Ballot exhaustion, however, is a real mathematical feature of the system. In the 2022 Alaska special election, approximately 11,000 ballots were exhausted because those voters chose not to rank a second candidate after their first choice was eliminated.[6]

As independent fact-checkers have noted, ballot exhaustion is not the same as disenfranchisement. Voters have the absolute right to abstain from ranking candidates they do not support. Ultimately, RCV is a structural trade-off: it eliminates costly secondary elections and the fear of "wasted" votes, but requires both voters and candidates to adapt their strategies to a new democratic reality.[6][7]