When the white smoke finally curls out of the Sistine Chapel chimney, the world exhales. It’s a moment of pure theater, sure, but it’s also the end of one of the most secretive high-stakes meetings on the planet. People always ask: how long is this going to take? If you look at the data from the last century, the average conclave length has actually become surprisingly short. We're talking days, not weeks. But it wasn't always this way. In fact, if you go back far enough, these things used to drag on for years until the local villagers literally started ripping the roof off the building to force a decision.
Nowadays, the process is streamlined, almost corporate in its efficiency, despite the ancient rituals. The last few elections—Benedict XVI and Francis—were over before the media could even settle into their hotel rooms in Rome.
The math behind the smoke
If we look at the last 100 years, the average conclave length sits at about three days. That’s roughly seven to nine ballots. It’s quick. Why? Because the College of Cardinals usually enters the sealed doors with a very short list of "papabili"—the guys everyone thinks have a shot. They aren't starting from scratch.
Take 2013, for instance. Pope Francis was elected on the fifth ballot. Total time? Just about 26 hours. Benedict XVI in 2005? Fourth ballot. Roughly 24 hours. Even John Paul II, who was a "compromise" candidate from Poland, only took eight ballots over three days in 1978. When you compare this to the 1268–1271 election in Viterbo—which lasted two years and nine months—you realize just how much the "average" has shifted. Back then, the cardinals couldn't agree on anything, and the locals got so fed up they put them on a diet of bread and water.
Modern logistics changed the game. Cardinals today are constantly in touch. They know each other’s leanings long before the Extra omnes is shouted and the doors are locked.
Why things used to take forever
The 13th century was a mess for the Church. Politics and religion were basically the same thing, so electing a Pope was like trying to pass a global trade treaty today. Every royal family in Europe wanted "their guy" on the throne. This is why the average conclave length in the medieval era is such an outlier.
The turning point was the Decree Ubi periculum in 1274. Pope Gregory X was the guy who finally said, "Enough." He established the actual "conclave" (from the Latin cum clavi, meaning "with a key"). He literally ordered that they be locked in. No private rooms. No fancy meals. If they didn't pick someone in three days, their food was cut down. If they took eight days, they got only bread, wine, and water.
💡 You might also like: Why a Man Hits Girl for Bullying Incidents Go Viral and What They Reveal About Our Breaking Point
It worked. Sorta.
The pressure of physical discomfort is a great motivator. But today, the discomfort is mostly psychological. You’re cut off from the internet. No iPhones. No newspapers. For a modern Cardinal, being deprived of a data connection is probably just as effective as the bread-and-water diet of the 1200s.
The 20th-century shift
Look at the election of Pius XII in 1939. It took one day. One. That was right on the cusp of World War II. The cardinals knew they needed a leader immediately because the world was about to set itself on fire. This highlights a key factor in the average conclave length: external pressure. When the world is in crisis, the smoke turns white faster.
The deadlock of 1914
Compare that to 1914. World War I had just started. You’d think they would hurry, right? Nope. It took ten ballots over four days to elect Benedict XV. The College was split between those who wanted a "political" Pope and those who wanted a "spiritual" one. Even in a crisis, internal politics can gum up the works.
The two-thirds majority rule
The biggest hurdle to a quick finish is the math of the vote. You need a two-thirds majority. This isn't a simple "50% plus one" situation. If you have 115 cardinals, you need 77 of them to agree on a single name.
In the past, if they stayed deadlocked for too long, the rules sometimes allowed for a shift to a simple majority. Pope John Paul II actually changed the rules in 1996 (Universi Dominici Gregis) to allow for a simple majority if they were stuck for about 12 days. But then Pope Benedict XVI changed it back in 2007. He wanted to ensure that whoever was elected had broad, overwhelming support. He feared a "divided" papacy.
📖 Related: Why are US flags at half staff today and who actually makes that call?
Removing the simple majority option actually makes the average conclave length potentially longer on paper, but in practice, it forces the cardinals to compromise faster. They know there’s no "easy way out" by waiting for the rules to change.
What actually happens inside those walls?
It’s not just voting. It’s talking. Lots of it.
