Does Ranked-Choice Voting Work? Fact-Checking the Data Behind the Ballot Reform

The traditional American voting system is facing its most significant structural challenge in a century. For generations, the 'first-past-the-post' or plurality system—where the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether they achieve a majority—has been the unquestioned standard. However, rising political polarization and dissatisfaction with two-party dynamics have fueled a search for alternatives.[1]

The alternative gaining the most traction is Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV), also known as instant-runoff voting. As of 2026, it has expanded from a niche local experiment to a statewide mechanism in places like Alaska and Maine, and is utilized in over 50 municipalities nationwide, including New York City and Minneapolis.[4]

The premise of RCV is straightforward: instead of selecting a single candidate, voters rank candidates in order of preference (first choice, second choice, third choice, etc.). If no candidate secures an outright majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. That eliminated candidate's voters then have their ballots instantly transferred to their second choices. This process repeats until one candidate crosses the 50% threshold.[1][5]

This mechanical shift has spawned a cottage industry of claims from both proponents and skeptics. Advocates argue it cures political polarization, encourages third-party viability, and eliminates toxic campaigning. Critics, meanwhile, warn of voter confusion, delayed results, and the disenfranchisement of voters who fail to navigate the complex ballot.[2]

To separate political rhetoric from empirical reality, this evidence pack evaluates the core claims surrounding Ranked-Choice Voting using peer-reviewed data, economic analyses, and comprehensive election administration studies.[1]

Claim 1: RCV reduces negative campaigning and fosters civility. Proponents frequently argue that because candidates need to appeal to their opponents' supporters for crucial second-choice votes, they are heavily disincentivized from launching bitter attack ads that might alienate those voters.[4]

The evidence here is moderately strong, though highly context-dependent. Surveys conducted by the American Political Science Association in cities that recently adopted RCV show a measurable decrease in voter-perceived campaign toxicity. Candidates in these municipal races were statistically more likely to host joint town halls and explicitly ask voters to rank them second if they could not be their first choice.[7]

However, researchers at Stanford University note that this 'civility effect' is most pronounced in local, non-partisan races. In highly polarized statewide or federal elections, the incentive to attack a primary ideological rival often outweighs the desire to court their voters' secondary preferences, meaning RCV does not entirely eliminate negative partisanship at the highest levels.[6]

Claim 2: RCV eliminates the 'spoiler effect.' Under traditional plurality voting, a third-party candidate can siphon votes from an ideologically similar major-party candidate, inadvertently helping their mutual opponent win—a dynamic that often forces voters to vote strategically rather than for their true favorite.[1]

The data strongly supports the assertion that RCV mitigates this issue. The National Bureau of Economic Research analyzed decades of election data and found that RCV allows voters to express their genuine preference for a third-party or independent candidate without fear of wasting their vote. If their first choice is eliminated, their ballot simply transfers to a viable major candidate, ensuring their voice remains in the final tally.[3]

Claim 3: The system is too confusing and leads to discarded votes. This is the most common administrative critique, centering on a phenomenon known as 'ballot exhaustion'—where a ballot is discarded in later rounds of counting because the voter did not rank all available candidates, and all their chosen candidates have been eliminated.[2]

The MIT Election Data and Science Lab provides the most comprehensive look at this metric. Their analysis indicates an average ballot exhaustion rate of 9% to 11% in multi-round RCV elections. This means roughly one in ten voters does not have their ballot count in the final, deciding round between the last two candidates.[5]

While 62% of voters report finding the RCV ballot 'easy to understand,' the exhaustion rate disproportionately affects lower-information voters and those who choose to only rank a single candidate, a practice known as 'bullet voting.' When their single choice is eliminated, their participation in the election ends.[5]

Election administrators emphasize that voter education campaigns are critical during the transition period. The Bipartisan Policy Center found that jurisdictions investing heavily in public outreach prior to their first RCV election saw ballot error rates drop significantly, reaching levels comparable with traditional elections by their second or third cycle.[2]

Ultimately, the empirical consensus suggests that while Ranked-Choice Voting is not a panacea for all democratic ailments, it successfully achieves its primary mechanical goals. It ensures majority support for the winner, allows voters to express nuanced preferences without strategic penalty, and, under the right conditions, can subtly improve the tone of political campaigns.[1][3][7]