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.”
Leave a Reply