Does Ranked-Choice Voting Fix Toxic Politics? The Evidence, Explained

As American political polarization reaches historic highs, a mechanical tweak to the ballot box is rapidly gaining traction as a potential cure. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has expanded from a handful of progressive municipalities to statewide implementation in Maine and Alaska, with dozens of other cities adopting the system by 2026.[7]

The core promise of RCV is tantalizingly simple: by allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, the system claims to eliminate the "spoiler effect," guarantee majority support for the winner, and force candidates to appeal to a broader swath of the electorate.[1]

In a traditional plurality election, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they secure only 30 percent of the total. Under RCV, if no candidate breaks the 50 percent threshold, the lowest vote-getter is eliminated. Ballots cast for that candidate are then instantly transferred to those voters' second choices, a process that repeats until a majority winner emerges.[2]

But as the reform scales nationally, political scientists and data analysts are rigorously testing the utopian claims made by its advocates. The resulting evidence paints a nuanced picture: RCV is a functional, tested electoral system, but it is not a magic wand for the deep-seated ailments of American democracy.[6][7]

The most prominent claim tested by researchers is that RCV reduces negative campaigning and fosters political civility. The theoretical incentive is clear: candidates cannot afford to alienate their opponents' supporters, because they desperately need to be listed as those voters' second or third choice.[3]

Survey data provides strong backing for this theory. Research highlighted by the American Bar Association and FairVote indicates that voters in RCV cities consistently report perceiving less candidate criticism and fewer negative attacks compared to voters in cities using traditional plurality rules. In New York City's mayoral primaries, candidates have even cross-endorsed each other, resulting in 74 percent of voters successfully ranking the ultimate winner in their top three choices.[1][3]

However, academic reviews caution against declaring the death of the attack ad. A comprehensive review by the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance at the University of Minnesota found that while candidate-to-candidate civility may improve, overall campaign negativity often remains unchanged. In Maine's highly competitive 2018 congressional races, negative advertising actually increased, largely driven by outside political action committees that operate independently of the candidates' strategic need for second-choice votes.[6]

A second major battleground in the RCV data is voter turnout and engagement. Advocates argue that by eliminating the fear of "wasting" a vote on a third-party candidate, RCV brings more disillusioned citizens to the polls.[1]

The evidence here is mixed but holds bright spots for specific demographics. Studies have shown a statistically significant nine-percentage-point increase in youth voter turnout in cities utilizing RCV, a bump researchers attribute to candidates conducting wider, more inclusive canvassing operations. Furthermore, RCV entirely eliminates the severe drop-off in voter participation that plagues traditional, delayed runoff elections by consolidating the process into a single day.[1][2]

Yet, skeptics point to a phenomenon known as "ballot exhaustion" as a hidden drag on voter enfranchisement. If a voter chooses to rank only one candidate, and that candidate is eliminated in the early rounds of tabulation, their ballot becomes "exhausted" and does not factor into the final head-to-head tally.[4][6]

In some highly contested races, the exhausted ballot rate has approached 10 percent. When Senator Tom Cotton criticized Alaska's system by claiming 60 percent of voters were "disenfranchised," fact-checkers at PolitiFact rated the claim "Mostly False," noting that voters voluntarily chose not to rank a second option. Still, the reality remains that the final winner in an RCV election often secures a majority of the remaining ballots, not necessarily a majority of all ballots originally cast.[4][7]

The third pillar of the RCV debate centers on its ability to reduce partisan polarization and break the two-party duopoly. By allowing voters to rank independent or moderate candidates first without risking a victory for their least preferred outcome, RCV theoretically paves the way for a more diverse ideological landscape.[1][3]

Alaska's unique model—pairing an open, top-four primary with an RCV general election—successfully produced a bipartisan governing coalition and rewarded candidates who appealed to the political center. However, isolated successes have not yet translated into a national trend.[4][7]

The University of Minnesota review found little empirical support for the idea that RCV systematically decreases polarization. In Maine's 2020 elections, despite the freedom to rank alternatives, independent and third-party candidates still captured only 6.6 percent of the vote, demonstrating that the gravitational pull of the two major parties remains incredibly strong regardless of ballot design.[6]

Beyond the political theory, election administrators are raising practical concerns about the sheer logistics of the system. The Bipartisan Policy Center warns that while voters generally find the ranking process easy to understand, the backend tabulation is vastly more complex.[2]

Because RCV requires all ballots to be centralized before the round-by-round elimination can begin, results are rarely available on election night. In an era of heightened skepticism regarding election integrity, administrators caution that the days-long wait for final RCV tabulations can create a vacuum ripe for misinformation and conspiracy theories.[2][7]

Ultimately, the expanding body of evidence suggests that ranked-choice voting is a meaningful administrative upgrade that ensures winners possess broad, if sometimes secondary, support. It alters campaign incentives and empowers voters to express their true preferences. But as the data clearly shows, no ballot design can single-handedly engineer civility or dismantle the structural polarization of the American electorate.[1][6][7]