The efficacy of our current electoral system has been shockingly poor at representing us. Two of the last four presidents have won despite not winning the popular vote. In fact, one-third of all presidents elected after the Civil War have not won the popular vote. As for members of Congress, factors such as gerrymandering, strict election laws and many more have put a serious strain on the quality of representation.
It is for this reason we need to fundamentally change the way our elections are held. With extremism and polarization on the rise, it is important that those who make decisions on our behalf are genuinely representing us. Ranked choice voting (RCV) in federal elections could be the solution.
In RCV systems, voters rank candidates preferentially. The process will then carry out an instant runoff election, where, in each round, the candidate with the least amount of first-place votes is eliminated. For those who voted for a losing candidate in that round, their second-place ballot is counted. This process continues until one candidate remains.
This means, hypothetically, a candidate who finished the first round with the second or third highest amount of first-place votes could end up winning depending on their placement on other people’s ballots who didn’t put them first.
The result of this voting system, which is employed in Alaska and Maine for presidential elections, is that populations across demographics are better represented. In addition to this, the vast spectrum of political ideologies can be more accurately represented.
Some critics of ranked choice voting say it rigs the system, keeping the candidate that wins the majority of votes from winning the election. As the Heritage Foundation said, it allows for widely unpopular candidates to win elections despite not being among the top two favorites.
These criticisms are often stuck in an erroneous way of thinking that suggests every choice ends up as a binary. In reality, the idea of a binary choice of candidates in RCV is all but eradicated — there are not two clear-cut candidates in the system. Third parties would have much more influence and favorability, a trend that could help reduce polarization by diversifying the political playing field.
In addition to this, critics say it’s a problem that those who might have the lead in the first round of voting don’t always win. To this, I would say “good.”
In RCV, a candidate wins when they are the last one standing or they win a majority. If a candidate is so polarizing they would win a large number of first-place votes but no second or third-place votes, I would not consider them to be very appealing or accurate representatives. To succeed in RCV, you must be more broadly appealing, not just favorable to the party elite.
This trend could save another irredeemable aspect of American elections: campaign ads. If you have consumed any form of media, be it radio, cable or video streaming, you’ve no doubt encountered these ads. Among the claims of defending rapists, reports of misogyny and questionable campaign finance sources, these ads are all negative.
Under RCV, it is theorized that voters will encounter much more positive campaign advertisements — more town halls, debates and promotions highlighting the good qualities of a candidate rather than the bad ones of their opponent.
The end result is that voters will feel more connected to the victor, even if their preferred candidate didn’t win. Voters will view all candidates in the field in a more positive light, making the animosity that occurs with partisan voting much weaker than in our current system.
Here in North Carolina, a state often contested in presidential elections that has near equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans, there are 10 U.S. congressional Republicans compared to five congressional Democrats. The proportional representation of North Carolinians is discouragingly unequal. RCV could allow for more options for North Carolinians, especially candidates more interested in the people, not politics.
RCV could be the way forward for national elections. It reduces partisan media among the campaigns, lets voters feel more connected to all the candidates in the field and will more accurately represent the United States’ immensely diverse identities and ideologies.
The last few years have been a strong test for the resiliency of democracy. There are many reasons for this — authoritarian election denial, nuclear threats and inflation — but chief among them is the sentiment that those who comprise the government do not reflect us well. The bedrock of democracy is compromised and the best way to save this crumbling house is by fixing its foundation before it collapses.
