Ranked choice voting outperforms the winner-take-all system used to elect nearly every US politician
The challenges facing American democracy are deeply rooted in its electoral systems, particularly the “pick one” plurality voting method that dominates elections for over 520,000 government officials nationwide. This winner-take-all approach often leads to outcomes where elected candidates lack majority support, as seen in notable instances like the 2000 presidential election when Ralph Nader’s candidacy arguably influenced the outcome against Al Gore. The system is also prone to vote-splitting, where similar candidates divide their voter base, resulting in the election of less popular candidates—an issue highlighted during the 2016 Republican primaries when multiple candidates split the anti-Trump vote. Furthermore, plurality voting can compel voters to vote strategically rather than sincerely, as they may feel pressured to support a candidate they perceive as having a better chance of winning rather than their true preference.
An alternative gaining traction is ranked choice voting (RCV), which is currently implemented in states like Maine and Alaska, as well as in various municipalities including New York City. In RCV, voters rank candidates in order of preference, allowing for a more nuanced expression of voter sentiment. If no candidate receives a majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed based on the voters’ next preferences. This process continues until a candidate secures a majority. Research conducted by a team of mathematicians analyzed over 2,000 ranked choice elections across the U.S., Australia, and Scotland, revealing that RCV significantly outperformed plurality voting in several crucial areas. Notably, it produced fewer spoilers—up to 15 times less frequently—and was 50% less likely to elect extreme candidates. Additionally, RCV demonstrated a remarkable ability to elect candidates with broad support, as it often favored those who could appeal to a wider electorate rather than just a narrow base.
The implications of adopting ranked choice voting are profound. By empowering voters to express their true preferences without fear of wasting their vote, RCV encourages candidates to adopt policies that resonate with a broader demographic. Examples from recent elections illustrate this benefit; in Alaska’s 2022 special U.S. House election, Democrat Mary Peltola won by appealing to both her base and conservative voters, showcasing the potential for coalition-building. Similarly, in the New York mayoral primary, candidate Zohran Mamdani succeeded by aligning with a range of progressive voters. Such outcomes highlight RCV’s capacity to foster a more representative political landscape, moving away from the tactical voting often necessitated by plurality systems. While RCV is not a panacea for all democratic issues, the evidence suggests it is a significant step toward mending the fractures within American electoral processes, promoting greater legitimacy and representation in the democratic system. As faith in democracy wanes, the case for reforming electoral systems becomes ever more critical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqWwV3xk9Qk
Ranked choice voting makes use of more information from the voters than plurality voting.
stefanamer/Getty Images
American democracy is straining under countless pressures, many of them rooted in structural problems that go back to the nation’s founding. Chief among them is the “pick one”
plurality voting system
– also called winner-take-all – used to elect nearly all of the 520,000 government officials in the United States.
In this system, voters select one candidate, and the candidate who receives the highest number of votes wins.
Plurality voting is notorious for producing winners
without majority support
in races that have more than two candidates. It can also create spoilers, or losing candidates whose presence in a race alters the outcome, as
Ralph Nader’s did in the 2000 presidential election
. And it can result in vote-splitting, where similar candidates divide support, paving the way for a less popular winner. This happened in the
2016 Republican primaries
when Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and John Kasich split the anti-Donald Trump vote.
Plurality can also encourage dishonest voting. That happens when voters are pressured to abandon their favorite candidate for one they like less but think can win. In the 2024 elections, for example, voters whose preference for president was Jill Stein,
the Green Party nominee
, might have instead cast their vote for Democrat Kamala Harris.
An increasingly well-known alternative to plurality voting is
ranked choice voting
. It’s used statewide in
Maine
and
Alaska
and in dozens of municipalities, including
New York City
.
Better performance
Whereas plurality voting allows voters to select only one candidate, ranked choice lets them rank candidates. If a candidate secures a majority of first-place rankings, they are the winner just like they would be under plurality.
