Ranked choice voting (RCV) allows voters to rank candidates and redistributes votes until a consensus is found, promoting cost savings, decency, and voter empowerment.

Cliff Hamill attended the Raleigh City Council Chavis Community Center workshop on May 1, 2024, to discuss term durations, staggering, and increasing council seats. However, attendees were disappointed there was no initiative to advocate for ranked choice voting. "Every single person in the room knew about RCV. During a straw poll on RCV, everyone but one person favored its implementation," said Mr. Hamill.

By Joshua Peters

Ranked choice voting (RCV), also known as preferential voting or instant runoff voting (IRV), is a voting method that allows voters to rank candidates by preference rather than selecting a single candidate. This system aims to produce a more representative and consensus-supported outcome in elections. With RCV, a candidate needs to secure more than half of the votes to win. If a candidate achieves a majority of these votes, they are declared the winner, similar to traditional voting systems. However, if no candidate has a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The votes for the eliminated candidate are then redistributed to the remaining candidates based on the voters' next choices. This process of elimination and redistribution continues until one candidate has a majority and is declared the winner.The history of RCV is a fascinating journey through political innovation and reform, spanning over a century.

Origin and early beginnings

The concept of ranked choice voting dates back to the 19th century. The system was first proposed by British mathematician and political scientist Thomas Hare in the 1850s. Hare's idea was to create a more proportional representation system, which he detailed in his seminal work, "The Machinery of Representation." This system was designed to ensure that the elected body more accurately reflected the preferences of the electorate.

The first implementation of RCV occurred in Tasmania, Australia, in 1896. This move was groundbreaking and marked the beginning of RCV's journey in actual electoral practice. Tasmania adopted the system for its parliamentary elections, and it proved to be successful in achieving more proportional representation. Australia continued to be a pioneer of RCV, with its federal House of Representatives adopting the system in 1918. The success in Australia encouraged other nations and regions to consider and implement ranked choice voting. Ireland, for instance, adopted RCV for its parliamentary elections in 1921, which it still uses today.

In the United States, the history of ranked choice voting is characterized by waves of adoption and repeal. The city of Ashtabula, Ohio, became the first U.S. municipality to adopt RCV in 1915. Over the next few decades, several other cities, including Cincinnati, Cleveland, and New York City, adopted the system for various local elections. However, by the 1940s and 1950s, many of these cities repealed RCV due to a combination of factors, including political opposition and administrative challenges. Despite these setbacks, the concept of RCV continued to be discussed and advocated by reformers and political scientists.

Modern resurgence in the United States

The late 20th and early 21st centuries saw a resurgence of interest in ranked choice voting in the United States. This renewed interest was driven by a desire to improve democratic processes, reduce negative campaigning, and ensure majority support for elected officials.

San Francisco became a notable case in 2002 when it adopted RCV for its local elections. The successful implementation in San Francisco spurred other cities and states to consider the system. In 2016, Maine made history by becoming the first state to adopt RCV for statewide elections. Maine's adoption of RCV was a significant milestone and demonstrated the system's viability at a larger scale.

The adoption of RCV in Alaska came after a successful ballot measure in 2020, where voters approved the change. The measure, known as Ballot Measure 2, was passed with 50.55% of the vote. This historic decision made Alaska the second state in the U.S., after Maine, to implement RCV for statewide and federal elections. The state’s groundbreaking decision to embrace RCV with a top-four nonpartisan primary approach has had a profound impact on shaping the outcomes of elections, notably exemplified in Senator Lisa Murkowski’s successful bid for reelection in 2022.

In the 2022 Senatorial election, Alaska experienced the impact of RCV firsthand. Four candidates competed for the seat, with incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski facing strong competition from Republican and Trump-backed candidate Kelly Tshibaka. In the initial round of voting, Murkowski did not secure an outright majority. However, the subsequent instant runoff phase was crucial. When Democrat Patricia Chesbro was eliminated, her votes were redistributed to the voters' second-choice candidates, tipping the scales in Murkowski’s favor. This process ultimately led to a decisive victory for Murkowski, who won by over 7 percent, defeating both Trump’s endorsed candidate and the Republican Party’s chosen nominee, Tshibaka.

