Last updated 4 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The way votes are cast and counted shapes everything about how democracy works. Different electoral systems can produce vastly different outcomes, influence how candidates campaign, and change how voters behave at the polls.
Two systems dominate the current American debate: the familiar plurality voting system used in most elections, and the increasingly popular ranked-choice voting that’s gaining ground across the country.
The choice between these systems touches fundamental questions about what makes an election “fair”—whether the priority should be simplicity and quick decisions, or ensuring majority rule and broader representation of voter preferences.
Plurality Voting: The System You Know
How Winner-Take-All Works
Plurality voting is the electoral system most Americans know by heart. The candidate who receives the most votes wins the election, even if that candidate doesn’t secure a majority—more than 50% of all votes cast. This system is also called “first-past-the-post” or “winner-take-all.”
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission defines this as the method where the candidate receiving more votes than any other single opponent wins. It’s considered the simplest way to determine an election outcome.
The “winner-take-all” label captures both the appeal and the problem: a candidate can achieve complete victory with even a narrow lead, while votes for all other candidates contribute nothing to representation in that contest.
The Mechanics Are Simple
In a typical election, voters see a list of candidates and cast a single vote for their preferred choice. The candidate who accumulates more votes than any other individual opponent wins.
Here’s how it works in practice. In a three-candidate race:
- Candidate A receives 40% of the vote
- Candidate B receives 35% of the vote
- Candidate C receives 25% of the vote
Under plurality rules, Candidate A wins despite 60% of voters preferring someone else. This simplicity makes the system easy for voters to navigate and election officials to administer.
Where Plurality Rules
Plurality voting dominates American elections. It’s used for most U.S. Congress seats, state legislatures, and local government positions. While the Constitution doesn’t mandate this system, state laws typically specify plurality voting or default to it through tradition.
The historical adoption of plurality voting in the U.S. largely stems from British colonial influence. This deep entrenchment means plurality voting is what most Americans have always known, creating significant inertia against alternatives.
The Case for Keeping It Simple
Supporters of plurality voting emphasize several key advantages:
Simplicity wins. The system is straightforward for voters and election officials. Voters make one mark, and counting is uncomplicated.
Fast results. Plurality voting delivers quick election results, allowing winners to be declared promptly after polls close.
Clear accountability. It creates direct links between elected representatives and their geographic districts, with clear winners and losers.
Stable government. The system often produces single-party majority governments, even without absolute popular vote majorities. This can lead to more decisive governance without coalition negotiations.
Cost-effective. Compared to systems requiring runoff elections, plurality voting costs less to operate.
These arguments emphasize practical benefits: decisiveness, speed, and the potential for strong majority governments.
Why Critics Want Change
Despite its simplicity, plurality voting faces substantial criticism centered on representation and voter behavior:
Minority winners are common. Candidates regularly win with less than 50% of the vote, especially in multi-candidate races. The elected official may lack majority support, potentially causing widespread voter dissatisfaction.
The spoiler effect splits votes. Less popular candidates can “spoil” elections for more popular candidates sharing similar voter bases. By splitting like-minded votes, a candidate opposed by most voters can win.
Votes get “wasted.” All votes for losing candidates, plus any winning candidate votes beyond what secured victory, are considered wasted since they don’t contribute to representation.
Strategic voting distorts preferences. Fear of wasting votes or enabling spoilers compels voters to choose a “lesser of two evils” rather than their genuine preference. Election outcomes may not reflect sincere voter preferences.
False majorities happen. Political parties can win legislative majorities without securing majority popular support. The party with the most votes nationwide might not win the most seats.
Third parties get squeezed. The system fosters two-party dominance because smaller parties struggle to win seats even with substantial, geographically dispersed support.
Gerrymandering thrives. Single-member districts make plurality systems particularly vulnerable to electoral district manipulation.
Representation gaps persist. Some analyses suggest plurality systems can disadvantage candidates from minority groups and women, as parties may favor candidates perceived as “most broadly acceptable.”
These criticisms point to a potential “democratic deficit” where election outcomes may not accurately reflect voter preferences or the electorate’s diversity.
