Ranked Choice Voting

While the biggest problem in our democracy is the undue influence of big money in elections and in legislation, the second biggest problem is the two-party system.  This electoral reality is nowhere forced upon us, it is not mentioned in the Constitution; it is just there.

“I don’t like my choices; I like neither the Republican nor the Democrat, but I do like the Libertarian / Green party candidate.  But if I vote for him, I will be wasting my vote as he has no chance to win.”

When we go to choose a candidate for a particular elected office, we are often faced with three or four or even five choices.  But we know that we are “wasting our vote” if we vote for a candidate of a minor party, not a Republican or a Democrat.  Even worse than that is our sense that our third-party vote may contribute to the loss of the major party candidate whom we dislike less than the other major party candidate.  So, we reluctantly vote for the major party candidate (“the lesser of two evils”) who is not our first choice, as we dare not help elect the other major party candidate.

There is an easy solution to this quandary: it is called “Instant Runoff Voting,” a.k.a. preferential voting or ranked voting or ranked preferential voting, etc., etc.

Here is what Instant Runoff Voting looks like.  It is easier to imagine, and to implement, with paper ballots.

On an ordinary paper ballot, there are boxes next to each candidate’s name.  You place a mark in one of those boxes to indicate your vote.  If you accidentally mark more than one box, your vote will not be counted as it is unclear who you intended to vote for.  On the other hand, in Instant Runoff Voting you do not mark your choice of candidate, you rank the candidates for an office.  You write a “1” for your most preferred candidate, a “2” for your second choice, a “3” for your third choice, etc.  If you really, really hate a candidate, you show that with the biggest number (“5” or “9”) or by leaving his box blank.

This sounds complicated but it really isn’t.  If you like only one candidate for an office – and this will be true 95% of the time – you just mark his box or write a “1” in his box and leave all other candidates’ boxes blank.  In the rare instance where you like more than one candidate for a single office, you will be able to rank them as your first, second and third choices, with a “1,” a “2” and a “3.”  Clear?  Good.

Why would you do this, rank candidates?  When would you do this?

Remember the Presidential election of 2000?  Vice President Al Gore was the Democratic Party nominee, Texas governor George W Bush was the Republican Party nominee and Ralph Nader was the Green Party nominee.  Nader received some 97,000 votes in the crucial state of Florida, where Governor Bush received less than 1000 votes more than Gore (arguably, I know).  Bush, who did not even receive a clear majority (more than 50%) of the votes from the state, eventually won the state and the Presidency.  The prevailing wisdom was that Nader voters preferred Gore to Bush.  Had Nader voters voted their second choice – Gore – Gore would have won Florida and the Presidency.  With Instant Runoff Voting, Nader voters might have given Nader a “1” and Gore a “2” and Gore would have won Florida and the Presidency.

What is even more interesting is that many Gore voters really preferred Nader over Gore.  But they voted for Gore because they didn’t want to “waste their vote” on Nader, because he could not possibly win.  With Instant Runoff Voting, they could have ranked Nader as their first choice and Gore as their second choice.  Nader might have won Florida.  Had enough Gore voters nationwide really preferred Nader to Gore, Nader might have won the Presidency.   Instant Runoff Voting can convert a popular “spoiler” to a winner. 

In case you are a Republican and don’t appreciate this example, think 1992 instead.  Had enough Ross Perot voters marked George H W Bush as their second choice (as they probably would have), Bill Clinton would have lost the election to Bush. Or to Perot.

The point is: Instant Runoff Voting gives voters the chance to vote for a preferred third-party candidate without worrying that their vote will indirectly contribute to the election of the other major party candidate.

Instant Runoff Voting fixes the following problems:

• No longer will any victorious candidate win with less than a majority (50%+) of the vote.
• No longer will a liberal win when two conservatives split the majority of the votes; no longer will a conservative win when two liberals split the majority of the votes.
• No longer will you or anyone else have to vote for the lesser of two evils.
• No longer will you have to choose between your preferred candidate and a candidate “who can win.”
• No longer will third party candidates be spoilers; no longer will third party candidates be automatic losers.
• No longer will we have to suffer because of a two-party system.

Instant Runoff Voting empowers voters at the expense of the major parties.

Small change, huge benefits.

The rules of voting – whether Winner Take All or Instant Runoff – are set locally.  Every state can do what it wants.

What are you waiting for?  Visit your City Council.  Make them do your bidding.  Make your state legislature do your bidding.  If you tell them what you want, they will thank you; it makes their jobs easier.

P.S.

This essay was originally published in my book, To My Countrymen.  It was written around 2012.

Recently, more people are calling "Instant Runoff Voting" "Ranked Choice Voting."  Same thing.  There are variations of how RCV is to be implemented but they are very technical and outside the scope of this essay.

IRV and/or RCV are only imaginable in recent times as they so depend on computer counting.

Addendum: Saturday, 03/26/2022

It MAY be inferred that RCV should replace single-party primaries altogether.  But, let me make it crystal clear.  In order to work its real magic, RCV MUST eliminate single-party primaries!  THAT is the way that we get the best man/woman for the job.  The choice to amend our method of voting is left up to the states, each by each.  

Not totally a coincidence, the chance for an extremist from any party ever winning under such rules will effectively be reduced to zero.  I think that that is a good thing.  You may not agree.  And by "extremist" I do NOT mean any Democrat that Republicans call an extremist (or vice versa), I mean a REAL extremist.  You should know what I mean.