Third parties need more than one electoral cycle to gain momentum. With the current system, a third party loses all that momentum on election day, when voters (correctly) feel that voting for a third party is wasting their vote.
We end up choosing the lesser evil.
Ranked-choice would broaden our choices and allow us to vote FOR something we believe in.
I'm not entirely sure it did in the 2021 NYC Mayoral election, if you look at the article. People has to be strategic also. Not only think about who they want. But also either not rank, or rank the least favorite candidate last.
and it seems on a quick reading that Adams got a sizable proportion of the votes that were allocated in the last three rounds. Which suggests many people did rank him ahead of the other surviving choices. But it's not easy to get a clear picture...
I realize that. But Mamdani and Landers asked their constituents to cross-endorse eachothers. So one need to be strategic also if there is a candidate that voters absolutely don't want to win.
Under the current single-choice-only/first-past-the-post system, a vote for your favorite candidate may help your LEAST preferred candidate win.
It's important to look at the process rather than specific race outcomes. Ranked Choice Voting is a level playing field that encourages collaboration and outreach to voters, as opposed to candidates turning away voters with negative campaigning and blaming candidates similar to you for splitting the vote.
When opposing candidates cross endorse the ranked voting system can work. Sadly, in many elections with multiple options, voters do not know enough or learn enough about all of the options and default to known names. In NYC, ranked voting gave the city Eric Adams while two fine progressive candidates split the progressive vote and, in a system where there is a run off between the two top candidates if no candidate gets 50% of the vote, a different result would most likely have obtained. A candidate should not be able to win in a crowded field with less than 50% of the vote but there are other options than ranked voting.
Ranked voting would make us more like the Australian Parliament which they call Ranked Choice Voting:
Australians have been using “Ranked Choice Voting” or as they call it “preferential voting” since 1919 to elect representatives at the State and Federal Level. For the purposes of this article, the focus will be on elections at the federal level in the Australian Parliament.
The Australian Parliament’s Lower House, the House of Representatives, uses Single Winner Ranked Choice voting (Alternative Vote). Candidates from different parties compete for an individual house seat and the first candidate who reaches over 50% wins. If no candidate reaches over 50%, the lowest vote getting candidate is eliminated and their alternative votes are distributed across the remaining candidates, until a candidate finally reaches the 50% threshold.
In the Upper House, called the Senate, Australia uses proportional ranked choice voting (STV). Candidates run in multimember districts and voters rank either parties or candidates. Based on these results, a certain number of candidates are allocated to this district based on the ranked votes.
As a means of differentiating the two voting experiences, Australians have separate ballots for each house election. House of Representatives elections are conducted on a green ballot which shows a list of candidates to rank. Voters must rank all candidates on a House ballot or the ballot is invalid.
Senate Elections are conducted on a white ballot which allows candidates to either rank the parties (above the line-see green box) or candidates (below the line-see red box). Unlike the House elections, election rules will designate a minimum number of rankings for parties (Ex. You must rank at least 6 parties) or candidates (you must rank 12 candidates). https://rankthevote.us/ranked-choice-voting-in-australia-explained/
------------
The other thing they do is REQUIRE voting.
It is compulsory for all Australian citizens over the age of 18 to enroll and vote in the federal election today.
Failure to do so may lead to a $20 administrative penalty.
If you don't vote, you will receive a letter from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) with instructions on how to pay the $20 penalty.
If you believe you had a "valid and sufficient reason" for not voting, you can advise the AEC and its Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) for your electorate will review your reason along with any specific circumstances.
The DRO will then determine if your reason for not voting is valid and sufficient.
If it is not, you will be notified by the AEC and required to pay the fine.
The disadvantage of ranked voting as used in the U.S. is that the ability to choose whether or not to rank certain candidates creates more opportunities for ballot exhaustion (unranked candidates) which allows for variability and unpredictability. Australia has multiple parties so several names are on the ballot and a certain number of candidates must be ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Even multiple candidates from the same party are still ranked in order of preference.
The huge advantage of the Australian system is that it tends to move political power to the center rather than the edges where it sits now in the U.S.