Ranked-Choice Voting: The Alternative Approach
Beyond Single Choices
Ranked-Choice Voting represents a fundamental shift from selecting one candidate to ranking multiple candidates in order of preference. Instead of marking a single choice, voters rank candidates as first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on.
In single-winner elections, RCV is often called Instant Runoff Voting because the counting process simulates runoff elections without requiring voters to return to the polls for separate elections.
The U.S. Election Assistance Commission describes RCV as allowing voters to rank candidates by assigning their preferred candidate a “1,” their second choice a “2,” and so forth.
The primary goal is ensuring elected candidates have majority support rather than just plurality support, while mitigating vote-splitting and spoiler effects common in plurality systems.
How the Counting Works
RCV involves several distinct steps that create an “instant runoff”:
Ballot marking. Voters rank candidates in order of preference. Different jurisdictions allow different numbers of rankings—New York City allows five candidates, San Francisco allows ten, Arlington County allows three. Voters aren’t required to rank all candidates and must typically rank at least a first choice for valid ballots.
Initial count. All first-choice votes are counted. If a candidate receives an outright majority of first-choice votes, they win and counting concludes.
Elimination and transfer rounds. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. Ballots that ranked the eliminated candidate first are re-examined, and each ballot transfers to that voter’s next-highest ranked candidate still in the race.
Continued rounds. This elimination and transfer process continues until a candidate holds a majority of active ballots. After each round, votes are retallied. If a candidate now has a majority, they win. If not, the new last-place candidate is eliminated and their votes transfer.
Exhausted ballots. If a ballot’s ranked choices are all eliminated candidates, or if voters didn’t rank any remaining candidates, that ballot becomes “exhausted” and stops counting in subsequent rounds. The majority needed for victory is based on continuing ballots, not all originally cast ballots.
This “instant runoff” characteristic aims to achieve traditional runoff goals—ensuring majority support—without separate election costs and typically lower second-election turnout.
Where RCV Is Growing
Ranked-Choice Voting has expanded significantly across the United States over the past two decades. As of early 2025, RCV is used in over 50 jurisdictions, including two states—Alaska and Maine—for statewide and federal contests.
Major cities using RCV include San Francisco (since 2004), Minneapolis, St. Paul, New York City (for primaries and special elections), Arlington County, Virginia, and Santa Fe, New Mexico.
The legal landscape varies dramatically by state, reflecting ongoing political debate about RCV’s merits:
| RCV Status | States |
|---|---|
| Uses RCV for Statewide/Federal Elections | Alaska, Maine |
| Permits RCV for Local/Special Elections | California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Hawaii, New Mexico, Utah, Virginia |
| Prohibits RCV | Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming (16 states) |
| Legal Status Unclear | Remaining 26 states |
This divergence underscores active debate about RCV’s perceived benefits and drawbacks. While some states embrace it fully, a significant number have prohibited its use.
The Case for Ranking Candidates
RCV advocates present multiple arguments for why ranking preferences improves democratic processes:
Majority winners emerge. RCV helps elect candidates with majority support based on active ballots in the final round, rather than just plurality winners. This produces winners with broader support bases and stronger governing mandates.
Spoiler effects disappear. RCV allows voters to support their most preferred candidate without fearing wasted votes or spoiler effects. If their first choice is eliminated, their vote transfers to backup choices, making more votes count toward the final outcome.
More choices become viable. RCV can give voters, particularly independents, more meaningful candidate choices. It may improve representation for women and candidates of color by lowering traditional barriers, as they’re less likely to be perceived as spoilers.
Campaigns get more civil. Because candidates may need second and third-choice votes from opponents’ supporters, there’s incentive to campaign more positively and focus on issues rather than attacking rivals.
Money and turnout improve. By incorporating runoff logic into single elections, RCV eliminates expensive, low-turnout traditional runoffs. This is particularly beneficial in jurisdictions currently using separate runoff elections.
Voters understand and appreciate it. Despite complexity concerns, research generally indicates voters can understand RCV, particularly with adequate education and system experience. Many studies report high voter satisfaction in RCV jurisdictions.
