Countless young people across America are fervent proponents of ranked choice voting (RCV), also known as instant runoff voting, and incorrectly accept that it could cure many of our electoral ills — from reducing the impact of minority rule to broadening the diversity of political candidates.  I was one of those people.

Now I realize just how wrong I was.

In college, I was happy to spew all sorts of RCV propaganda.  I falsely believed that RCV would eliminate minority rule, the spoiler effect, the wasted vote phenomenon, and more!  The benefits appeared clear as day.  However, as I naïvely advocated for RCV across my state, I encountered many people who did not share my views.  After listening to their arguments and doing more research, several alarming examples and facts quickly crushed my utopian view of an RCV society.

Indeed, my opinion of RCV has completely changed.  I no longer support the system for three key reasons.

First of all, although RCV seems deceptively simple at first glance, a deeper look reveals a level of complexity that isn’t just theoretical — it’s real, and it affects voters at the booth.  The ballot process, which requires voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than simply checking a box, is perplexing.

This brings to light an incredibly important question that supporters of RCV often forget: how does this affect our vulnerable voters?  The elderly, people with disabilities, the less educated, and the non-native English-speakers?  For these vulnerable voters, the complexity of RCV increases the likelihood of errors.  In navigating the new system, they are more likely to misunderstand the ranking process, ultimately leading to their ballot being filled out incorrectly.  And what happens to incorrectly filled ballots?  It’s a dreadfully easy answer: they are thrown away.

Because of this, RCV actually decreases the representation and electoral influence of minority voters as such voters disproportionately “exhaust” their ballots — a meek term for getting their ballots thrown out.  For example, a study of the 2011 San Francisco mayoral election found that Asian-American and Latino voters had higher rates of incorrectly filled ballots compared to other demographic groups, meaning those specific minority groups had their voices disregarded.  An effective voting system would ensure that this does not happen because American elections should be accessible for every lawful voter and ensure that every vote counts.

The complexity of RCV also slows down the entire electoral process, increasing both the lines at the polling places and the time it takes to count ballots.

Secondly, RCV disenfranchises voters.  What misguided supporters of RCV often fail to recognize is that votes cast for lower-ranking candidates can become irrelevant if those candidates are dropped from the tally.  In practical terms, this has led to significant numbers of “exhausted ballots.”

For instance, in New York City’s 2021 council race, a staggering 15% of votes were discarded due to ballot exhaustion.  In the same year, a mayoral race in Sandy, Utah was decided by only 21 votes, where more than 18% of the original ballots (over 4,000 total) were discarded.  According to a study of four local elections in California, between 9.6% and 27.1% of ballots were exhausted before the final round.

This effectively undermines the notion of every vote counting equally.  In a traditional plurality voting system, a voter’s ballot is still counted in the overall tally, preserving its impact on the final outcome even if a voter’s chosen candidate loses.  In contrast, RCV swiftly and effectively diminishes voter influence through discarding ballots.

This is hardly the mark of a more democratic system.

Finally, RCV can also lead to surprising election results that don’t necessarily reflect the majority’s will.

In the Alaska special congressional race of 2022, for example, a Democrat won in the final runoff phase of an RCV election despite the fact that GOP candidates garnered 60% of the votes in the initial round.  This outcome has sparked concerns that RCV actually distorts voter intent more than clarifies it.

Maine has also served time as an RCV testing ground, and the muddled results there have been eye-opening.  In the 2018 election for Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, incumbent Bruce Poliquin led in the initial round with a plurality of the votes.  However, as votes from eliminated candidates were redistributed in subsequent rounds, Jared Golden won the election in the final round.  Once again, RCV fails to promise a valid outcome.

Passionate but misguided proponents of RCV, like me in college, would incorrectly argue that the solution to these issues lies in better voter education and outreach.  This is undoubtedly important, but it does not fully address the system’s inherent flaws.

Our constitutional republic should empower, not dilute, the voice of the people.  Because of this, RCV will never be practical or effective.

Emmaline Merrill is a research assistant for Election Integrity Network, a non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to protecting the ballots of all American voters.  Ms. Merrill is a recent graduate of Southern Virginia University with a B.A. in political science.

Image via Raw Pixel.