After the first round the person with the fewest votes gets dropped and their votes are distributed for the second round. Jules was dropped and his votes distributed. This info never made it in to your explainer. The more candidates, the more rounds, until someone get over 50% of the votes.
I've been advocating for this since I first heard about it around 15 years ago or so. It is a better measure of approval of the candidates, & is more likely to pick someone in the middle who is more acceptable to both sides, but it still can work for those super inspiring candidates. It also can ease the grip the 2 major parties have on our electoral system, & gives 3rd party candidates a reasonable chance of winning.
RCV really takes off when we have public support of elections and ease of party creation. One can easily see us with 4 parties - with the current Dems as center-left and Rs as far right - but both could get flanked to the left. Actually Rs might split into 3.
How about we do what the Aussies do: make voting pay-to-vote?
When you vote in a general election, you get a voucher for $100 that can be applied to your taxes or as a refund if you don't make enough to file taxes? If you don't vote, you don't get the voucher.
We voted for ranked choice voting in Evanston, IL, 3 years ago but a Cook County circuit court judge nullified our referendum last year.... It needs to be more than a municipal or even county effort!
Ranked choice voting is very democratic, .... and because of that, it will be looooong before politicians will vote it into practice.
So frustrated that Oregon voted against RCV.
Very happy to see you pushing this idea.
Third parties need more than one electoral cycle to gain momentum. With the current system, a third party loses all that momentum on election day, when voters (correctly) feel that voting for a third party is wasting their vote.
We end up choosing the lesser evil.
Ranked-choice would broaden our choices and allow us to vote FOR something we believe in.
Rank choice voting could help brake up the duopoly and get 3rd parties into the mix of real politiks.
From Alaska and a strong supporter of Ranked Choice voting.
From what I understand, Eric Adams won the mayoral race in NYC thanks to ranked choice voting. So I'm abit skeptical.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-eric-adams-won-the-new-york-city-mayoral-primary/
Skeptical of what? Are you saying that ranked-choice did not reflect the will of the voters?
I'm not entirely sure it did in the 2021 NYC Mayoral election, if you look at the article. People has to be strategic also. Not only think about who they want. But also either not rank, or rank the least favorite candidate last.
Yes, "don't rank anyone you don't like" is what I've been recommending locally.
That said, I looked at how the votes were distributed in successive rounds
https://ballotpedia.org/Mayoral_election_in_New_York,_New_York_(June_22,_2021,_Democratic_primary)
and it seems on a quick reading that Adams got a sizable proportion of the votes that were allocated in the last three rounds. Which suggests many people did rank him ahead of the other surviving choices. But it's not easy to get a clear picture...
So did Zohran
I realize that. But Mamdani and Landers asked their constituents to cross-endorse eachothers. So one need to be strategic also if there is a candidate that voters absolutely don't want to win.
Under the current single-choice-only/first-past-the-post system, a vote for your favorite candidate may help your LEAST preferred candidate win.
It's important to look at the process rather than specific race outcomes. Ranked Choice Voting is a level playing field that encourages collaboration and outreach to voters, as opposed to candidates turning away voters with negative campaigning and blaming candidates similar to you for splitting the vote.
I see
When opposing candidates cross endorse the ranked voting system can work. Sadly, in many elections with multiple options, voters do not know enough or learn enough about all of the options and default to known names. In NYC, ranked voting gave the city Eric Adams while two fine progressive candidates split the progressive vote and, in a system where there is a run off between the two top candidates if no candidate gets 50% of the vote, a different result would most likely have obtained. A candidate should not be able to win in a crowded field with less than 50% of the vote but there are other options than ranked voting.
Ranked voting would make us more like the Australian Parliament which they call Ranked Choice Voting:
Australians have been using “Ranked Choice Voting” or as they call it “preferential voting” since 1919 to elect representatives at the State and Federal Level. For the purposes of this article, the focus will be on elections at the federal level in the Australian Parliament.
The Australian Parliament’s Lower House, the House of Representatives, uses Single Winner Ranked Choice voting (Alternative Vote). Candidates from different parties compete for an individual house seat and the first candidate who reaches over 50% wins. If no candidate reaches over 50%, the lowest vote getting candidate is eliminated and their alternative votes are distributed across the remaining candidates, until a candidate finally reaches the 50% threshold.