Many of these benefits interconnect. By reducing spoiler effects, RCV may encourage more sincere voting, which can embolden diverse candidate fields, which may require broader appeal for victory, potentially leading to more issue-focused, less negative campaigns.
The Concerns About Complexity
Despite growing popularity, RCV faces substantial criticism and concerns:
Complexity confuses voters. Critics argue RCV is inherently more complicated than selecting a single candidate. This complexity could lead to voter confusion, increased ballot errors, or voter frustration, particularly without sufficient voter education.
Ballot exhaustion creates “artificial” majorities. If voters don’t rank enough viable candidates, their ballots become exhausted and don’t count in final rounds. Critics argue winners achieve majorities of remaining active votes, which may not represent majorities of all initial participants.
“One person, one vote” questions arise. Some opponents contend RCV aspects like ballot exhaustion or vote transfers could violate equal voting principles, as some ballots may ultimately impact final outcomes more than others.
Implementation costs money. Transitioning to RCV requires updating voting equipment and software, redesigning ballots, and conducting comprehensive voter education campaigns. However, the National Conference of State Legislatures found median one-time transition costs of $17,000 for local jurisdictions.
Results take longer. Multi-round counting, especially with manual tabulation or mail-in ballot delays, can postpone official winner announcements compared to plurality elections.
Minority representation may suffer. While some proponents argue RCV helps diverse candidates, research raises concerns that single-winner RCV might unintentionally disadvantage candidates of color by disrupting traditional coalition-building or if minority communities experience higher ballot exhaustion rates.
Strategic voting still exists. While RCV aims to reduce plurality system strategic voting, no system eliminates all strategic behavior. RCV can be vulnerable to different, more complex forms of strategic nomination or sophisticated individual strategic voting.
Many criticisms stem from RCV’s deviation from familiar plurality simplicity and highlight concerns about unintended consequences without meticulous implementation, particularly comprehensive voter education.
Head-to-Head: How the Systems Compare
Understanding fundamental differences between plurality and ranked-choice voting reveals their distinct impacts on voters, candidates, and election outcomes.
| Feature | Plurality Voting | Ranked-Choice Voting |
|---|---|---|
| Ballot Marking | Select one candidate | Rank multiple candidates in preference order |
| Winner Determination | Candidate with most first-choice votes wins | Majority winner through elimination and transfer rounds |
| Majority Outcome | Not guaranteed; often plurality winners | Aims for majority of active votes in final round |
| Preference Expression | Single preference only | Multiple, ordered preferences |
| Runoff Elections | May require separate runoff if majority legally required | Incorporates “instant runoff” in single election |
| Voter Complexity | Generally simpler to understand and use | More complex, requiring ranking understanding |
| Counting Complexity | Simpler, faster tabulation | More complex, potentially slower multi-round counting |
How Voters Experience Each System
The voter experience differs significantly between systems:
Under plurality voting:
- Voters express only single preferences by choosing one candidate
- Strong incentives exist for strategic voting—choosing “electable” candidates over true favorites to avoid “wasting” votes or helping elect worse candidates
- Significant votes are “wasted”—all losing candidate votes plus winning candidate votes beyond the margin of victory
Under ranked-choice voting:
- Voters express fuller preferences through multiple candidate rankings, indicating not just top choices but backup preferences
- RCV aims to reduce strategic voting incentives because votes can transfer, freeing voters to support true first choices without spoiler fears
- “Wasted votes” are reduced through transfer mechanisms, though RCV introduces “ballot exhaustion” when all ranked candidates are eliminated
While RCV is inherently more complex, numerous studies indicate most voters can understand ranking with proper education and experience, though initial confusion can occur without adequate outreach.
Campaign Strategy Differences
Voting systems create different strategic landscapes for candidates:
Under plurality voting:
- Campaigns may focus on energizing core bases and employing negative tactics, since outpolling every single competitor is sufficient for victory
- Negative campaigning can be rational if it successfully depresses rival support or discourages opponent turnout
- Candidates perceived as “spoilers” often become targets from ideologically similar candidates fearing vote-splitting
Under ranked-choice voting:
- RCV incentivizes broader appeal seeking, as candidates may need favorable second or third-choice rankings from voters whose first choices are eliminated
- Broader appeal needs may discourage intensely negative campaigning, as attacking opponents too harshly could alienate those supporters and forfeit crucial backup votes
- Candidates might engage in cooperative strategies like cross-endorsements or joint campaign appearances
Research from organizations like the American Bar Association suggests RCV campaigns are often perceived as more civil and less negative, though front-runner candidates believing they can win first-round majorities may still use traditional negative tactics.