But the two systems diverge when there is no majority winner. Plurality simply chooses the candidates with the most first-place votes, while ranked choice voting eliminates the person with the fewest first-place votes and transfers their votes to the next candidate on each ballot. The process is repeated until there is a majority winner.
Ranked choice voting makes use of more information from the voters than plurality, but does it avoid some of the problems plurality suffers from?
We are
a team of mathematicians
who recently concluded
a study
aimed at answering this and related questions. We analyzed some 2,000 ranked choice elections from the U.S., Australia and Scotland. We supplemented those real-world results with 60 million simulated elections.
The results were clear: Ranked choice voting performed much better across all the measures we tested, including spoiler, vote-splitting, strength of candidates and strategic voting.
Eugene Peltola Jr. holds the Bible during a ceremonial swearing-in for his wife, U.S. Rep. Mary Peltola, D-Alaska, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 13, 2022.
AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana, File
Empowering voters
Plurality voting produced a spoiler up to 15 times more often than ranked choice voting. And it was 50% more likely to elect an extreme candidate. Plurality, furthermore, was highly susceptible to vote-splitting, while ranked choice voting was nearly impervious to it.
Ranked choice voting picked strong candidates up to 18 times more frequently than plurality voting, where by “strong” we mean candidates who received many first-place votes and also had broad support, even among their noncore supporters. This method also rarely elects a weak or fringe candidate and typically elects a candidate near the electorate’s ideological center.
Ranked choice voting is also more resistant to various forms of strategic behavior such as
bullet voting
, where voters choose only one candidate despite the ability to rank more, and
burying
, where voters disingenuously rank an alternative candidate lower in the hopes of defeating them.
Our research also studied the ways in which election systems can influence behavior. In a plurality election, voters are afraid that their ballot could be “wasted” on a candidate who doesn’t have a shot at winning, or that they might contribute to a spoiler. Our study shows that ranked choice voting largely avoids these pitfalls, empowering voters to express their true preferences rather than being strategic.
We found that candidates in ranked choice voting elections do best when they adopt the policies the greatest number of people support, meeting the voters where they are.
In
Alaska’s 2022 special U.S. House election
, for example, Democrat Mary Peltola positioned herself firmly within Alaska’s center-left base – while still embracing some positions considered conservative outside of Alaska. She won by garnering enough second-place votes from supporters of Republican Nick Begich.
And in the New York mayoral primary in June 2025, Zohran Mamdani won by
creating a coalition
with another progressive candidate, Brad Lander, and occupying a progressive space representing a range of voters.
The Alaska and New York examples highlight some differences with plurality voting, which often favors appealing to a narrow base without the necessity of reaching out beyond it.
Ballots are prepared to be tabulated for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District House election on Nov. 12, 2018, in Augusta, Maine. The election was the first congressional race in U.S. history to be decided by the ranked-choice voting method.
AP Photo/Robert F. Bukaty
Mending a broken system
A mathematically interesting feature of Alaska’s 2022 special U.S. House election is that Begich beat both Peltola and Republican Sarah Palin in head-to-head contests – meaning that more people ranked Begich above Peltola than the other way around – but lost the ranked choice voting election to Peltola.
Critics
seize on such cases
as reasons to avoid ranked choice voting. But our work shows that these are statistical outliers, occurring fewer than 1% of the time.
Overall, our research shows that ranked choice voting elects candidates with broader support and greater democratic legitimacy than plurality. It therefore seems sensible that voting reform
advocates continue to pursue this method
as an alternative to plurality voting.
At a time when
Americans are losing faith
in democracy, voters cannot afford systems that hand victory to unrepresentative candidates and force them to play tactical games. The math is in, and the evidence is overwhelming: Plurality voting is broken. Ranked choice voting will not solve every democratic ailment, but it is a good step toward mending them.
Ismar Volić receives funding from Schwab Charitable.
Andy Schultz receives funding from Schwab Charitable. He is a registered Democrat.
David McCune receives funding from Schwab Charitable.
