Ranked-choice voting, also known as instant-runoff voting in its single-winner form, is an electoral system that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference rather than selecting just one. It has gained attention in the United States as a potential solution to problems in traditional plurality voting, often called first-past-the-post. Under first-past-the-post, the candidate with the most votes wins, even without a majority. This can lead to vote splitting among similar candidates and strategic voting where people support a lesser-preferred option to block an disliked one. Ranked-choice voting aims to address these issues by simulating a series of runoffs on a single ballot.
How Ranked-Choice Voting Works
The process begins with voters ranking candidates from most to least preferred. They can rank as many or as few as allowed by the jurisdiction, though full rankings are encouraged to avoid exhausted ballots. If any candidate receives more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes, that person wins immediately, just as in a traditional election.
If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. The ballots that ranked the eliminated candidate first are then redistributed to those voters’ second-choice candidates. A new tally is conducted. This elimination and redistribution continues round by round until one candidate surpasses 50 percent of the remaining active ballots. The system is called instant-runoff because it achieves the effect of multiple runoff elections without holding separate contests that could cost more time and money.
Consider a simple example with four candidates: Alice, Bob, Carla, and David. Suppose 100 voters participate. In the first round, Alice gets 40 first-choice votes, Bob gets 30, Carla gets 20, and David gets 10. No one has a majority. David is eliminated. Of the 10 ballots that ranked David first, suppose 6 had Bob as second choice and 4 had Carla. Those votes transfer accordingly. Now the tallies become Alice 40, Bob 36, Carla 24. Still no majority, so Carla is eliminated. Her votes redistribute based on the next preferences on those ballots. Suppose enough go to Bob to push him over 50. Bob wins, even though Alice led in first choices. This illustrates how second and subsequent preferences can determine the outcome when no initial majority exists.
Voters do not need to rank every candidate. If a ballot runs out of rankings before the final round, it becomes exhausted and is set aside, no longer counting toward any remaining candidate. Exhausted ballots can affect the final majority threshold, as it is calculated from active ballots only.
A Brief History of Ranked-Choice Voting
The concept dates back to the 1850s in Europe, where mathematicians and reformers like Carl Andrae in Denmark and Thomas Hare in Britain developed versions for proportional representation in multi-winner elections. The single-winner instant-runoff variant emerged later in the 19th century. Australia adopted it for legislative elections in 1918, and it remains in use there today, along with applications in Ireland, Malta, and other places.
In the United States, the first adoption came in Ashtabula, Ohio, in 1915 for city council elections. During the Progressive Era, several dozen cities experimented with ranked-choice or related systems to combat machine politics and promote fairer representation. New York City used a multi-winner form from 1937 to 1945. However, many early adoptions were repealed by the 1960s, often due to complexity concerns or political opposition, leaving Cambridge, Massachusetts, as a long-term holdout since 1941.
Modern interest revived in the early 2000s. San Francisco implemented ranked-choice voting for municipal elections in 2002. Minneapolis and other cities followed. Maine became the first state to use it for congressional and statewide primaries and general elections starting in 2018 after voter approval in 2016. Alaska adopted a combined top-four primary with ranked-choice general elections via a 2020 ballot measure. New York City began using it for most local primaries and special elections in 2021. As of late 2025, roughly 50 jurisdictions across the country had adopted some form, covering millions of voters, with additional cities implementing it in 2025.
Advantages of Ranked-Choice Voting
Advocates highlight several benefits. First, it ensures the winner has majority support among active ballots, reducing the chance that a candidate wins with only a plurality in a crowded field. This can make outcomes feel more legitimate.
Second, it minimizes the spoiler effect. Voters can support a favorite third-party or independent candidate as their first choice without fearing it helps their least-preferred option. Their vote transfers if the first choice is eliminated. This encourages more candidates to run and gives voters greater freedom to express true preferences rather than voting strategically for the lesser of two evils.
Third, campaigns may become more positive. Candidates have incentives to seek second- and third-choice rankings from supporters of rivals, discouraging harsh attacks that could alienate potential backup voters. Evidence from some jurisdictions shows increased civility and cross-endorsements. In New York City’s 2025 mayoral race, for instance, rivals campaigned together in ways less common under traditional systems.
Fourth, it can reduce the need for separate runoff elections, saving costs and increasing efficiency. Turnout in some RCV jurisdictions has been higher, particularly among younger voters, and the system may boost representation of women and minorities by allowing broader candidate fields. Studies suggest modest gains in voter satisfaction and mobilization in certain contexts.
Finally, it works for both single-winner and multi-winner races, with the latter form promoting proportional outcomes in city councils or similar bodies.
Criticisms and Potential Drawbacks
Critics raise valid concerns. Many voters find the system more complicated than marking a single choice, which could confuse people, especially those with lower literacy or limited English proficiency. Educational efforts are essential, but implementation costs rise for new voting machines, software, ballot printing, and voter outreach. Some jurisdictions have reported higher per-election expenses during transition periods.