Different Outcomes, Different Democracy
Voting systems profoundly influence who wins elections and how well results reflect voter preferences:
Under plurality voting:
- Highly susceptible to spoiler effects where multiple similar candidates split votes, allowing less-supported but united-base candidates to win
- Frequently produces plurality winners lacking majority support
- Often creates disproportionate representation favoring large parties while creating significant hurdles for third parties and independents
Under ranked-choice voting:
- Specifically designed to mitigate common spoiler effects by allowing vote transfers from less viable candidates, preventing vote-splitting from producing minority-preferred outcomes
- Aims to produce majority winners based on active ballots in final rounds, though ballot exhaustion means this isn’t always a majority of all initial votes
- May improve representation for third parties and diverse candidates by allowing voters to support them as first choices without feeling votes are “wasted”
Research summarized by the American Bar Association suggests RCV can improve representation compared to plurality voting. Strong public preference for majority winners, found in surveys showing 86% of respondents consider majority victories important, drives consideration of RCV as an alternative to plurality systems that often fail to deliver such outcomes.
RCV in Practice: Real-World Results
Examining how ranked-choice voting has been implemented across various U.S. locations provides crucial real-world context beyond theoretical arguments.
Maine: The Pioneer State
Maine became the first state to adopt and use RCV for statewide federal elections (beginning in 2018) and subsequently for state primaries and general elections for governor and legislature.
The adoption was largely citizen-driven, propelled by voter initiatives following a history of governors elected with plurality support—sometimes significantly less than majority support. Governor Paul LePage’s initial 38% victory in a multi-candidate field exemplified the problem RCV aimed to solve.
The grassroots effort, including a “people’s veto” to overcome legislative resistance, demonstrates how public dissatisfaction with existing electoral outcomes can fuel significant reform.
Maine’s primary goals were ensuring elected officials have majority support and potentially reducing negative campaigning by incentivizing broader candidate appeal. However, implementation faced obstacles including legal challenges and opposition from established political figures.
While proponents point to successful RCV elections, some studies noted issues like ballot exhaustion and findings that RCV “produced significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use” for some voters. This highlights that even popular reforms face complex implementation challenges.
Alaska: Innovation Through Top-Four Primaries
Alaska implemented a novel system in 2020, first used in 2022 elections, combining non-partisan “Top-Four” primaries with RCV general elections for state and federal offices.
Under this system, all candidates regardless of party appear on single primary ballots, with the top four vote-getters advancing to RCV general elections. In 2024, Alaskan voters narrowly chose to retain this system when facing a repeal initiative.
The stated aims were fostering more meaningful competitive elections, rewarding campaign civility, and elevating candidates with broadest cross-party appeal.
The 2022 and 2024 elections yielded notable outcomes. Democrat Mary Peltola won the U.S. House seat, and moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski was re-elected to the Senate, both in races involving multiple RCV counting rounds.
Analysis by FairVote indicated winning candidates generally demonstrated strong consensus support, with the median 2024 winner ranked in the top three by 63% of voters. Candidates from both major parties won elections requiring RCV counting.
Voter adaptation appears successful. Data suggests voters strategically used ranking features, being more likely to rank backup choices when first choices were “longshot” candidates. A November 2024 poll reported 84% of Alaskans found RCV “simple” to use.
The system hasn’t eliminated controversy. Debates around spoiler effects persisted, particularly concerning Republican candidates Sarah Palin and Nick Begich in House races. Critics pointed to over 15,000 “exhausted” ballots in the 2022 House general election’s final round.
New York City: Metropolitan Scale Testing
New York City adopted RCV for primaries and special elections for most city offices, with first major use in 2021 elections. NYC voters can rank up to five candidates.
