Biting wind and deep darkness make the trek across the frozen water almost unbearable. The snowmobile’s thin windshield offers little protection, and no number of garment layers provides relief from the cold. The man on the machine is soon-to-be-Governor Bill Walker, and this rigid imagery is the reality of elections in Alaska. He will soon become the United States’ second Alaska-born governor and its only governor with an Independent party affiliation. He sees this lonesomeness as a problem, however, which is why he has emerged as a vocal leader in the fight for ranked choice voting.
Ranked choice voting is employed in many countries around the world, even recently in the United States. It has found success in elections in Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, Malta, Northern Ireland, and Scotland, as well as recently in Canada and the United Kingdom. More locally, it has been successful in 26 state elections, five of which are presidential primaries. Maine now uses ranked choice for all state and congressional elections. Everywhere it has been employed, ranked choice voting has resulted in cleaner elections with outcomes supported by more of the population than those produced through the dated two-party system.
In the ranked choice voting system, voters rank candidates in order of preference, and all votes are tallied. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and his or her votes are redistributed amongst the remaining candidates based on the rankings given. This process is repeated until a single candidate has accumulated a majority of the votes and is declared the winner. The biggest appeal of this system is that it encourages the emergence of third parties, a rarity in American politics today. It also facilitates more politeness in campaigns, contrasting starkly with the vicious nature of the 2016 presidential election. Finally, it ensures that the candidate eventually chosen has the highest level of support among all of the candidates. In a time when our voting system is more polarized than ever, and growing more so everyday, ranked choice voting may be the savior that our election system so desperately needs.
In our current system, voters are herded to one of two sides of the bipartisan line. Voting for an “outsider” from a third party is essentially a wasted vote, and voters know it. This contributes to the snowballing extremism of the two parties. Meanwhile, the average voter becomes increasingly isolated from the categories of either party. Today, 42% of voters now identify as Independent, a larger group than either Democrats or Republicans. When the voters themselves do not reflect the two-party system, there is no reason that the candidates should.
Even when third-party candidates do run, their slim chances for victory make voting for them futile; third-party votes are likely to benefit a more unpopular candidate. This game of strategy can be conquered by providing voters the opportunity to rank candidates in order of preference. This encourages voters to select the candidate with whom they actually agree while resolving concerns that they will unintentionally contribute to the election of another candidate. More candidates will be motivated to run on platforms that mirror the ideas of the people regardless of party.
Elections can get nasty (see: small hands), and bad blood between candidates, especially during primaries, often carries over to the voters. In a ranked choice system, voters are less likely to rank highly a candidate who is hostile towards their preferred candidate. This isolation of potential supporters inhibits election chances. Candidates are encouraged to show more restraint when speaking of their opponents, making the campaign more professional. Overall, civil discussion of ideas and policies allows growth as a country; attacking one another does not.
Finally, ranked choice voting ensures that the eventual winner will have the most widespread support. In a 2019 article, Jennifer Braceras argued against ranked choice, warning that the candidate with the third-most initial votes could end up winning the election if supporters of less popular candidates prefer him/her. Braceras argues that this is a flaw — the winner could be someone who the majority of people do not want. However, if a candidate initially receives the most votes, yet fails to receive any of the votes from eliminated candidates, this suggests that the candidate was polarizing, the champion of a select group. He or she could be strongly opposed by voters other than his or her core base. In contrast to Braceras’ argument, victory from a second- or third-place candidate is evidence of more widespread support. The objective is to select a representative of all people, not of a faction.
Some critics argue that ranked choice causes some votes to be thrown out, and therefore not counted in the final tally. This occurs when a voter does not rank every candidate and all candidates for which the voter did assign a ranking are eliminated. In this case, his or her ballot has no impact on the choice of remaining candidates and thus has no say in the final result. However, this flaw is solely the fault of the voter — by choosing not to rank every candidate, s/he forfeits a say in the race between unranked candidates. Assuming that unranked candidates would have been placed near the bottom of a voter’s ranked list, it is unlikely that these voters’ forfeited ballots would have made much difference in the election anyway. Yet, this remains a decision that the voter alone makes, and if an individual elects not to exercise the right to rank order the candidates, he or she must accept the consequences of such a decision. On the other hand, voters who complete the entire ballot by rank ordering all candidates will have their opinion valued in every round of the runoff.
Voting reforms, whether they include ranked choice or otherwise, face an uphill battle. Neither party is likely to willingly support them; doing so could undermine their hold on the current system. However, they could aid in the elections of moderate and independent candidates, like Governor Walker, that more closely reflect the views of the American people and contribute to positive progress as a nation. If change does occur, we will have to band together, and as the divide between the American people along political party lines grows wider by the election cycle, ranked choice voting may be our last hope at maintaining unity.
Image Source: Flickr/Jim MacDonald