Skip to Content

Exposing Myths and Acknowledging Reality Shows Why States Should Ban Ranked-Choice Voting

Overview

To listen to politicians, pundits, and policy wonks on the Left, ranked-choice voting is not only a better process to elect political leaders but also the key to saving American democracy.1-3 But talking points like these are not based in reality, instead, they are part of a growing number of myths around ranked-choice voting.

Unfortunately, some states have fallen for the empty promises of ranked-choice voting, with three states using it in statewide elections and another 14 allowing ranked-choice voting to be used in local elections.4 Democrats have been pushing pro-ranked-choice voting bills in statehouses across the country in the last couple of years.5-7 With this partisan push of ranked-choice voting, it is important to separate the myth from the reality of this voting process.

There are several common misconceptions and misrepresentations about ranked-choice voting. Once the myths are exposed, states are left with a clear decision to ban the voting scheme from use in statewide or local elections.

Myth: Ranked-choice voting ensures an election winner receives majority support.

Reality: It reaches a fake majority by throwing valid ballots in the trash.  

A popular argument for ranked-choice voting is that it ensures that an election winner receives the majority support of the electorate.8-9 This may seem to make sense, since if no candidate receives a majority of the votes in the first round of voting under ranked-choice voting, tabulation continues until a candidate does receive a majority of the remaining votes. But the winner never reaches an actual majority of the ballots cast.

In reality, ranked-choice voting only ensures a concocted majority by throwing valid ballots in the trash.10 The only time a winner of a ranked-choice voting election receives a true majority is if it happens after the initial round of tabulation—when the candidate would have received a majority under traditional election rules as well.

Ranked-choice voting does nothing to increase the likelihood of a true majority winner. Instead, it creates a situation where voters’ ballots are tossed in the trash to create a false majority.

The trashing of ballots is not an idle threat—it happens often and with a surprisingly high number of ballots in ranked-choice voting elections. In the 2021 New York City Democratic Mayoral Primary, more than 140,000 ballots were tossed aside to reach a fake majority.11 A mayoral race in Sandy, Utah was decided by just 21 votes after nearly one-fifth of the original ballots were discarded.12-13

A great example of how ranked-choice voting creates fake majority winners is a 2010 Board of Supervisors race in San Francisco, where more ballots were trashed than counted.14 In that election, a total of 20,550 ballots were cast with the winner ultimately receiving 4,321 votes after 20 rounds of counting.15 While this vote total only amounts to roughly 20 percent of the total vote, under ranked-choice voting it magically becomes a majority.16

In no practical sense does ranked-choice voting ensure a winning candidate receives the majority support of the electorate. It just creates a false impression of this by tossing voters’ ballots in the trash until a candidate receives the majority of votes of the remaining ballots.

Myth: Ranked-choice voting allows citizens to vote with their conscience.

Reality: To guarantee their vote counts, voters must vote for every candidate, including those that oppose their values.

Another argument proponents of ranked-choice voting make is that it encourages more sincere voting, or that it allows voters to vote with their conscience.17 The idea behind this is it allows voters to vote for who they want to represent them, instead of against the person they do not want to represent them.

But this is not borne out by academic studies. Instead, ranked-choice voting leads to voter uncertainty and more people who “appear to be neither sincere nor strategic” in their voting.18

Rather than allowing voters to vote with their conscience, ranked-choice voting often forces voters to vote for candidates who oppose their values. Because not voting for every candidate creates the risk that the ballot will be trashed, voters in ranked-choice voting elections must vote for every candidate to ensure their vote is counted.

This creates a scenario where a candidate would have to vote for their opponents to ensure their ballot is not trashed. Even a candidate’s spouse, children, parents, and close friends would have to vote for their loved one’s opponents to ensure their vote counts.

To think of it another way, imagine a person with a shellfish allergy having to vote for a shrimp dinner to ensure that their preference for chicken counts. This is the dilemma people face with ranked-choice voting. Do they vote for the candidate they oppose, and who may harm at least their pocketbook, to ensure their vote for their true preference counts?

Ranked-choice voting is not a system that allows people to vote with their conscience—the reality is the opposite.