The 2021 Democratic Mayoral Primary provided significant testing for RCV scalability in large, diverse urban environments. The election saw the highest Democratic primary turnout in decades (28%).
Voter engagement with ranking was notably high: 86.6% of Democratic primary voters ranked two or more candidates, surpassing reported national RCV averages, and three-quarters of mayoral voters ranked at least three candidates.
Studies indicated voters generally understood the RCV process, supported by extensive education efforts including over 500 trainings and millions of informational materials distributed.
RCV influenced outcomes in at least two City Council races where candidates trailing in first-choice votes ultimately won after vote transfers. Research suggested RCV provided incentives for candidates to be more respectful toward competitors and less likely to “go negative.”
Ballot exhaustion was evident in the mayoral primary. About 14.9% of Democratic ballots (over 140,000 votes) didn’t count toward either final candidate in the ultimate round, illustrating ongoing debate about whether RCV “majorities” truly reflect all initial voter preferences.
San Francisco: Long-Term Experience
San Francisco has used RCV for most local offices since November 2004, providing one of the longest U.S. track records. Initially allowing three candidate rankings, current rules permit up to ten rankings.
A San Francisco Local Agency Formation Commission analysis of election data from 2000-2010 found several key trends:
Voter participation associated with RCV showed higher rates in Board of Supervisor races (average 2.1% increase) compared to previous non-RCV races, though no clear correlation appeared for city-wide races.
Voter error rates in RCV city-wide races showed higher average “overvote” rates (improperly marking multiple candidates for single ranks) compared to plurality races. Most errors occurred in first-choice rankings, with certain neighborhoods consistently showing higher error rates.
Ballot exhaustion proved significant, with rates as high as 16.3% in the 2011 mayoral race and 26% in one 2010 Board of Supervisor race. Exhaustion rates correlated positively with candidate field size.
Other research on San Francisco’s experience suggests RCV incentivized less negative campaigning and increased candidate mobilization efforts.
San Francisco’s decades of experience demonstrate both RCV potential benefits and persistent challenges. While the system can encourage different campaign styles and potentially increase participation, issues like ballot exhaustion and differential error rates across demographic groups highlight ongoing needs for robust, targeted voter education.
Arlington County: Local Government Adaptation
Arlington County, Virginia, provides an example of local-level RCV adoption and adaptation. The county implements RCV for County Board primary elections and general elections when two seats are contested. Voters can rank up to three candidates.
Arlington’s rationale mirrors broader national arguments: allowing meaningful voter choice even when top candidates don’t win, improving campaign civility as candidates appeal for broader support, and ensuring winners have the broadest support bases.
RCV mechanics in Arlington are tailored for both single-seat and multi-seat contexts. The winning threshold formula is: ((total valid ballots cast) / (number of seats + 1)) + 1 vote. For single seats, this requires more than 50%. For two seats, candidates need more than 33%.
In multi-winner contests, after candidates reach winning thresholds, their “surplus” votes beyond victory requirements can redistribute to those voters’ next choices, helping fill remaining seats. This application represents Single Transferable Vote (STV).
Arlington’s adoption was enabled by Virginia state law permitting localities to use RCV for county board or city council elections, illustrating how state-level enabling legislation is prerequisite for local innovation.
The Ongoing Reform Debate
The choice between plurality and ranked-choice voting sits at the heart of ongoing debates about how American democracy can best achieve fairness, representation, and voter engagement.
The Pro-RCV Coalition
A diverse coalition advocates for broader RCV adoption, emphasizing its potential for more responsive, representative electoral systems:
FairVote leads advocacy efforts, arguing RCV gives voters meaningful choices, ensures majority winners, discourages negative campaigning, reduces spoiler effects, saves money by eliminating separate runoffs, increases participation, and makes it easier for women and candidates of color to run and win.
RCV Resource Center focuses on information provision, highlighting RCV’s mechanism for ranking preferences to achieve majority winners through instant runoffs and its utility for proportional representation in multi-winner elections.
