Ranked Choice Voting in the News
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) is getting a lot of attention lately. One reason is that it helps avoid expensive runoff elections that often have low turnout. Instead of holding another election weeks later, RCV lets voters rank candidates on a single ballot. Many voters feel this is fairer because the winner usually has support from more than just a small group of voters. Cities, counties, and even some states are now using RCV or considering it.
Last month New York City used RCV in its Democratic mayoral primary. Voters were able to rank up to five candidates. If no one received more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes was eliminated, and those votes were given to the next choice on each ballot. That process continued until one candidate, Zohran Mamdani, received a majority vote on July 1 and was declared the winner. My understanding is that New York City also uses RCV in elections for City Council, borough president, comptroller, and public advocate.
What Robert’s Rules of Order Says
New York isn’t the only place using RCV. Other cities and states like Maine and Alaska use it. Parliamentarians have known about these systems for a long time. Robert’s Rules of Order calls this type of system “preferential voting.” I touch on preferential voting in both of my recent books, Robert’s Rules of Order Fast Track and Notes and Comments on Robert’s Rules, Fifth Edition.
There isn’t ONE method of ranked choice voting, but I still get asked what method is recommend by Robert’s Rules of Order. As with many things, Robert’s doesn’t care. Instead, Robert’s provides options so that an organization can choose the method that fits its specific needs. Interestingly, the term “ranked choice” doesn’t appear at all in the 714 pages of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition). As noted above, “preferential voting” is used as an umbrella term that covers multiple systems where voters rank candidates, and second or lower choices may be used if no one gets a majority at first.
What Robert’s Rules does strongly support is “majority” voting, meaning more than half of the votes cast. “A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted.” RONR (12th ed.) 44:11. “A rule that a plurality shall elect is unlikely to be in the best interests of the average organization.” RONR (12th ed.) 44:11. Some voting processes for public office or within organizations, including certain ranked choice processes, allow a candidate to win with just the most votes—even if they don’t have a majority. That can lead to surprising results that might be different than would occur in a one-on-one election.
Preferential voting can reduce the need for multiple rounds of voting. It saves time and money, may give a minority group a better chance of representation, and works well when there are many candidates. But it can also be confusing, and sometimes the results aren’t what people expect. The point I wish to emphasize is that “preferential voting” or “ranked choice voting” doesn’t mean ONE method. There are many. So when talk turns to alternative voting methods, it’s important to consider many aspects of the vote–how do people vote, how are choices ranked, how are less popular options eliminated from future votes and are those votes allocated elsewhere, etc. Since no one method will work best for all situations, it’s important to be aware of some different systems and their strengths and weaknesses.
Different Types of Preferential Voting
FYI, voting reform advocates, mathematicians, and some parliamentarians who write about ranked choice voting know far more about various systems and their nuances than I do. However, I’ve read some excellent articles on ranked choice voting, including an April 1980 article in the Parliamentary Journal (and reprinted in the July1995 PJ) from the American Insititute of Parliamentarians from Rachel T. Hare-Mustin. In Preferential Voting Systems, she notes the following systems, while noting there are more (shown here in alphabetical order):
American System. The lowest candidate is dropped. Then, second-choice votes are added to the totals. This repeats with third-choice votes until someone wins.
Bucklin or Grand Junction. Voters rank a first and second choice, plus an optional “other” group. If no one gets a majority from first choices, second choices are added, and then “other” votes if needed. But giving equal weight to lower choices can hurt a voter’s top pick.
Cumulative Voting. Voters get a fixed number of votes and can divide them however they want—even giving all to one candidate. This shows strong support but may not reflect broad preferences.
Limited Voting. Voters choose fewer candidates than there are open seats. This can help minority groups win a seat, but the results aren’t always proportional.
Preferential Vote Majority (Alternative Vote). Votes are transferred until someone wins a majority. After one person is elected, ballots are reused for the next open seat, skipping choices already counted.
Single Transferable Vote (STV). Voters rank candidates. The one with the fewest votes is eliminated, and those ballots go to the next choice. This continues until enough winners are selected.
STV with Quota (Hare System). A vote “quota” is set based on the number of voters and seats. Candidates who reach the quota are elected, and any extra votes are passed on to the next preferences. This system aims for fairness but can feel random.
Weighted Voting. Voters rank candidates, and each rank gets a point value. The candidates with the highest total points win. Some people try to game the system by only ranking their top pick (“bullet voting”). Some groups require voters to rank everyone, which can be hard if voters don’t know all the candidates.
West Australian or Hare-Ware. If no one gets a majority, only the top two remain. All other candidates are dropped, and their votes go to the remaining two based on next preferences.
Each method has its pros and cons. The best choice for a particular situation likely depends on what the group cares most about—fairness, simplicity, or wide representation. Looking at real election results can help show which system works best in practice.