A popular myth of ranked-choice voting is that it allows the most popular candidate to win. An easier way to accomplish this is with traditional election rules where the candidate with the most votes wins.

Regardless, the short history of ranked-choice voting has already shown that the winner is often not the most popular candidate.

In the 2018 race for Maine’s Second Congressional District, the Republican candidate led his Democrat opponent by slightly more than 2,000 votes.19 But after more than 23,000 votes were taken from other candidates and more than 8,000 ballots were trashed, the less popular candidate ended up winning.20-21

Likewise, in Alaska’s 2022 Congressional Special Election, Republican candidates received more than 110,000 votes in the first round, whereas the Democrat candidate received fewer than 75,000 votes.22 But more than two weeks after Election Day, the candidate from the less popular party was declared the winner thanks to ranked-choice voting.23

A 2021 Charter Commission race in Portland, Maine used ranked-choice voting, which allowed a candidate that originally received just four percent of the vote to be elected.24 The candidate had left an election party assuming that with her 367 votes trailing an opponent with more than 1,800 votes, she had no chance at winning.25 

When a voting process allows a candidate that just one in 25 voters want to represent them to beat a candidate with roughly five times as many votes, it is not the system to use if the goal is to elect the most popular candidate.

Myth: Ranked-choice voting has strong bipartisan support.

Reality: It is strongly preferred by Democrats.

Supporters also promulgate the myth that ranked-choice voting is non-partisan and will help to elect more moderate candidates.26-28 However, this is not supported by bills introduced across
the country.

With Democratic candidates snatching victory from Republican candidates for Congress in both Maine and Alaska, Democrats have made a national push to implement ranked-choice voting at the state level. 

In 2022, there were 33 bills introduced supporting ranked-choice voting, but the next year the total more than doubled to 74.29 The party affiliation of bill sponsors shows ranked-choice voting is highly partisan, with 57 of these bills only having Democratic sponsors.30 Tellingly, only eight percent of the bills received bipartisan support.31

In response, there were 17 bills opposing ranked-choice voting in 2023, with 16 introduced by Republicans and the only other by a committee.32

This makeup shows that ranked-choice voting is a politically-driven election process. Ranked-choice voting is generally supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. Ranked-choice voting is not non-partisan—it is by its nature not just politicizing elections but politicizing the election process.

Myth: Ranked-choice voting would restore confidence in elections.

Reality: It confuses, and ultimately discourages, voters.

Advocates argue that these myths, taken together, would mean that ranked-choice voting would restore confidence in elections, and even save democracy itself.33-35 In reality, ranked-choice voting leads to a similar or lower turnout than under traditional election rules, and increased errors.36-38

Since ranked-choice voting is a complex voting process and relies on software, errors occur. In a California school board election, a software error was discovered after the election was already certified.39 After correcting for the error, the announced third-place finisher had won the election, and a recount was necessitated.40 The New York City mayoral primary, which saw more than 140,000 ballots trashed, was also thrown into chaos after 135,000 test ballots were mistakenly counted.41-42

Lower turnout is likely the result of voter confusion over the convoluted process of ranked-choice voting. A study on the effects of ranked-choice voting in Maine found drops in voter confidence, satisfaction, and ease of use, along with an increase in the time necessary to vote.43 Polls of voters consistently show a sizeable portion of the electorate, generally one in five or six voters, is confused by ranked-choice voting.44-46 

The voting process should be easy to understand by all potential voters. Double-digit confusion among voters is much too high, especially when it discourages people from practicing their right to vote.47-49

The Bottom Line: Separating myth from reality reveals ranked-choice voting to be a scam election process that states should ban.

Proponents paint a rosy picture of ranked-choice voting—vote with your conscience, winners receive a majority of the vote, the most popular candidate is elected, it has bipartisan support, and helps restore confidence in elections—but these ideas are generously called myths. 

The reality is that ranked-choice voting forces voters to vote against their values, creates a fake majority by throwing ballots in the trash, results in election losers winning, is a partisan plot to politicize the voting process, and confuses voters leading to lower turnout.

This is why 10 states have banned the practice in the last three years, including five states in the 2024 legislative session alone.50-58

State legislators must look past the myths of ranked-choice voting and see the reality of the process. Doing so leaves states with one clear choice to protect elections and their voters: Implement bans to prevent using ranked-choice voting in statewide or local elections.