The use of RCV has not only defied conventional political expectations but also demonstrated the potential for these reforms to revolutionize democracy.

North Carolina's history with RCV

North Carolina experimented with ranked-choice voting over 16 years ago during a politically different time when Democrats, led by Gov. Mike Easley, were losing their long-standing control over the General Assembly. One proponent of this system was Paul Luebke, a Durham Democrat and sociology professor. He introduced a bill in 2005 aiming for instant-runoff voting in all statewide primaries, but later settled for its use in judicial vacancies and local elections. Despite initial resistance and legislative hurdles, the bill was enacted in 2006.

The first test was in Cary's municipal elections in 2007, where hand-counting of votes due to incompatible voting machines delayed results. Despite administrative challenges, exit polls indicated voter approval, with a majority finding the process easy and preferable to traditional voting. The next pilot in Hendersonville also showed positive administrative and voter responses, leading to its continued use in subsequent elections.

A significant test occurred in 2010 with a 13-candidate statewide court of appeals race. The lengthy and complex ballots caused logistical issues, including longer lines and lower efficiency. Politically, the results stirred controversy as incumbent Cressie Thigpen, a Democratic favorite, lost after the second and third rounds of counting to Doug McCullough, favored by Republicans. This outcome led some Democrats to question the ranked-choice voting system's fairness.

The movement for RCV in North Carolina has been gaining momentum, driven by a coalition of grassroots organizations, political leaders, and concerned citizens. These advocates have been working tirelessly to educate the public and policymakers about the benefits of RCV.

The push for RCV in North Carolina has also found its way into the legislative arena. Several lawmakers have introduced bills to implement RCV for various elections, including primaries and local elections. While these bills have faced challenges, the growing public support and successful examples from other states have bolstered the case for RCV.

To move the needle in North Carolina, the North Carolina General Assembly would, at a minimum, need to amend election laws to grant municipalities the ability to run pilot programs for RCV and to implement it according to the will of the residents.

What are the benefits of using RCV?

RCV offers several benefits in the context of elections. Here are some key advantages:

• Ensures election winners are supported by a consensus
  • In North Carolina, winning a primary election requires only 30% of the votes. Winning a general election has no required minimum. The most votes wins, even if well below 30%. In a common four-way general election, someone could win with as little as 26% of the vote. It gets worse the more candidates that run. With RCV, a true consensus is required to win. Here’s how: After the 1st place votes are counted, if no candidate has over 50%, the last place candidate is eliminated and their earned votes are automatically transferred to those voters’ 2nd choices. Then all votes are counted again. This process repeats until a candidate earns over 50%.
• Saves time and money
  • Today, if no candidate earns the 30% required to win a primary, a second "run-off" election is held. Voters must take time out of their schedule and travel to the voting booth yet again. It seems every cycle, our state spends millions of dollars on run-offs. For example, in Wake County, the election director reported that the May 2024 runoff cost approximately $1.7 million. Costly run-off elections can be avoided. With RCV, voters’ preferences down the ballot are provided the first time around, and the winner is determined almost instantly. This is why RCV is also known as instant run-off voting.
• Gives voters the power, not partisan candidates
  • Many voters utilize early or mail-in voting; however, these votes get wasted if their preferred candidate later drops out of the race, which is common in primary elections, as we saw with Kelly Daughtry suspending her campaign for the 13th Congressional District, effectively conceding the Republican nomination to Brad Knott. With RCV, if your candidate drops out, your vote automatically transfers to your next choice. Your voice continues to be heard until a majority winner emerges. Additionally, RCV requires candidates to appeal to a consensus to win. As a result, primary election winners are viewed as more favorable nominees for the general election. Likewise, in the general election, RCV ensures that only the candidate with the widest public appeal is eventually elected to office.
• Encourages more positive campaigning
  • Candidates know that to win in most elections today, they only have to ensure their opponents get fewer votes. With RCV, candidates are less incentivized to attack competitors, as mudslinging may drive away potential 2nd, 3rd, or lower-place votes. Campaigns in RCV elections tend to be more civil, less divisive, and encourage more coalition-building.