I’ve taken several phone calls from ereaders on Ranked Choice Voting who appreciate the detail on studies that seem to contradict RCV’s positive talking points. A reader suggested I produce a short post they can print or save to their phone that takes on the talking points.
So, here it is: The RCV Sales Pitch vs Evidence
Ranked Choice Voting is often marketed with a familiar list of promises: more democratic elections, more choices for voters, more civil campaigns, higher turnout and—especially—greater participation by young voters. Those are attractive claims. The problem is that the evidence is far less conclusive than the sales pitch suggests.
“RCV produces more democratic outcomes.” Not necessarily. Ranked Choice Voting can produce a winner who receives a majority of the continuing ballots after lower-ranked candidates are eliminated, but that is not necessarily the same as winning a majority of all voters. Research examining 182 U.S. ranked-choice elections from 2004 through 2022 found that ballot exhaustion—the point at which a voter’s ballot can no longer contribute to the final round—”frequently causes majoritarian failures.” In other words, a candidate can ultimately win with a majority of the ballots still active while never receiving a majority of the original votes cast.
Alaska’s 2022 congressional election provides a real-world example. The state’s official election rules allow ballots to become inactive when voters skip rankings in certain circumstances. The result is that the final round can be decided by fewer voters than participated in the election.
“RCV gives voters more choices.” It can give voters more candidates to rank, but that is not the same thing as creating more viable choices. RCV does not automatically remove barriers to running for office, and simply adding names to a ballot does not guarantee meaningful competition. Indeed, research on RCV elections has found that the system can alter the vote share of minor-party candidates without necessarily transforming them into competitive winners. A 2021 MIT Election Lab analysis of Maine found that non-major-party candidates gained about six percentage points in vote share under RCV—but that did not mean they suddenly became competitive for office.
The important question for voters is not, “How many names can I rank?” It is, “How many candidates have a realistic chance to win?” RCV does not have a monopoly on producing crowded fields or voter choice.
“RCV makes campaigns nicer.” The evidence directly challenges this claim. A study by the MIT Election Lab examining Maine’s adoption of RCV found that negative spending increased significantly after RCV was implemented. Its analysis of 2018 congressional Facebook advertising also found that Maine’s campaigns were more negative than comparable races elsewhere. That doesn’t prove every RCV campaign is nasty—but it does prove that RCV is no magic civility machine.
The 2022 Alaska congressional race also illustrates the point. The contest among Sarah Palin, Nick Begich and Mary Peltola was hardly a model of political kumbaya. RCV changed the mechanics of determining the winner; it did not eliminate attack politics, ideological conflict or hard-fought campaigning.
“RCV increases voter turnout.” This claim is also more complicated than advocates often suggest. A peer-reviewed study examining RCV and youth turnout noted that there was little evidence that RCV increases turnout in the general population. The researchers specifically hypothesized that RCV might increase youth participation because of greater campaign civility and mobilization—meaning even the argument for increased youth turnout depends partly on the assumption that RCV produces more civil campaigns.
That is an important distinction. If turnout rises, it may be because of a competitive race, high-profile candidates, ballot measures, intense media coverage or unusually important issues—not necessarily because voters are ranking candidates instead of selecting one.
“RCV especially brings out young voters.” Again, the evidence does not support treating this as a guaranteed outcome. The research on youth turnout is suggestive rather than definitive. The 2021 study explicitly described the connection as a hypothesis and acknowledged the lack of strong evidence that RCV increases overall turnout.
So when someone says, “RCV will bring young people to the polls,” the fair response is: Show me the evidence for this specific election. Young voters are more likely to participate when candidates, issues and campaigns give them a reason to participate. Changing the ballot format alone is not a proven turnout strategy.
The bottom line is not that every claim made by RCV supporters is false. RCV can have advantages, and reasonable people can disagree about whether those advantages outweigh the costs. But voters considering a change should be skeptical of sweeping promises. RCV does not automatically make elections more democratic, does not guarantee more meaningful candidate choices, does not necessarily make campaigns more civil, and has not been conclusively shown to increase turnout—especially among young voters.
The simplest response to the RCV sales pitch is therefore also the most accurate: “That’s a claim. Now show me the evidence.”