REFERENCES

1 Elizabeth Warren and Jamie Raskin, “Ranked-choice voting is a better way to vote,” Boston Globe (2020), https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/18/opinion/ranked-choice-voting-is-better-way-vote/. 

2 Fredreka Schouten, “Can ranked-choice voting save American democracy? We ask an expert,” CNN (2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/politics/ranked-choice-voting-ctzn/index.html. 

3 Janet McCabe, “OPINION: Alaska’s ranked choice voting system could save democracy,” Anchorage Daily News (2022), https://www.adn.com/opinions/2022/11/04/opinion-alaskas-ranked-choice-voting-system-could-save-democracy/. 

4 Ballotpeda, “Ranked-choice voting (RCV),” Ballotpedia (2024), https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV). 

5 Samuel Wonacott, “Twice as many ranked-choice voting bills introduced in state legislatures this year than in 2022,” Ballotpedia news (2023), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2023/08/08/twice-as-many-ranked-choice-voting-bills-introduced-in-state-legislatures-this-year-than-in-2022/. 

6 Matt Vasilogambros, “Don’t vote for just one: Ranked choice voting is gaining ground,” Stateline (2022), https://stateline.org/2022/12/02/dont-vote-for-just-one-ranked-choice-voting-is-gaining-ground/. 

7 Adam Edelman, “Following a big year, more states push ranked-choice voting,” NBC News (2023), https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/big-year-states-push-ranked-choice-voting-rcna64945. 

8 Elizabeth Warren and Jamie Raskin, “Ranked-choice voting is a better way to vote,” Boston Globe (2020), https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/18/opinion/ranked-choice-voting-is-better-way-vote/. 

9 Brian Cannon, “How ranked choice voting gives voters more choices,” U.S. Vote Foundation (2024), https://www.usvotefoundation.org/how-ranked-choice-voting-increases-voter-choices.

10 Madeline Malisa and Michael Greibrok, “Ranked-choice voting: A partisan plot to engineer election results,” Foundation for Government Accountability (2023), https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-partisan-plot-to-disrupt-elections/. 

11 Tarren Bragdon and Madeline Malisa, “NYC shows states why ranked-choice voting is a liberal disaster,” New York Post (2023), https://nypost.com/2023/02/16/nyc-shows-why-ranked-choice-voting-is-a-liberal-disaster/. 

12 Matt Canham and Alixel Cabrera, “It’s final: Sandy elects its first female mayor by just 21 votes,” The Salt Lake Tribune (2021), https://www.sltrib.com/news/politics/2021/11/16/sandy-elects-its-first/. 

13 RCVis, “Sandy city mayor,” RCVis (2021), https://rcvis.com/v/sandy-city-mayorxlsx-20. 

14 Madeline Malisa and Michael Greibrok, “Ranked-choice voting: A partisan plot to engineer election results,” Foundation for Government Accountability (2023), https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-partisan-plot-to-disrupt-elections/. 

15 Department of Elections, “November 2, 20210 election results summary,” City of San Francisco (2010), https://sfelections.org/results/20101102/data/d10.html. 

16 Data was calculated by dividing the final vote count for the winning candidate (4,321) by the total ballots cast (20,550), which equals 21 percent. The data was sourced from https://sfelections.org/results/20101102/data/d10.html. 

17 Bryan T. McGraw and Timothy W. Taylor, “How to think about voting,” National Affairs (2024), https://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/how-to-think-about-voting. 

18 Alan Simmons and Nicholas W. Waterbury, “Sincere, strategic, or something else? The impact of ranked-choice voting on voter decision making processes,” Sage Journals (2024), https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1532673X241236196. 

19 Ballotpedia, “Maine’s 2nd Congressional District election, 2018,” Ballotpedia (2024), https://ballotpedia.org/Maine%27s_2nd_Congressional_District_election,_2018. 

20 Ibid.

21 Madeline Malisa, “How winners are losing in American elections,” RealClearPolicy (2022), https://www.realclearpolicy.com/articles/2022/10/10/how_winners_are_losing_in_american_elections_858041.html. 