League of Women Voters chapters support RCV in various locations. The Maine chapter has long advocated for RCV to ensure majority winners. Portland’s chapter found candidates credited RCV with attracting more diverse candidates, reducing partisan rancor, and giving voice to traditionally underrepresented voters.
Brennan Center for Justice views RCV as reform ending spoiler effects, creating openness in the predominantly two-party system, and encouraging candidates to appeal to wider voter ranges.
Academic research cited by organizations like the American Bar Association provides evidence that RCV can improve representation, campaign quality, voter mobilization and turnout, and consensus-building compared to plurality voting.
Cato Institute’s Walter Olson represents free-market perspectives, arguing RCV is politically neutral procedural reform benefiting candidates with broad appeal, used successfully by Republicans in Virginia’s gubernatorial nominations and Alaska’s legislative elections.
This broad support base spans good government groups, academic researchers, and partisan actors seeing specific advantages, giving RCV considerable momentum through consistent use of real-world data and empirical studies.
The Anti-RCV Opposition
Opposition comes from various quarters emphasizing voter understanding concerns, counting process fairness, and potential unintended negative consequences:
The Heritage Foundation characterizes RCV as confusing and chaotic, effectively disenfranchising voters through ballot exhaustion mechanisms. They argue it allows marginal candidates to win without genuine majority support and eliminates valuable voter re-examination opportunities in traditional runoffs.
Cato Institute’s Jason McDaniel argues RCV likely leads to lower voter turnout, particularly among demographic groups already less likely to vote, and increases ballot errors due to complexity. His San Francisco-based research suggests RCV doesn’t necessarily reduce partisan polarization.
Institute for Responsive Government cautions RCV isn’t a “one-size-fits-all” solution, raising concerns about voter confusion, ballot errors, and potentially decreased turnout with disproportionate effects on low-income voters, those with lower educational attainment, and communities of color.
Election Science points out RCV doesn’t guarantee winners with majorities of all original ballots due to ballot exhaustion, potentially contriving majorities from reduced vote pools.
Other concerns include complexity and information costs imposing higher cognitive burdens, ballot exhaustion as disenfranchisement, “one person, one vote” principle violations, delayed results, theoretical strategic voting vulnerabilities, and political opposition from established parties and incumbents fearing altered power dynamics.
These criticisms underscore increased cognitive loads RCV places on voters and voice apprehension about unintended outcomes, particularly if certain demographic groups are inadvertently disadvantaged.
Implementation: The Make-or-Break Factor
Regardless of position on RCV, broad agreement exists that successful, fair implementation hinges on robust election administration and comprehensive voter education.
U.S. Election Assistance Commission provides Voluntary Voting System Guidelines including specific requirements for RCV-supporting systems. These require systems to allow ranking selections, accurately capture rankings, aggregate first-choice totals, process records for each counting round, and report totals accurately for contests and individual rounds.
Voter education is paramount in nearly all RCV discussions. Effective education ensures voters understand correct ballot marking and counting processes, particularly given RCV’s novelty and complexity compared to plurality voting. Successful outreach often needs community-specific tailoring to address potential understanding or comfort disparities.
Ballot design and instructions require clarity and intuition to minimize voter errors. Model RCV legislation often specifies sample ballot wide availability, including at polling places and with absentee materials.
Implementation costs include potential voting technology upgrades, tabulation software, ballot printing, and significantly, voter education and poll worker training resources. NCSL research found median transition expenses of $17,000 for local jurisdictions.
Transparency in tabulation and clear round-by-round results communication are vital for maintaining public trust, given multi-round RCV counting nature. Managing public expectations regarding result timelines is important, as RCV counts can take longer than plurality counts.
The practical success of RCV—or any electoral reform—depends not just on system abstract merits but on implementation quality and diligence. Addressing the “human factor” of how voters perceive, understand, and interact with new systems requires significant, sustained investment in outreach, education, and administrative preparedness.
Without this investment, even well-intentioned reforms can fall short of goals or produce unintended negative consequences. The choice between plurality and ranked-choice voting ultimately reflects deeper questions about democratic values: whether to prioritize familiar simplicity or embrace complexity that might better represent voter preferences and produce more legitimate, majority-supported winners.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.