Not receiving a majority of all voters is FAR more common in plurality elections than in RCV elections. Yes, if people rank, say, 5 candidates, none of whom make it to the final 2, then their votes are not counted. But ANYONE who voted for those 5 candidates would not have had their votes counted in a plurality election, whereas voters who listed one or more of them first could also rank a “safe” vote (i.e. strategic = tactical = insincere) vote for a major party candidate, and their vote would still count.
As for the “more candidates” argument: shall we look at the California primary? Certainly no shortage of candidates in that mess of a governor’s race. But even a 6% better outcome for a minority party is better than 0%. And data shows that between 25% – 35% of votes in a plurality election are insincere, meaning that people were forced to vote for someone other than their preferred candidate. And let’s face it — money still plays a huge role. How does a small party candidate overcome the media advantage of well-funded, major party candidates, who can afford to spread misinformation (outright lies) with little pushback?
RCV is not a perfect system, but it is far, far better than single-vote, plurality elections in reflecting the preferences of voters. The people and organizations that are fighting RCV — most notably the far-right Heritage Foundation and MAGA Republicans, but also many party leaders in the DNC — are those who feel they have their fingers on the buttons of power, and don’t want to give up that power to the people.
There’s an earlier post where I’ve documented studies by name. Please point out the ones you say are funded by right wing groups. And I’m certain the pro RCV studies are purely accurate and not funded by pro RCV studies. Right?
re: “Yes, if people rank, say, 5 candidates, none of whom make it to the final 2, then their votes are not counted”
Said votes are counted, but they are placed in a single “exhausted ballot” category. One cannot tell how many votes were cast for each of the candidates that end up in the exhausted category.
re: “But ANYONE who voted for those 5 candidates would not have had their votes counted in a plurality election”
Said votes are counted, and appear in the final tallies for each candidate.
This Guide is an odd list of lesser RCV advantages that don’t produce a noticeable effect in every election. There are a few main advantages, not listed, that are incontrovertible.
1. RCV provides an instant runoff that ensures the winner has a least 50% of the votes in the instant runoff rounds. Irvine’s plurality winner elections for city council, in contrast, have regularly had winners with only 15-30% of the vote.
2. The spoiler effect and split votes are avoided. In current plurality elections, such as used in Irvine, two similar candidates can split the vote to spoil the election of the more popular of the two, who could get elected if the other candidate were not running. With Ranked Choice Voting, that other candidate would be eliminated in the instant runoff, and the second choice votes of those voters would go to the other candidate, who might then win.
3. The main turnout advantage of RCV is eliminating a low turnout primary or runoff election. Irvine doesn’t have a primary or runoff, so it isn’t an advantage for Irvine. But it is an advantage compared to the alternative way to have majority support in Irvine – having an actual runoff election a few months later. Many cities do this, and have about half the turnout for the runoff.
4. Reduced cost by eliminating the primary or runoff election costs. Again, this doesn’t apply to Irvine, but it does avoid the cost of the alternative to ensuring majority support – having a separate, costly runoff election.
re: ” two similar candidates can split the vote to spoil the election of the more popular of the two, who could get elected if the other candidate were not running. With Ranked Choice Voting, that other candidate would be eliminated in the instant runoff, and the second choice votes of those voters would go to the other candidate, who might then win.”
Vote transfer is actually not a given. Even if candidates are of the same
Party (similar characteristic #1) and many policy points are also similar, some voters will vehemently not vote for the similar candidate as a second choice, or even as a first choice if their preferred candidate were not running. They may not rank a second choice as a protest in the case of RCV. This voter sentiment is evidenced by comments in various forums for the CA40 race on the Democrat side (yes this was a Primary and not RCV). Point being that even if candidates are very similar overall, a vote transfer to that candidate as choice #2 may not occur.
re: “1. RCV provides an instant runoff that ensures the winner has a least 50% of the votes in the instant runoff rounds. Irvine’s plurality winner elections for city council, in contrast, have regularly had winners with only 15-30% of the vote.”
That is not an equal comparison, although the statements are true (did not verify that Irvine has “regularly” had such winners, but assuming that is true for the sake of argument).
“RCV provides an instant runoff that ensures the winner has a least 50% of the votes in the instant runoff rounds.”
