Does Ranked-Choice Voting Actually Work? Fact-Checking the Evidence

American democracy is actively searching for a structural fix to its deepening partisan divides, and ranked-choice voting has emerged as the most popular prescription. Over the last decade, the system has expanded from a handful of progressive municipalities to statewide adoption in Maine and Alaska, with dozens of other jurisdictions actively considering the switch. The appeal is highly intuitive: by allowing citizens to rank their preferences rather than picking just one name, the system promises to eliminate the "spoiler effect," reward moderate consensus-builders, and disincentivize toxic, negative campaigning. For voters exhausted by a binary, zero-sum political culture, it sounds like a silver bullet.[6]

But as the sample size of real-world ranked-choice elections grows, political scientists and election administrators are finally able to test these lofty promises against hard empirical data. The resulting evidence pack paints a much more nuanced picture than the advocacy brochures suggest. While the system undeniably solves certain mechanical flaws in traditional plurality voting, its psychological impact on the electorate—and its ability to magically cool the temperature of American politics—remains highly contested.[6]

To understand the data, it is first necessary to understand the mechanism. In the most common form of ranked-choice voting, known as Instant Runoff Voting, voters rank candidates in order of preference: first, second, third, and so on. If a candidate secures an outright majority of first-place votes, they win immediately. If no one crosses the 50 percent threshold, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated. The ballots of voters who chose the eliminated candidate are then redistributed to their second choices. This process repeats until one candidate achieves a majority.[6]

The most undeniable success of this mechanism is the elimination of the "spoiler effect." In traditional elections, a popular third-party candidate can siphon votes away from an ideologically similar major-party candidate, inadvertently handing victory to their mutual political opposite. Ranked-choice voting frees citizens to vote sincerely for their true favorite without fear of wasting their ballot. Data from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab confirms this benefit, showing a roughly six-point increase in vote share for non-major-party candidates in Maine following the system's implementation.[4]

However, the most ambitious claim made by advocates is that ranked-choice voting will fundamentally reduce political polarization. The theory posits that because candidates need second- and third-choice votes to survive later tabulation rounds, they will naturally moderate their platforms to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate. FairVote, a leading advocacy group, points to Alaska's 2022 congressional elections as the ultimate proof of concept. In that race, moderate Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski and moderate Democratic Representative Mary Peltola cross-endorsed each other, successfully building broad coalitions that defeated more extreme challengers from their respective flanks.[1]

Academic researchers, however, warn against extrapolating Alaska's unique political dynamics to the rest of the country. A comprehensive study published by NYU Law examined the mathematical relationship between ranked-choice voting and political polarization, finding a non-monotonic relationship. The researchers discovered that in highly polarized electorates, the system can actually backfire. When the electorate is deeply divided, a moderate consensus candidate often fails to secure enough passionate first-place votes to survive the initial round of elimination, resulting in a final matchup between two extremes.[2]

This finding is corroborated by research in the University of Illinois Law Review, which modeled millions of simulated elections using a nationally representative sample of over 50,000 voters. The analysis demonstrated that Instant Runoff Voting tends to produce winning candidates who are more ideologically divergent from the median voter than other forms of ranked voting. Crucially, this polarizing effect was most pronounced in the most heavily polarized states—the exact environments where advocates claim the reform is needed most.[3]

The second major promise of ranked-choice voting is a return to campaign civility. The logic suggests that candidates will refrain from launching vicious attack ads against rivals if they hope to court those rivals' supporters for secondary rankings. Survey data provides some backing for this theory; FairVote highlights polling showing that voters in cities with ranked-choice systems generally perceive their local campaigns to be less negative and more issue-focused than voters in traditional plurality jurisdictions.[1]

Yet, when researchers look at actual campaign spending rather than voter vibes, the picture shifts. The MIT Election Lab conducted a difference-in-differences analysis of independent expenditures in Maine before and after the state adopted ranked-choice voting. The study found that negative spending actually increased significantly following the system's implementation. While candidates themselves might moderate their rhetoric on the debate stage to appear collaborative, outside political action committees and dark-money groups continue to flood the zone with negative attacks, casting doubt on the idea that a ballot redesign can disarm the modern campaign industry.[4]

Voter turnout and participation represent another contested battleground. Advocates frequently claim that by offering more choices and eliminating the spoiler effect, ranked-choice voting will draw more disillusioned citizens to the polls. The strongest evidence for a participation boost comes from the elimination of traditional runoff elections. In states like Georgia, secondary runoffs held weeks after the general election notoriously suffer from massive drop-offs in voter turnout. By consolidating the process into a single "instant" runoff, ranked-choice voting ensures that the decisive round of counting features the highest possible participation.[5]

Beyond the runoff effect, however, there is little evidence that ranked-choice voting fundamentally increases baseline turnout for general elections. Furthermore, election administrators have raised serious concerns about the complexity of the ballot and its impact on marginalized voters. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes that the transition requires massive investments in voter education, new tabulation software, and staff training. When voters are confused by the new grid-style ballots, the results can be highly disruptive to the democratic process.[5]

This complexity manifests in a phenomenon known as "ballot exhaustion" and improper marking. A study analyzing millions of cast vote records found that in a typical ranked-choice race, nearly 4.8 percent of voters improperly mark their ballot in at least one way—a rejection rate roughly ten times higher than in standard choose-one elections. If a voter only ranks one candidate who is eliminated early, their ballot is "exhausted" and does not factor into the final decisive rounds. Researchers have found evidence that these mismarking and exhaustion rates are disproportionately higher in areas with more racial minorities, lower-income households, and lower levels of educational attainment.[7]

Ultimately, the evidence suggests that ranked-choice voting is a powerful, highly effective mechanical upgrade for specific electoral flaws, rather than a psychological cure for a divided nation. It successfully eliminates the spoiler effect, allows third-party candidates to compete fairly, and removes the need for costly, low-turnout secondary runoffs. But voters expecting the system to magically produce moderate politicians, silence negative attack ads, or heal the country's deep partisan rifts are likely to be disappointed by the mathematical and political realities of the modern electorate.[6]