With increased public interest in election administration, there is also often increased interest in new methodologies and processes. In recent years, Ranked Choice Voting has been the focus of numerous studies, advocacy campaigns, and legislative efforts. Ranked Choice Voting, beyond impacting tabulation, intersects with many aspects of election administration and voter outreach, making it a key point of interest for election officials, candidates, and voters.
Ranked Choice Voting, commonly referred to as RCV, is a voting method that allows voters to rank candidates for a contest in order of preference. While there are numerous iterations of Ranked Choice Voting, there are two main branches: single-winner contests and multi-winner contests.
For a candidate to win in a single-winner Ranked Choice Voting contest, they have to obtain the majority of the votes, or 50% plus one vote. This differs from the more commonly-used plurality system, where candidates must only obtain the highest number of votes in the contest, which could be below the 50% majority threshold. As compared to plurality voting where voters can only select one candidate, Ranked Choice Voting allows voters to rank candidates from first to last choice. The number of candidates voters can rank is dependent on the rules of the contest in that specific jurisdiction and/or the number of candidates on the ballot.
In a single-winner Ranked Choice Voting contest, there can be multiple rounds of counting. If a candidate receives a majority of first choice votes, they are declared the winner without the need for additional counting. In the most common applications of Ranked Choice Voting, if no candidate receives the majority, the contest will go to a second round of tabulation, in which the candidate with the fewest first choice votes is eliminated. Voters who selected this candidate as their first choice will have their vote redistributed to their second choice. The counting process then continues in the same way until one candidate crosses the 50% plus one vote threshold.
Multi-winner contests are most commonly used in elections where multiple candidates are elected to a city council, school board, or other multi-member body. To win in a multi-winner contest, a candidate must receive enough votes to meet or exceed the determined winning threshold, which can be calculated using a few different methods.
Just like with single-winner contests, voters rank candidates based on preference. If the number of first choice votes a candidate receives exceeds the threshold, excess votes are divided among the voters’ second ranked candidates. If none of the candidates reach the threshold, the candidate with the lowest number of votes is eliminated, and the voters who selected this candidate as their first choice will have their vote redistributed to their second choice.1
While Ranked Choice Voting has become more commonly used throughout the country in recent years, it has been seen in the United States for over a century. Ranked Choice Voting was first used in 1915 in Ashtabula, Ohio, for a city council election.2 The voting method is more common at the local level than for statewide contests and is used in jurisdictions including Minneapolis, Santa Fe, San Francisco, and New York City. Ranked Choice Voting is used in approximately 53 cities and counties across the United States representing roughly 11 million voters.3
As of 2024, just three states - Maine, Alaska, and Hawaii - use Ranked Choice Voting statewide, while 14 states have jurisdictions that currently use or plan to use the voting method. Virginia is the only state where Ranked Choice Voting is not yet used but is allowed by law. While Ranked Choice Voting has seen growth in recent years as a voting method, there has also been pushback at the state and local level against the voting method. Several states have explored or passed laws to limit its use, and it has been banned in 10 states so far.4
When looking to implement Ranked Choice Voting, one factor elections administrators must consider is the cost of switching primary voting methods. According to a study conducted by the National Conference of State Legislatures, the average district spent an estimated $154,759 when switching to Ranked Choice Voting. That cost included necessary updates and changes to equipment and software needed to tabulate ranked choice contests, costs associated with educating voters on the new voting method, additional purchases of single-use items like ballot paper, and the cost of labor related to implementing these changes.
The same study also reported that many jurisdictions that currently use Ranked Choice Voting saw an increase in the number of ballot designs they produced when adopting the voting method and that designing the new ballots was a longer process than designing ballots with exclusively plurality contests.5 For jurisdictions that only use Ranked Choice Voting at the local level, ballots may include both plurality and ranked contests on the same ballot, depending on the election, which may impact ballot layout.
One of the most common concerns raised by election officials and candidates regarding the implementation of Ranked Choice Voting is the potential for voter confusion. Some studies have tied Ranked Choice Voting to increases in undervoting, overvoting, and uninformed ballot order effects.6 To help mitigate this potential, it is important for local jurisdictions to consider a robust public education campaign to help voters understand any change to the election process.
For election officials, examples of public education campaigns at the state and local level already exist, and while the voting method may be unfamiliar, consistent public outreach is already routine for many jurisdictions before key elections. Some ways election officials can educate voters on Ranked Choice Voting include holding informational sessions at community centers and local events, publishing an informational page or section on their website, conducting a mock election for local voters, sharing sample ballots, and printing clear instructions on the ballot itself.5
Looking past the General Election in 2024, it is likely that Ranked Choice Voting will continue to be the focus of legislative and public advocacy campaigns for the foreseeable future. Whether voters are pushing for or against Ranked Choice Voting as a tabulation method, it is important for election officials to have the resources they need to understand the impacts on administration, including hardware and software changes, ballot design, and tabulation. If a local jurisdiction opts to implement Ranked Choice Voting, it is important that there is a robust public education campaign to help voters understand changes to their ballots and mitigate potential confusion for voters and candidates.
2 HISTORY OF RCV - Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center. (n.d.). Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center.
4 Ranked-choice voting (RCV) - Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Ballotpedia.
ABOUT CLEAR BALLOT
As the leader in election innovation, Clear Ballot has introduced a new class of tools and a modern approach to voting, enabling unprecedented speed, accuracy, and transparency that officials and the voting public have sought for decades. Clear Ballot entered the election industry with its first product in 2012, disrupting the industry with the nation’s first independent, automated audit, and four years later developed a complete voting system which is now the fastest growing voting system in the industry. Clear Ballot’s election technology is currently used in thirteen states, serving more than 40 million registered voters.