Many countries have relied on a system where voters pick one candidate, and the person with the most votes wins. While this process seems straightforward, it often leaves many voters feeling like their voices were ignored, especially in cases where the winner secured less than half of the votes.
This issue has raised concerns about whether such an approach truly reflects the choice of the people. That is where another method, called Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), enters the discussion.
This voting method, though already in use in several cities and states, has continued to gain attention as a possible way to reshape how elections are conducted and how representatives are selected.
A system aiming to reflect more than just first picks (Photo: Alamy)Rather than limiting voters to one option, RCV allows them to rank candidates in order of preference. This approach promises to reduce vote splitting, encourage more civil campaigning, and provide a broader sense of legitimacy to election outcomes.
Supporters believe it could improve democratic participation and ensure elected officials have wider backing from the public. On the other hand, some have raised issues about whether voters fully understand how to use the method correctly, and whether the counting process might be too complex for some jurisdictions to handle smoothly.
How the Process Works
Ranked-Choice Voting operates differently from the traditional method. Voters do not just pick their favourite candidate but instead mark their choices in order of preference. For example, they would select their first choice, then a second, third, and so on, depending on the number of candidates listed.
If no candidate receives over 50 percent of the first-choice votes, the one with the least number of votes is removed from the count. The votes of those who selected the eliminated candidate as their top choice are then transferred to their next preferred option. This process continues until one candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold.
The aim is to make sure the winner is someone who has broader approval among voters, even if they were not everyone’s first choice. This method prevents a situation where a candidate wins due to the opposition being divided among many other candidates. It also encourages more people to run for office without fear of splitting votes.
Impact on Campaigns and Political Behaviour
One immediate change that RCV introduces is how candidates conduct their campaigns. Under the traditional system, many candidates aim only to mobilise their base, often by attacking their opponents harshly. With RCV, the strategy tends to change.
Candidates now have a reason to appeal to a wider range of voters, including those who may not choose them first but could rank them second or third. This could lead to more respectful campaigning and more focus on policies rather than personal attacks.
In some places where RCV has been adopted, such as in certain cities in the United States, there have been reports of a more positive tone in political campaigns. Candidates avoid burning bridges with other contestants’ supporters, knowing that they might still gain their votes at later stages in the counting. This change in tone has the potential to reduce political division and promote cooperation among elected officials after elections are over.
Encouragement for Diverse Participation
Another effect of RCV is the encouragement it gives to new voices, especially those from underrepresented communities. Since the system reduces the fear of wasting votes, it allows voters to support candidates they truly prefer without worrying about accidentally helping the candidate they like least. This has opened opportunities for women, minorities, and independents to enter races that were previously considered too risky.
Candidates with strong grassroots support but limited financial backing may find a fairer chance under RCV. Voters can express support for them without feeling like they are throwing their votes away. This has led to a more varied field of contestants in many areas where the method has been introduced.
The Counting Process and Concerns
Although RCV offers several potential benefits, the process involved in counting the votes has raised concerns. The counting is more complicated than simply adding up votes for each candidate. It involves multiple rounds of elimination and redistribution of votes. This process can take more time and may require special software or trained personnel, depending on how the election is organised.
Changing how winners are chosen one rank at a time (Photo: Getty Images)Another concern is public understanding. In areas where voters are unfamiliar with the ranking process, mistakes can occur. Ballots might be filled incorrectly, or voters might become confused about how their second and third choices affect the outcome. To address this, thorough public education efforts are necessary before the system is adopted in any new location.
Examples From Cities and Countries that Use It
Some places have already put RCV into practice with varying results. In cities like San Francisco and New York City, the method has been used in local elections. Early feedback has shown that voter satisfaction remains steady, and more candidates have chosen to enter races.
In other countries, such as Australia, a similar version of ranked voting has been used in national elections for many years, and it has become a normal part of their democratic process.
In Maine, which adopted RCV for statewide elections, the method has helped ensure winners had wider public support. There, some candidates who came in second in the initial round were able to win after the rankings were fully counted. This demonstrates how the system can change outcomes compared to the traditional method.
Will It Spread More Widely?
Whether RCV becomes more widely accepted depends on how well it is explained and whether voters feel comfortable with the change. While it provides a method that tries to reflect voter preferences more fully, it also comes with administrative demands and learning requirements. For it to gain wider acceptance, public trust must be built through education, transparency in the counting process, and open discussions about the benefits and risks.
Lawmakers and election officials considering RCV will have to weigh the advantages of broader voter input against the challenges of implementing a new system. Still, as discussions about democratic reform continue, Ranked-Choice Voting is likely to remain part of conversations on how to improve electoral fairness and ensure that elected leaders genuinely reflect the choices of the majority.