What Is Ranked Choice Voting? How It Works (and Why It Matters)

In most elections, voters are asked to make a single choice: pick one candidate and hope for the best. But what happens when that choice doesn’t fully represent your preferences—or worse, when voting for your favorite candidate risks helping the one you like least?

Ranked-choice voting (RCV) offers a different approach.

A ranked-choice voting system is an electoral method in which voters rank candidates on their ballots in order of preference. Instead of choosing just one candidate, voters can express a fuller range of opinions—selecting a first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on.

The Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center, home of the RCV Clips podcast, provides information, research, and tools to educate the public about ranked-choice voting. They define RCV as:

“Ranked choice voting (RCV) is an election method in which voters rank candidates for an office in order of their preference (first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on). Ranking candidates is different from simply selecting one candidate, or what is known as plurality voting. If a candidate receives more than half of the first-choice votes, that candidate wins, just like in any other election. However, if there is no majority winner after counting first-choice votes, the race is decided by an instant runoff. The candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and voters who ranked that candidate as their first choice will have their votes count toward their next choice. This process continues until a majority winner—a candidate with more than half of the vote—is determined.”

At its core, RCV is designed to answer a simple question: not just who has the most votes, but who has the broadest support.

Supporters argue that this shift has far-reaching implications. It can reduce the so-called “spoiler effect,” encourage more positive campaigning, and give voters the freedom to vote honestly without fear of wasting their vote. It may also open the door to a wider range of candidates, reshape political competition, and even reduce the polarization that defines much of modern politics.

In the sections that follow, we’ll explore how RCV works in practice, the problems it aims to solve, and the real-world impact it’s already having across the United States.

Related: If you teach political science, our free syllabus guide curates the best democracy podcasts on topics just like this—ready to assign.

What Problems Does Ranked-Choice Voting Solve?

Nathan Lockwood, executive director of Rank the Vote, offers a detailed analysis of how RCV works and the problems it is designed to address.

Nathan Lockwood:

“You know, the way we’ve been voting our whole lives is pretty simple. You go into the voting booth, there are two or more candidates running, and you pick one. Whether there’s one candidate or ten, you choose one, and that’s your vote. Then we count the votes, and whoever has more votes than anyone else wins the election. They can win whether they have 70% of the vote or just 15%, as long as they have more than anyone else.

This method works fairly well when there are only two candidates. You’re guaranteed to get a majority winner—although it limits voter choice. But problems arise as soon as you add even one more candidate. That’s when you get what’s called the spoiler problem, where a candidate who is similar to a frontrunner can split the vote and unintentionally penalize them.

A well-known example is the 2000 presidential election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, with Green Party candidate Ralph Nader also running. At the time, many Democrats were concerned that Nader’s candidacy would pull votes away from Gore. People would even tell their friends, ‘Don’t even think about voting for Ralph Nader,’ because they were worried about the impact.

And they had reason to be concerned. The election came down to Florida, where George W. Bush won by just over 500 votes. Meanwhile, Ralph Nader received about 100,000 votes. Exit polling suggested that, had Nader not run, about half of his voters would have chosen Gore, about a quarter would have chosen Bush, and about a quarter would not have voted. That likely would have resulted in Gore winning by 15,000 to 20,000 votes, instead of losing.

Our current election system penalizes candidates in these situations—it’s an equal-opportunity punisher. For example, in 1992, George H.W. Bush faced strong competition from independent candidate Ross Perot. Many Republicans believe Perot took more votes from Bush than from Bill Clinton, who ultimately won the election with just 43% of the popular vote.

Ranked-choice voting addresses this problem effectively with one simple change: instead of selecting a single candidate, voters rank candidates in order of preference. You can say, ‘This is my first choice. But if they don’t have enough support to win, count my vote toward my second choice.’ This allows voters to support their favorite candidate without worrying about wasting their vote.

