Ranked-choice voting (RCV) sounds reasonable on paper: fewer attack ads, less negativity, more moderation. That's the sales pitch from its proponents. But wherever it's been implemented, the reality has been the opposite—more radical candidates, greater strategic manipulation, and diminished voter accountability.
Advocates promise three main benefits: discouraging extremism, rewarding consensus candidates, and eliminating the "spoiler effect." In theory, voters rank candidates, and if no one secures a majority, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated, with votes redistributed based on next preferences. It seems elegant, even democratic. But elections aren't abstract math problems—they're human systems shaped by real-world incentives.
Every voting system creates incentives, and traditional plurality voting is straightforward: win the most votes. Under RCV, the goal shifts subtly but profoundly. You don't need to be the top choice; you just need to be second or third on enough ballots to survive eliminations. This encourages candidates to rally intense niche factions while coordinating quietly with ideological allies for mutual rankings—coalition gaming, not genuine moderation.
The uncomfortable truth? RCV doesn't reward broad appeal. It empowers disciplined activist bases. Candidates no longer chase the center; they focus on avoiding last place. In practice, this leads to sharper ideological branding, wink-and-nod alliances, and candidates openly instructing supporters on strategic ranking.
Moderates rarely organize with the fervor of activists, who treat politics like a religion. As ballots grow more complex, power tilts toward the most ideologically driven voters—not everyday citizens with common sense.
RCV also normalizes collusion. Candidates agree not to attack each other, cross-endorse rankings, and coordinate to advance through rounds. That's not consensus-building; it's cartel-like behavior, hidden from ordinary voters who can't easily spot, evaluate, or punish it. Transparency gives way to opacity.
Representative government thrives when voters can answer one simple question: Who did I vote for, and did they deliver? RCV clouds that clarity. Winners claim "majority" support without ever leading in first-choice votes. Losers blame the "algorithm," eroding public trust—not because voters are incapable, but because the process is inherently convoluted.
The bottom line: Ranked-choice voting isn't a fix for polarization. It's a procedural workaround for a deeper cultural divide. It rewards organization, ideological discipline, and backroom strategy over straightforward accountability. When complexity replaces clarity, trust collapses.
If we want better candidates, keep elections simple, transparent, and resistant to manipulation. Ranked-choice voting does the opposite—and that's the point its proponents miss.
