You're standing in a voting booth. Usually, it's a "one and done" situation. You pick the person you like—or, more often, the person you hate the least—and you hope for the best. But what if you could rank them? What if you could say, "I love Candidate A, but if they can't win, I’ll take Candidate B as my backup"?
That's the core of ranked choice voting.
It sounds simple. Some people call it "instant runoff." Others call it a radical shift that’s going to save democracy. Honestly? It's probably somewhere in the middle. Across the United States, from the rugged coast of Alaska to the busy streets of New York City, this system is picking up steam. But it's also sparking some pretty heated arguments in state legislatures. It isn't just a technical tweak to a ballot. It changes the way candidates talk to you, how they spend their money, and who ultimately gets to hold the keys to the office.
How Ranked Choice Voting Actually Functions in the Real World
Let's look at the mechanics without the jargon. In a standard election, the person with the most votes wins. Period. Even if 60% of the people voted for someone else, that top person takes the prize. We call that "plurality" voting.
Ranked choice voting flips the script.
Instead of just checking one box, you rank your favorites: 1, 2, 3, and so on. If someone gets more than 50% of the first-choice votes right out of the gate, the game is over. They win. But if nobody hits that majority, the person in last place gets the boot. If that was your first choice, don't worry—your vote isn't wasted. It just moves to your second choice. This keeps happening, round after round, until someone finally crosses the finish line with a majority.
Take the 2022 special election in Alaska. Mary Peltola won, becoming the first Alaska Native in Congress. She didn’t have the most "first-place" votes initially, but she was the consensus pick as the rounds progressed. It was a massive proof-of-concept for the system.
📖 Related: Typhoon Tip and the Largest Hurricane on Record: Why Size Actually Matters
The Pros: Why People Are Obsessed With Ranking
The biggest selling point is the end of the "spoiler effect." We’ve all seen it. A third-party candidate enters the race, siphons off votes from a major candidate, and effectively hands the win to the person they liked the least. It’s frustrating. With this system, you can vote for that "long shot" candidate you actually love without worrying that you’re accidentally helping your least favorite person win.
It also changes the "vibe" of campaigning.
Think about it. If a candidate needs to be your second choice to win, they can't go around insulting your first choice. In cities like Santa Fe or Minneapolis, observers have noted that candidates tend to be a bit more civil. They want to build a broad coalition. They need to appeal to more than just their "base." It forces a level of consensus that's honestly pretty refreshing in this hyper-polarized era.
- No more "Lesser of Two Evils": You get to express your true preference.
- Diverse Winners: Research from organizations like FairVote suggests that women and people of color often perform better in these systems because it rewards grassroots building rather than just name recognition.
- Majority Mandate: The winner actually has the support of most voters, not just a loud 30%.
The Cons: The Headache of Complexity
It isn't all sunshine and rainbows. Critics, including many high-profile election officials, argue that it's just too confusing. If you've spent 40 years voting one way, a ranked ballot can feel like a standardized test you didn't study for.
And then there's the "ballot exhaustion" problem.
This happens when a voter only picks one person and refuses to rank anyone else. If their candidate gets eliminated, their vote essentially disappears from the final tally. In a tight race, this can mean the "majority" winner is actually only a majority of the remaining ballots, not a majority of everyone who showed up to vote that day.
👉 See also: Melissa Calhoun Satellite High Teacher Dismissal: What Really Happened
There's also the delay. We live in an age of "I want it now." With plurality voting, we usually know the winner by 11:00 PM on election night. With ranked choice voting, especially in large jurisdictions like New York City, it can take weeks. You have to wait for every single mail-in ballot to arrive before you can even start the "rounds" of elimination. That gap in time? It’s a breeding ground for conspiracy theories and distrust.
Is It Actually More Expensive?
Short answer: Yes, at least at first.
Moving to this system requires new software. It requires massive voter education campaigns. You have to pay people to explain to Grandma how to fill out the new bubbles. In Arlington, Virginia, the transition involved significant outreach costs to ensure voters weren't disenfranchised by the new layout. Some jurisdictions have to replace their entire fleet of voting machines because the old ones can't handle the math of multiple rounds.
The Political Blowback
It’s becoming a partisan flashpoint. In 2024 and 2025, several states moved to outright ban the practice. Proponents of these bans argue that "one person, one vote" should mean one choice, period. They see the ranking process as a way to "game the system" or produce winners who didn't actually get the most initial support.
But then you look at places like Utah, where several conservative cities have used it for local elections and generally liked the results. It’s not a strictly "Left vs. Right" issue, even if it’s being framed that way in the news lately.
What You Should Watch For
If your city or state is considering the jump, keep an eye on the "threshold." Some places limit you to ranking three candidates. Others let you rank the whole field. The more choices you have, the more complex the data becomes.
✨ Don't miss: Wisconsin Judicial Elections 2025: Why This Race Broke Every Record
Also, look at the "exhaustion" rates in previous cycles. If a city has a high rate of people only picking one candidate, the system isn't really working as intended. It means the education side of the house failed.
Making Sense of the Noise
Ultimately, ranked choice voting is a tool. It’s not a magic wand that fixes a broken political culture, but it does change the incentives.
If you're tired of negative ads and feeling like your vote for a third party is a "waste," you'll probably love it. If you value simplicity, speed, and the traditional "winner takes all" grit of American politics, you’ll probably hate it.
The data is still coming in. As more states like Nevada and Oregon flirt with the idea, we’re going to get a much clearer picture of whether the "pros" of civility and representation outweigh the "cons" of complexity and cost.
Next Steps for the Informed Voter
If you want to see how this impacts your own local representation, you can take these concrete steps:
- Check your local registrar: See if there are any active pilot programs in your county. Many states allow "home rule" cities to experiment with voting methods before they go statewide.
- Verify your equipment: Look up if your local voting precinct uses machines capable of "cast vote records" (CVR). This is the technical requirement for ranking. If they don't, any shift to RCV will come with a taxpayer price tag for new hardware.
- Practice the ballot: Organizations like the League of Women Voters often provide "mock ballots" for ranked elections. Try ranking something trivial—like your favorite pizza toppings—with a group of friends to see how the math of elimination actually shifts the "winner."
Knowing the mechanics is the only way to cut through the political theater surrounding the issue. Whether it's a "pro" or a "con" often depends entirely on what you want out of your democracy: a fast result or a consensus one.