In the Upper House, called the Senate, Australia uses proportional ranked choice voting (STV). Candidates run in multimember districts and voters rank either parties or candidates. Based on these results, a certain number of candidates are allocated to this district based on the ranked votes.
As a means of differentiating the two voting experiences, Australians have separate ballots for each house election. House of Representatives elections are conducted on a green ballot which shows a list of candidates to rank. Voters must rank all candidates on a House ballot or the ballot is invalid.
Senate Elections are conducted on a white ballot which allows candidates to either rank the parties (above the line-see green box) or candidates (below the line-see red box). Unlike the House elections, election rules will designate a minimum number of rankings for parties (Ex. You must rank at least 6 parties) or candidates (you must rank 12 candidates). https://rankthevote.us/ranked-choice-voting-in-australia-explained/
------------
The other thing they do is REQUIRE voting.
It is compulsory for all Australian citizens over the age of 18 to enroll and vote in the federal election today.
Failure to do so may lead to a $20 administrative penalty.
If you don't vote, you will receive a letter from the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) with instructions on how to pay the $20 penalty.
If you believe you had a "valid and sufficient reason" for not voting, you can advise the AEC and its Divisional Returning Officer (DRO) for your electorate will review your reason along with any specific circumstances.
The DRO will then determine if your reason for not voting is valid and sufficient.
If it is not, you will be notified by the AEC and required to pay the fine.
Some valid and sufficient reasons for not voting today could include being too ill to make it to the polls, a natural disaster, or some other accident. https://www.9news.com.au/national/federal-election-2025-what-happens-if-i-dont-vote-fines-explained/4072839f-8f0b-453c-b81f-bc104d1f3ae9
The disadvantage of ranked voting as used in the U.S. is that the ability to choose whether or not to rank certain candidates creates more opportunities for ballot exhaustion (unranked candidates) which allows for variability and unpredictability. Australia has multiple parties so several names are on the ballot and a certain number of candidates must be ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. Even multiple candidates from the same party are still ranked in order of preference.
The huge advantage of the Australian system is that it tends to move political power to the center rather than the edges where it sits now in the U.S.
After the first round the person with the fewest votes gets dropped and their votes are distributed for the second round. Jules was dropped and his votes distributed. This info never made it in to your explainer. The more candidates, the more rounds, until someone get over 50% of the votes.
I've been advocating for this since I first heard about it around 15 years ago or so. It is a better measure of approval of the candidates, & is more likely to pick someone in the middle who is more acceptable to both sides, but it still can work for those super inspiring candidates. It also can ease the grip the 2 major parties have on our electoral system, & gives 3rd party candidates a reasonable chance of winning.
RCV really takes off when we have public support of elections and ease of party creation. One can easily see us with 4 parties - with the current Dems as center-left and Rs as far right - but both could get flanked to the left. Actually Rs might split into 3.
How about we do what the Aussies do: make voting pay-to-vote?
When you vote in a general election, you get a voucher for $100 that can be applied to your taxes or as a refund if you don't make enough to file taxes? If you don't vote, you don't get the voucher.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cx20gy2lz4go
"Since 1924, voting has been compulsory for all Australian citizens over the age of 18, with failure to vote carrying a fine of A$20 ($13; £10)."
Looks like Australia has discussed tax break proposals, but have not implemented them.
Wait, what? Australian here, and I’ve never heard of this.
Also a great idea!
Common sense solutions we should champion.
Our elections are broken. Ranked choice voting should be at the top of potential reforms. I'm sick of voting for the lesser evil.
Completely agree.
We voted for ranked choice voting in Evanston, IL, 3 years ago but a Cook County circuit court judge nullified our referendum last year.... It needs to be more than a municipal or even county effort!
There's an ranked choice group here in IL trying to pass this here, too. We absolutely need to make this happen.
This sounds way more unriggable. What will the oligarchs do if their money can’t buy them the win.
They can go cry in their super yachts while we enjoy our basic civil rights.