Because we gather more information from voters, we get a clearer picture of who the majority actually prefers. Using the earlier example, a Nader voter could rank Nader first and Gore second. If Nader is eliminated, their vote transfers to Gore.

The counting process works like an instant runoff. First, we count all first-choice votes. If a candidate has a majority, the election is over. If not, we eliminate the candidate with the fewest votes and redistribute those ballots to each voter’s next choice. This continues until one candidate has majority support.

It’s an efficient and elegant way to determine who truly has majority support, while allowing voters to express their real preferences without fear.”

A philanthropist and former CEO, Katherine Gehl examines America’s political system through an industry-competition lens to better understand its biggest problems and identify achievable solutions. She explains how RCV could create beneficial competition by lowering barriers for candidates to run for office.

Listen to the full episode on Future Hindsight: Ranked Choice Voting: Nathan Lockwood

Katherine Gehl:

“In business, we often talk about barriers to entry—how difficult it is for a new company to enter and compete in an industry. In American politics, we have an extremely high barrier to entry. As a result, we effectively have only two ‘companies’—the two major parties—that can consistently win elections.

Many people assume this is by design, as if America is inherently a two-party system. Some even think political parties are written into the Constitution. But that’s not true—it’s a historical accident.

I learned this from political scientist Lee Drutman in his book The Doom Loop. When the founders created the Constitution, they established the framework for elections but left many details undefined. At the time, there were very few examples of democratic elections to draw from. One model they found was in rural England, where local elections were decided by whoever received the most votes.

That may sound logical, and it’s still how we run elections today. But it turns out to be a flawed system. If you allow the candidate with the most votes to win without requiring a majority—more than 50%—you can end up with winners who are not supported by most voters.

For example, in a three-way race, a candidate could win with just 34% of the vote if the other two candidates split the remaining votes. That means a majority of voters actually preferred someone else.

This dynamic creates the ‘lesser of two evils’ problem and discourages new candidates from entering the race. Any additional candidate risks being labeled a spoiler, and voters worry about wasting their vote.

The solution is simple: require a majority to win. Once you do that, you need a system—like ranked-choice voting—to determine which candidate has majority support among multiple candidates.

When you remove the spoiler effect, you open the door to more competition. And that competition benefits voters. It encourages candidates to focus on solving real problems rather than just defeating the other party. Ultimately, it creates a healthier and more functional political system.”

Listen to the full episode on The Context: Elections Are Broken. How Do We Fix Them?

Benefits of Ranked-Choice Voting

There are many additional benefits to ranked-choice voting (RCV), including broader support for candidates, more constructive political discourse, reduced polarization, and ease of use for voters.

Candidate Support

Simone Leeper, senior legal counsel for redistricting at CLC, and Alexandra Copper, legal counsel for litigation at CLC, explain how ranked-choice voting helps ensure that voters’ voices are more fully represented:

Simone Leeper and Alexandra Copper:

Leeper: “Data shows that ranked-choice voting helps elect candidates with the broadest public support. Another benefit is that it incentivizes candidates to focus on representing their constituents, rather than engaging in negative campaigning against their rivals.

Copper: Under a traditional winner-take-all system, candidates are often incentivized to use negative campaign tactics because they distinguish themselves through criticism of their opponents.

Leeper: Because candidates are competing to be voters’ first, second, and third choices, they are more likely to avoid alienating voters who might otherwise rank them lower.

Copper: Candidates are therefore encouraged not to tear their rivals down, but instead to build coalitions with ideologically similar opponents and their supporters.

Leeper: Ranked-choice voting also broadens the public discourse during an election.

Copper: At the same time, a more diverse group of candidates can run and share their ideas without the risk of spoiling the race.

Leeper: Those ideas can then be adopted or adapted by winning candidates when they see the level of support voters express for them in a ranked-choice election. Candidates in an RCV system are also more likely to reach out and engage directly with voters, which can positively impact voter participation.

