The Other Big Election Loser: Ranked Choice Voting
RIP RCV
Tuesday’s election was seismic for many reasons, but from a depolarization perspective, one of the most interesting results was the widespread rejection of ranked choice voting.
Only two states – Alaska and Maine – currently use ranked choice voting for statewide elections, but a record-number of states voted on ballot initiatives on Tuesday that would have made ranked choice voting the law of the land.
Virtually all of these initiatives failed.
If you aren’t familiar with ranked choice voting, here’s a good primer, but in general, RCV allows voters to “rank” multiple candidates on their ballot so that if their top candidate doesn’t win, their subsequent preferences are still taken into account.
RCV has long been pushed by depolarization advocates like the Forward Party. Proponents argue that RCV would allow for more third-party representation and more moderate candidate success since the system generally solves for the “spoiler effect” and helps minimize negative campaigning.
I’ve argued before that ranked choice voting is a red herring that offers a niche, band-aid solution to the problem of polarization. In many ways, ranked choice voting is emblematic of the many issues the depolarization movement suffers from – it’s boring, too wonky, too downstream from culture, and too complicated.
For a depolarization movement to really be effective, it needs to be simple and compelling. RCV is neither.
So, how did voters react to the various RCV proposals on Tuesday? As of the time of publication:
59% in deep blue Oregon voted against RCV
54% in deep blue Colorado voted against RCV
70% in deep red Idaho voted against RCV
54% in purple Nevada voted against RCV
59% in purple Arizona voted against RCV
69% in deep red Missouri voted to preemptively ban RCV
Alaska – 1 of only 2 states with RCV – is voting on whether to repeal RCV, and with 76% reporting, 51% are currently in favor of repeal
The only RCV ballot measure to pass was in Washington DC.
Interestingly, RCV proponents out-fundraised their opposition 29-1, raising almost $100 million to advocate for RCV across various states. In Alaska alone, the defenders of RCV raised 100 times as much as the opposition.
Clearly, the issue isn’t lack of funding or education. It’s also not a partisan issue, as deep blue, red, and purple states all rejected RCV. The obvious takeaway is that voters just simply aren’t interested in ranked choice voting due to its complexity and lack of compelling benefits.
The point has been made a million times already that after Tuesday’s landslide, the Democrats will need to face the music and have some tough conversations about strategy, direction, and messaging.
After the failure of the RCV measures, the depolarization movement needs to be having similar conversations. As the WSJ notes, “The public appears to realize that this isn’t the polarization cure-all that its supporters advertise.”
I’ve argued that niche voting mechanism reform is not a simple or compelling solution to toxic polarization. Voters have now verified that opinion. The question is, how will the depolarization movement respond?
I wouldn't write the OBIT yet. Yes, voting reforms require more mindshare and explanation than many other initiatives (and they should - voting being so fundamental to our democracy). Also true that parties in power (which today almost always means extreme minority factions of the party) are going to fight reform with all they have.
This isn't about "RCV," it's about a variety of potential reforms aimed at correcting the excesses of our current two-party duopoly. A small sliver of the most partisan voters of the dominant local party (over 80% of districts are noncompetitive thanks to gerrymandering), are choosing our representatives and that is not working out well. Reformers need to help voters understand exactly how the current system is disenfranchising them (the tails of the bell curve, rather than the fat part, making all the decisions) and have that connected to the poor quality of candidates they see on general election ballots. There remains plenty of evidence that voters are deeply unsatisfied with the choices they have been given, including last Tuesday.
The D.C. initiative passed overwhelmingly (73%-27%) despite fierce opposition from the Democrats in power. They demonstrated that a high-touch campaign finds voters highly enthused by the potential of these reforms.
Thus far, no one has proposed a better pathway to correcting the imbalance of power with the extreme wings of the two parties. These kinds of reforms historically build over many cycles. I suspect voters will be every bit as disenchanted with how government is doing two years from now and equally horrified by the general election choices provided by the current system. Having taken the temperature of the reform movement the past few days, resolve is strong. Speaking for myself, I will continue to dedicate substantial time and treasure to his cause in hopes of leaving a more functional democracy as a legacy.
I agree that the complexity of the proposal works against RCV.
One other factor is that the majority party in a state is always against it out of self-interest (it will reduce their number of seats). And most voters belong to or lean towards the majority party in their state.
I notice that the results were much closer in competitive states than non-competitive states.