22 Divison of Elections, “2022 Special general election: Election summary report,” State of Alaska (2022), https://www.elections.alaska.gov/results/22SSPG/ElectionSummaryReportRPTS.pdf. 

23 Becky Bohrer, “Peltola beats Palin, wins Alaska house special election,” AP News (2022), https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-sarah-palin-voting-government-and-politics-f9855f1138a922ab1147da7900819fa8. 

24 Madeline Malisa, “Maine Democrats are rigging elections against Republicans,” Washington Times (2023), https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jul/5/maine-democrats-are-rigging-elections-against-repu/. 

25 Madeline Malisa and Michael Greibrok, “Ranked-choice voting: A partisan plot to engineer election results,” Foundation for Government Accountability (2023), https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-partisan-plot-to-disrupt-elections/. 

26 Bill Glahn, “Why ranked-choice voting cannot produce a more moderate politics,” American Experiment (2023), https://www.americanexperiment.org/why-ranked-choice-voting-cannot-produce-a-more-moderate-politics/. 

27 Headcount, “Ranked choice voting receives bipartisan support in many states,” Headcount (2024), https://www.headcount.org/politics-and-elections/ranked-choice-voting-receives-bi-partisan-support-in-many-states/. 

28 Anne-Marie Slaughter, et al., “Ranked-choice voting,” Politico (2019), https://www.politico.com/interactives/2019/how-to-fix-politics-in-america/polarization/ranked-choice-voting/. 

29 Samuel Wonacott, “Twice as many ranked-choice voting bills introduced in state legislatures this year than in 2022,” Ballotpedia (2023), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2023/08/08/twice-as-many-ranked-choice-voting-bills-introduced-in-state-legislatures-this-year-than-in-2022/. 

30 Ibid.

31 Madeline Malisa and Michael Greibrok, “Ranked-choice voting: A partisan plot to engineer election results,” Foundation for Government Accountability (2023), https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-partisan-plot-to-disrupt-elections/. 

32 Samuel Wonacott, “Twice as many ranked-choice voting bills introduced in state legislatures this year than in 2022,” Ballotpedia (2023), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2023/08/08/twice-as-many-ranked-choice-voting-bills-introduced-in-state-legislatures-this-year-than-in-2022/. 

33 Rachel Hutchinson, “How voting reform can restore confidence in our elections,” FairVote (2022), https://fairvote.org/how_voting_reform_can_restore_confidence_in_our_elections/. 

34 Fredreka Schouten, “Can ranked-choice voting save American democracy? We ask an expert,” CNN (2022), https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/12/politics/ranked-choice-voting-ctzn/index.html.

35 Isaac Chotiner, “Can ranked-choice voting save American democracy?” The New Yorker (2020), https://www.newyorker.com/news/q-and-a/can-ranked-choice-voting-save-american-democracy. 

36 Mark Kenny, “Ranked-choice voting linked to lower voter turnout,” San Francisco State University (2015), https://news.sfsu.edu/archive/news-story/ranked-choice-voting-linked-lower-voter-turnout.html. 

37 David C. Kimball and Joseph Anthony, “Voter participation with ranked choice voting in the United States,” University of Missouri-St. Louis (2016), https://www.umsl.edu/~kimballd/KimballRCV.pdf. 

38 Jason McDaniel, “Ranked choice voting likely means lower turnout, more errors,” Cato Unbound (2016), https://www.cato-unbound.org/2016/12/13/jason-mcdaniel/ranked-choice-voting-likely-means-lower-turnout-more-errors/. 

39 Tarren Bragdon and Madeline Malisa, “Dear states: Don’t give in to liberal election demand of ranked choice voting,” Washington Times (2023), https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/31/dear-states-dont-give-in-to-liberal-election-deman/. 

40 Brian Krans, et al., “Timeline: How the Alameda County Registrar of Voters ran—and fumbled—the November election,” The Oaklandside (2023), https://oaklandside.org/2023/01/06/timeline-how-the-alameda-county-registrar-of-voters-ran-and-fumbled-the-november-election/. 