Copper: In turn, young voters in ranked-choice voting cities are significantly more likely to vote, with turnout increasing from 77% to 86%.”

Listen to the full episode on Democracy Decoded: Better Choices, Better Elections

A Tool Against Polarization

Deb Otis, director of research and policy at FairVote, explains how ranked-choice voting (RCV) can help reduce political polarization often associated with traditional voting systems:

Deb Otis:

“I think people can win ranked-choice voting elections from across the ideological spectrum. If you implement RCV in a purple state, you’re likely to see more moderate candidates who reflect that balance.

In a blue city, you’ll see liberals and progressives elected. In red cities—like several in Utah that have used RCV for mayoral and city council elections—you’ll see strong conservatives elected.

In Alaska, we saw instances where more moderate Republicans prevailed over more extreme candidates. Lisa Murkowski is one example. She’s known as a senator willing to be bipartisan and occasionally go against her party. She faced a more conservative Republican challenger and still won.

Ranked-choice voting played a significant role in that outcome. It can even create competition within parties. But ultimately, it’s not about ideology—it’s about how candidates campaign and the type of electorate they’re appealing to.

Candidates perform best in ranked-choice elections when they build broad support. If a candidate can only appeal to a narrow base—say, 30% of voters—while 70% strongly oppose them, that’s no longer enough to win.”

Listen to the full episode on The Politics Guys: FairVote and Reforming Voting

Ease of Use

Ranked-choice voting is already used across the United States in a wide range of jurisdictions. As of the 2022 elections, it has been adopted in 62 jurisdictions, including Alaska, Maine, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Minneapolis, Minnesota; and San Francisco, California.

Rob Richie, cofounder and senior analyst at FairVote, shares how smoothly RCV has been implemented in New York City:

Rob Richie:

“It’s encouraging to see real-world evidence addressing concerns about usability. Take New York City—a large, diverse city with voters from many countries of origin, including many first-generation Americans. During the pandemic, turnout in the primary election was higher than it had been in years.

Even so, 90% of voters—using ranked-choice voting for the first time—chose to rank more than one candidate. More than 70% told exit pollsters that they found the process easy.

Similarly, Virginia Republicans used ranked-choice voting for the first time in a statewide contest, and the process went very smoothly.”

Listen to the full episode on How Do We Fix It: The Case For Ranked Choice Voting. Rob Richie

Don’t Just Vote—Vote Smarter

Democracy doesn’t end at the ballot box. It begins there.

Ranked-choice voting isn’t just a different way to count votes—it’s a different way to think about power. It asks a better question: not just who can win, but who truly represents the will of the people. And as you’ve seen, that shift has real consequences—from reducing the spoiler effect, to encouraging more constructive campaigns, to giving voters the freedom to express what they actually believe.

But none of that matters if people don’t understand it.

Systems don’t change on their own. They change when informed citizens decide they should.

If you’ve ever felt like your vote didn’t fully capture your voice…
If you’ve ever hesitated to support a candidate you actually believed in…
If you’ve ever walked away from an election feeling like the choices were too limited…

Then this is your invitation to go deeper.

Learn how your local and state elections work.
Explore whether ranked-choice voting is being discussed—or already used—where you live.
Share what you’ve learned with others who feel just as frustrated or disengaged.

Because the health of a democracy isn’t determined only by its leaders—it’s shaped by the understanding and participation of its citizens.

The more informed you are, the more power you have.

And the more people who choose to understand the system, the harder it becomes for that system to ignore them.

Ranked-Choice Voting Resources

To gain a deeper understanding of ranked-choice voting (RCV), explore the resources below from our partner organization, the Ranked Choice Voting Resource Center:

• Why Adopt RCV
• How RCV Works
• Types of RCV
• History of RCV
• Where RCV Is Used
• FAQs

You can also listen to their podcast, RCV Clips, to hear real-world case studies from jurisdictions that have implemented—or are in the process of implementing—ranked-choice voting.