Evidence Pack: Does Ranked-Choice Voting Actually Reduce Political Polarization?

Over the past decade, ranked-choice voting (RCV) has transitioned from a niche academic proposal to a functional reality in American elections. More than 50 jurisdictions across the United States, including entire states like Maine and Alaska, now utilize the system for municipal, state, or federal races.[1]

The mechanics of the system represent a significant departure from traditional plurality voting. Instead of selecting a single candidate, voters rank their preferences—first, second, third, and so on. If no candidate secures an outright majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The ballots of voters who chose the eliminated candidate are then redistributed to their second choices, a process that repeats until one candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold.[1]

Proponents have long argued that this mathematical shift fundamentally alters the incentives of political campaigning, promising a reduction in toxic partisanship and an increase in voter engagement. Opponents counter that the system is overly complex, leading to voter confusion and discarded ballots. With several election cycles now complete, political scientists finally have the empirical data to test these claims.[7]

Claim 1: Ranked-choice voting reduces negative campaigning and political polarization. The evidence for this claim is strong, particularly in local and municipal elections.[7]

Under traditional plurality rules, candidates are incentivized to attack their opponents to suppress their turnout. Under RCV, candidates must actively court the second- and third-choice votes of their opponents' supporters. Alienating a rival's base through vicious attack ads can mathematically doom a campaign in the later rounds of tabulation.[3][4]

Data published in the American Political Science Review demonstrates a measurable decrease in negative messaging in mayoral races utilizing RCV compared to similar cities using plurality systems. Candidates in RCV cities were significantly more likely to use positive, coalition-building language in their campaign materials and public debates.[4]

However, researchers note that this effect is weaker in high-stakes federal elections. In races for the U.S. Senate or House, national partisan polarization and the influence of outside spending groups often override the local structural incentives of the ballot, meaning attack ads still flow freely.[4][7]

Claim 2: Ranked-choice voting dramatically increases voter turnout. The evidence supporting this claim is currently weak to inconclusive.[7]

Early advocacy models suggested that by eliminating the "spoiler effect" and giving voters a wider array of viable choices, citizens who felt alienated by the two-party system would flock to the polls.[3]

Yet, comprehensive analysis by the National Bureau of Economic Research indicates that the implementation of RCV itself does not act as a primary driver of voter turnout. Turnout remains overwhelmingly dictated by the competitiveness of the race, the amount of campaign spending, and the broader political climate. While RCV does not depress turnout, it is not the silver bullet for civic disengagement that some advocates hoped for.[2]

Claim 3: The system confuses voters and leads to "exhausted ballots." The evidence here is moderate, but highly dependent on the electorate's experience level with the system.[7]

An exhausted ballot occurs when a voter only ranks one or two candidates, and those candidates are eliminated in early rounds. Because the voter provided no further preferences, their ballot cannot be transferred and does not factor into the final, deciding round of the election.[6]

Studies from the Stanford Center on Democracy found that in first-time RCV elections, ballot exhaustion rates can hover between 5 and 8 percent. In tight races, this margin is more than enough to swing an outcome, raising concerns about whether the final winner truly represents a majority of all voters who cast a ballot.[6]

However, this confusion appears to be a temporary growing pain. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes that by the second or third election cycle in a given jurisdiction, voter error and ballot exhaustion drop significantly. As public education campaigns take effect and voters adapt to the new format, the vast majority successfully utilize their multiple rankings.[5]

Claim 4: Ranked-choice voting breaks the two-party duopoly and helps third-party candidates win. The evidence for this is mixed, showing strong gains in vote share but weak results in actual victories.[7]

The system undeniably succeeds in eliminating the "spoiler effect." Voters can safely rank a third-party or independent candidate first, knowing that if that candidate fails to gain traction, their vote will seamlessly transfer to a more mainstream second choice. Consequently, third-party candidates consistently receive a higher share of first-choice votes under RCV.[1][7]

Despite this increased initial support, third-party candidates rarely survive the final tabulation in heavily partisan districts. Because the system is designed to ensure majority support for the ultimate winner, the final rounds almost always default back to a major-party candidate who possesses broader, more moderate appeal across the electorate.[1][2]

Ultimately, the accumulated data suggests that ranked-choice voting is not a cure-all for democratic dysfunction. However, it reliably achieves its primary mathematical goal: ensuring the winning candidate is acceptable to a broad majority of voters, while modestly improving the civility of local campaigns.[7]