41 Tom Shea, “NYC mayor race: Test ballots wreak havoc, lead to 135K vote ‘discrepancy’ in ranked-choice results,” NBC New York (2021), https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/politics/more-results-expected-tuesday-in-nyc-mayoral-race/3129753/. 

42 Edmund DeMarche, “NYC mayoral primary in chaos after 135,000 pre-election test ballots counted,” Fox News (2021), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-mayoral-primary-in-chaos-after-adding-135000-pre-election-test-ballots. 

43 Jesse Clark, “The effect of ranked-choice voting in Maine,” MIT Election Data + Science Lab (2021), https://electionlab.mit.edu/articles/effect-ranked-choice-voting-maine. 

44 Lonna Rae Atkeson, et al., “The impact of voter confusion in ranked choice voting,” Social Science Quarterly (2024), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13366.

45 FairVote, “Santa Fe voters support ranked choice voting and have high confidence in city elections,” FairVote (2018), https://fairvote.app.box.com/v/SantaFeExitReport. 

46 Kyle Dunphey, “Did Utahns like ranked choice voting? A new poll has answers,” Deseret News (2021), https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/11/15/22783224/did-utahns-like-ranked-choice-voting-a-new-poll-has-answers-elections-2021-local-politics-election/. 

47 Lonna Rae Atkeson, et al., “The impact of voter confusion in ranked choice voting,” Social Science Quarterly (2024), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ssqu.13366. 

48 FairVote, “Sante Fe voters support ranked choice voting and have high confidence in city elections,” FairVote (2018), https://fairvote.app.box.com/v/SantaFeExitReport. 

49 Kyle Dunphey, “Did Utahns like ranked choice voting? A new poll has answers,” Deseret News (2021), https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/11/15/22783224/did-utahns-like-ranked-choice-voting-a-new-poll-has-answers-elections-2021-local-politics-election/. 

50 Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, and Tennessee have all banned ranked-choice voting, with Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Oklahoma passing reforms in the 2024 legislative session.

51 Ballotpedia, “Ranked-choice voting (RCV),” Ballotpedia (2024), https://ballotpedia.org/Ranked-choice_voting_(RCV). 

52 Madeline Malisa and Michael Greibrok, “Ranked-choice voting: A partisan plot to engineer election results,” Foundation for Government Accountability (2023), https://thefga.org/research/ranked-choice-voting-partisan-plot-to-disrupt-elections/. 

53 Trent England and Jason Snead, “The ranked-choice voting fad is finally ending,” The Hill (2024), https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4613679-the-ranked-choice-voting-fad-is-finally-ending/. 

54 Joseph Greaney, “Kentucky is sixth state to ban ranked-choice voting as lawmakers override Governor Beshear’s veto,” Ballotpedia News (2024), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/04/17/kentucky-is-sixth-state-to-ban-ranked-choice-voting-as-lawmakers-override-governor-beshears-veto/. 

55 Barbara Hoberock, “Gov. Kevin Stitt signs bills on ranked choice voting, poll worker incentives and others,” Oklahoma Voice (2024), https://oklahomavoice.com/2024/04/30/gov-kevin-stitt-signs-bills-on-ranked-choice-voting-poll-worker-incentives-and-others/.  

56 Alexander Willis, “Ivey signs ban on ranked-choice voting,” Alabama Daily News (2024), https://aldailynews.com/ivey-signs-ban-on-ranked-choice-voting/. 

57 Ballotpedia staff, “With Mississippi’s new law, more states have banned ranked-choice voting in 2024 than any other year,” Ballotpedia News (2024), https://news.ballotpedia.org/2024/05/22/with-mississippis-new-law-more-states-have-banned-ranked-choice-voting-in-2024-than-any-other-year/. 

58 Shawn Fleetwood, “Gov. Landry signs bill protecting Louisiana elections from ranked-choice voting,” The Federalist (2024), https://thefederalist.com/2024/05/31/gov-landry-signs-bill-protecting-louisiana-elections-from-ranked-choice-voting/. 

At FGA, we don’t just talk about changing policy—we make it happen.

By partnering with FGA through a gift, you can create more policy change that returns America to a country where entrepreneurship thrives, personal responsibility is rewarded, and paychecks replace welfare checks.