True. In the “instant runoff rounds”, not “of the vote” (not of the total ballots cast)
“plurality winner elections for city council, in contrast, have regularly had winners with only 15-30% of the vote.” (of all the ballots cast)
True.
The statement is comparing the final RCV round voting, in which some “of the vote” are exhausted and not included, to a simple plurality vote where all the ballots “of the vote” are included in the final percentages that determine the winner.
A few more points.
Many “studies” claiming flaws in RCV are funded by far right organizations that cherry-pick data or use methods intended to show a flaw in RCV. For example, there have been hundreds of RCV elections in the U.S. and exit polls show little confusion. That is because there is always a public education campaign. A number of studies have people participate in an online RCV election with no explanation of how it works, and then ask if they are confused.
There is ballot exhaustion in RCV elections since some voters don’t rank enough candidates, such that some voters who cast a first choice aren’t participating in the final instant runoff round. But the drop off in votes is minor, and the winner has a significantly higher percentage of the vote than current plurality elections. The proper comparison is to a separate runoff election, where the turnout is usually about half of the general election turnout, and even with high ballot exhaustion, RCV winners have much, much more support.
The Alaska analogy is comparing apples to oranges. Alaska had partisan primaries for each party, unlike Irvine’s no primary and non-partisan general election. The Alaska primary always had low turnout compared to the general election. Alaska adopted open primaries, where all parties run in the same primary, and sent the top 4 candidates of all those parties, and independents, to the general election, where the higher turnout general election voters used RCV. Thus the winners had much more support under the RCV system.
The most recent study cited was a math thesis from Claremont McKenna college. June 2026. You guys have a credibility problem when you make claims and fail to back it up with anything resembling facts
and yet, it’s a coin flip for whether or not Alaska continues to use RCV.
re Many “studies” claiming flaws in RCV are funded by far right organizations that cherry-pick data or use methods intended to show a flaw in RCV. ”
Are you questioning studies mentioned in the posting? If so, which ones?
I took a quick look at the 2021 MIT Election Lab analysis and none of the funders I investigated are far right leaning.
I’ll take the easier plurality election option that is 99.94% of what all of America uses. I want to fill out a ballot, not a March MADNESS bracket
This article is another home run, Dan!
1) What happens when during a round of RCV candidates, two are tied to be eliminated? They decide “by lot”. Where is your precious majority in that?
2) The particular wording of Irvine’s ordinance for the Nov. 3rd vote to enact RCV, crossed out (Sec. 1-2-602. – General Provisions. C) language regarding the Orange County Board of Supervisors legally required approval to:
“Ranked Choice Voting shall not preclude the City from Consolidating its municipal elections with the County.”
Amanda Casillas, Policy Advisor of the BOS, wrote regarding this bait-and-switch: “Under California law, cities do have the authority to conduct their own elections. If, however, a city were to request that the Orange County Registrar of Voters administer its elections using a ranked choice voting system, the Board of Supervisors would first need to consider and act on that request. Additionally, the Registrar’s current state-certified voting system does not yet support ranked choice voting. Furthermore, if the County voting systems were to add functionality to support ranked choice voting in the future, the systems would still need to undergo review, testing, and certification by the California Secretary of State before it could be used in an election.”
This ordinance is moot. The City of Irvine can’t override the BoS or California State without legal endorsement.
Once again, Dan’s method of debate seems to be first come to a conclusion, then try to find all available arguments to support it. IRO voting has flaws, certainly, but First Past The Post [our current system] appears to be more flawed.
Dan – Do you or any entities affiliated with TheLiberalOC accept payment from any entity against RCV? Your regular articles on this topic make me wonder if you are being compensated by someone.
I’ve actually put some time into subject and I grew up reading the NY Post and NY Daily News, s o I remember how nasty those NYC Mayoral primaries were in 2021 and 2025. So when I read how RVC is supposed to make campaigns nicer, I called bullshit in 2 seconds. There are a lot of studies that dispute RCV claims and hard to pin financial support to either side of the political spectrum. That said, I’m happy to sell an ad to pro RCV and anti RCV advocates.
Notice Dan took a paragraph to NOT answer the question posed to him, so I will restate it. Have you received any compensation from any entity against RCV?
Yes or No?
No. But if someone wants to buy an ad, I’ll accept it…even the pro-RCV people