They start with the Congregations. These are the meetings before the conclave starts. This is where the real work happens. This is why the average conclave length is shrinking—the "conclave" effectively starts weeks before the doors are locked. They discuss the state of the Church, the problems in different dioceses, and what kind of personality the next Pope needs. By the time they process into the Sistine Chapel, the frontrunners are already clear.
- Morning Votive Mass: They pray for guidance.
- The First Ballot: Usually happens on the afternoon of the first day. This is a "temperature check." It almost never results in an election, but it tells everyone who has momentum.
- Scrutiny: This is the formal voting process. They write a name on a rectangular piece of paper, fold it twice, and carry it to the altar.
- Burning the Ballots: If no one is elected, they add chemicals to turn the smoke black. If someone is chosen, it's white.
Honestly, the "chemicals" part is still a bit hit-or-miss. We've all seen that confusing grey smoke that leaves the TV commentators stuttering for twenty minutes.
Surprising outliers and statistical anomalies
If we look at the last 10 papal elections, the longest was in 1922 (Pius XI), which took five days and 14 ballots. The shortest was 1939 (Pius XII) at roughly 24 hours.
The "sweet spot" for a modern election seems to be the 2nd or 3rd day. If it goes into day four, the media starts talking about a "deadlock." If it goes into day five, the Cardinals themselves start getting anxious. They are, after all, mostly elderly men living in the Casa Santa Marta, away from their usual comforts and staff.
👉 See also: Elecciones en Honduras 2025: ¿Quién va ganando realmente según los últimos datos?
Does the number of Cardinals matter?
You’d think more people would mean more time. Currently, the number of "electors" (those under 80) is capped at 120. In the 1500s, there were often only 40 or 50. Surprisingly, the smaller groups often took longer. Why? Because with fewer people, individual egos and family rivalries carried more weight. In a group of 120, it's harder for one or two "power brokers" to hold the whole process hostage.
Why the "average" is a bit of a lie
When we talk about the average conclave length, we are averaging out vastly different eras of history. If you include the medieval period, the average is months. If you only look at the "modern" era (post-1870, after the fall of the Papal States), the average is about 3.2 days.
This shift is mostly due to the loss of temporal power. Popes aren't kings of central Italy anymore. They don't have armies. They don't collect taxes from provinces. Because the stakes are "merely" spiritual and administrative, the intense geopolitical interference from France, Spain, and Austria has evaporated.
In the 16th century, the King of Spain would literally send a "veto" to the conclave to block any cardinal he didn't like. Imagine trying to get a two-thirds majority when the most powerful kings in the world are blacklisting your top candidates. That’s why those elections took months. Today, the "veto" is gone. The cardinals are free—or at least, as free as you can be in a room full of theologians—to just pick a leader.
Actionable insights for the next Conclave
If you're watching the chimney in the future, keep these historical realities in mind:
- Don't expect a result on Day 1. The first afternoon ballot is almost always a "feeler" vote. It's meant to narrow the field, not pick a winner.
- Watch for the Day 3 "Vibe Shift." If the smoke is still black by the end of the third day, it means the frontrunners have stalled. This is when a "dark horse" candidate—someone no one was talking about—usually starts gaining ground.
- The "Pre-Conclave" is the real conclave. Pay attention to the speeches given during the General Congregations. If a specific Cardinal gives a speech that "wows" the room, the average conclave length is likely to be very short, as the group coalesces around that vision.
- Geography matters less than it used to. In the past, Italian dominance kept things predictable. Now, with a global college, the deliberations might take slightly longer simply because the cardinals don't all know each other as well, but the modern desire for unity usually overrides this.
The average conclave length is a testament to the Church’s evolution from a political heavyweight to a global spiritual institution. It’s faster because the mission is clearer, and the interference is lower. Whether you're a believer or just a fan of history, there's no denying that the efficiency of the modern conclave is a far cry from the roof-ripping days of Viterbo.
To stay informed for the next time the See of Peter becomes vacant, look at the composition of the College of Cardinals about six months out. The percentage of cardinals appointed by the sitting Pope is usually the best indicator of whether the next election will be a "continuity" vote (very fast) or a "course correction" (which might push the length well past the three-day average).