Results can take longer to finalize because of multiple rounds of tabulation, though modern software speeds this up compared to traditional runoffs. Delays have occurred in close races. Exhausted ballots mean some votes do not influence the final outcome if voters rank too few candidates, potentially disenfranchising those who do not fully participate in ranking.
Mathematical issues exist with ranked-choice voting. It fails certain fairness criteria established in social choice theory. For example, it can violate monotonicity, where increasing support for a candidate (by ranking them higher on more ballots) paradoxically causes that candidate to lose. It also may fail the independence of irrelevant alternatives, meaning the addition or removal of a non-winning candidate can change the winner between the remaining contenders. These paradoxes are rare in practice but theoretically possible and have been observed in simulations.
Some analyses question whether it truly reduces polarization or elects more moderate candidates. In polarized environments, it can sometimes eliminate centrists early, leading to contests between extremes. Research on Alaska’s system has shown mixed or context-dependent effects on ideological moderation. Claims that it consistently promotes consensus should be viewed cautiously, as outcomes depend on voter behavior and candidate distribution.
Opponents also note that the candidate with the most first-choice votes does not always win, which can feel counterintuitive or unfair to some. In a few historical cases, this has sparked controversy. Voter trust can suffer if the process seems opaque. Turnout effects are not uniformly positive across all studies, and complexity might suppress participation among certain groups.
Partisan arguments surface too. Some claim it benefits one party over another, though evidence suggests outcomes vary by local dynamics rather than a consistent tilt. Several jurisdictions have repealed or attempted to repeal ranked-choice voting after adoption, citing these issues. In 2024, Alaska voters narrowly rejected a repeal measure, keeping the system in place for now.
Real-World Examples and Outcomes
Maine’s 2018 congressional race in the Second District provided an early test. Republican incumbent Bruce Poliquin led in first choices but lost after independents’ votes transferred mostly to Democrat Jared Golden, who won with a majority in the final round. This demonstrated the system’s ability to resolve plurality situations.
Alaska’s 2022 special election for the U.S. House saw Democrat Mary Peltola win under the top-four primary plus ranked-choice general, defeating Republican Sarah Palin after vote transfers. Moderate Republican Lisa Murkowski has also benefited in Senate races. These results highlighted how the system can favor candidates with broader appeal beyond first choices.
New York City’s implementation has produced record turnout in some contests and elected diverse councils. In 2025, the mayoral primary saw high rates of multiple rankings, with voters reporting the ballot was straightforward. However, not every race triggers multiple rounds; many conclude after the first count if a majority is reached.
Other cities like San Francisco, Minneapolis, and newer adopters in 2025 such as Fort Collins and Redondo Beach have used it for local offices. Surveys in various places indicate most voters who experience it approve and prefer to continue, though support is not universal.
Comparison to Other Systems
Compared to first-past-the-post, ranked-choice voting offers more expressive ballots and reduces wasted votes in multi-candidate races. It avoids the classic spoiler dynamic more effectively in many scenarios, though not perfectly. First-past-the-post is simpler and faster but often produces winners without majority support and discourages third-party runs.
Traditional two-round runoffs achieve similar majority goals but require voters to return to the polls, potentially lowering turnout in the second round and increasing costs. Ranked-choice voting condenses this into one election day.
Other alternatives like approval voting (where voters mark all acceptable candidates) or score voting exist but have seen less adoption. Each system has trade-offs in simplicity, strategy resistance, and fairness criteria satisfaction. No voting method is perfect, as Arrow’s impossibility theorem demonstrates that no system can satisfy all reasonable fairness conditions simultaneously when there are three or more candidates.
The Current Landscape and Future Outlook
As of 2026, ranked-choice voting continues to expand at the local level, with recent adoptions in places like Skokie, Illinois, and Greenbelt, Maryland, for proportional variants. Washington, D.C., is preparing implementation after voter approval. Maine and Alaska remain the primary statewide examples, with ongoing debates and potential ballot measures. Hawaii has used it in special congressional elections.
Proponents argue it modernizes democracy, giving voters more voice and encouraging better campaigns. Critics counter that the added complexity and occasional counterintuitive results outweigh the benefits, and that simpler reforms or better education under existing systems might suffice.
Ultimately, whether ranked-choice voting represents an improvement depends on priorities. If the goal is majority support and reduced strategic pressure, it delivers in many cases. If simplicity, transparency, and predictability are paramount, traditional methods may retain appeal. As more jurisdictions gain experience, data on long-term effects on turnout, campaign tone, representation, and voter trust will continue to shape the debate. Voters and policymakers should weigh the evidence from actual implementations rather than theoretical ideals alone. The deal with ranked-choice voting is that it solves some longstanding frustrations with plurality elections while introducing new challenges of its own, making it a tool worth careful consideration rather than a universal fix.