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

The American electoral system is under immense pressure, with traditional plurality voting frequently blamed for deepening political polarization and rewarding extreme rhetoric. In response, a structural reform known as ranked-choice voting (RCV) has been proposed as a cure for the nation's toxic political culture. By allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, advocates promise a system that eliminates the "spoiler effect," forces politicians to appeal to a broader consensus, and fundamentally alters the incentives of negative campaigning.[7]

The reform has seen rapid adoption but also fierce backlash. As of early 2026, ranked-choice voting is utilized in dozens of municipalities and a handful of states, fundamentally changing how millions of Americans cast their ballots. Yet, the momentum has collided with a coordinated political counter-offensive. While cities like New York and Skokie, Illinois, have embraced the system, 17 states have enacted legislative bans to prevent its use, reflecting a deep divide over how democracy should function.[3][5]

To understand the debate, one must understand the mechanism. In a standard plurality election, the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they secure only 35 percent of the total electorate. Under the most common form of RCV—instant-runoff voting—voters rank their choices. If no candidate secures an outright majority of first-place votes, the candidate in last place is eliminated. The ballots of voters who chose the eliminated candidate are then transferred to their second choices, and the process repeats until one candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold.[1][7]

The most prominent claim tested by researchers is whether this mechanism actually reduces negative campaigning. The theoretical argument is straightforward: if a candidate needs the second-choice votes of their opponent's supporters to win a tight runoff, they are heavily disincentivized from attacking that opponent. Alienating a rival's base could cost a candidate the crucial transfer votes needed to secure a mathematical majority in the final rounds of counting.[1][4]

Empirical evidence provides substantial support for this civilizing effect. Surveys conducted by the Rutgers University Eagleton Poll compared voter experiences in cities utilizing RCV, such as Oakland and Minneapolis, against similar cities using traditional plurality rules. The data revealed that voters in RCV jurisdictions were significantly less likely to report heavy candidate-on-candidate criticism. Only 28 percent of respondents in RCV cities felt candidates criticized each other "a great deal of the time," compared to 36 percent in non-RCV cities.[4]

Real-world campaign behavior frequently mirrors these survey findings. During New York City's 2025 mayoral primary, the race was characterized by unprecedented cooperation, with several candidates cross-endorsing each other and campaigning jointly to secure shared voting blocs. Similar dynamics played out in Alaska's recent congressional races, where moderate candidates from opposing parties publicly committed to ranking each other highly, actively demonstrating the consensus-building behavior the system was designed to engineer.[5]

However, academic skeptics caution against overstating these benefits. Reviews by researchers at the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota note that while some studies show increased civility, others find the effects to be marginal or statistically insignificant. Skeptics argue that the perceived reduction in negativity might be driven by the specific political culture of the progressive cities that have adopted RCV, rather than the structural mechanics of the voting system itself.[1][6]

Beyond campaign tone, the second major claim is that RCV cures partisan polarization by electing moderate candidates. Because the instant-runoff process rewards candidates who can build broad coalitions rather than just turning out a narrow, fervent base, the system theoretically disadvantages ideological extremes. Proponents argue this structural shift is the key to breaking the gridlock that defines modern American governance.[1][7]

There is compelling institutional evidence supporting this moderating effect. The Lugar Center, which tracks bipartisan cooperation in Congress, recently ranked the congressional delegations from Alaska and Maine—the two states utilizing RCV for federal elections—as the most bipartisan in the nation. Representatives elected under the system have demonstrably engaged in more cross-party cosponsorship and centrist voting patterns than their peers elected through traditional plurality primaries.[5]

Yet, the largest simulation study to date suggests this moderating power has strict limits. A March 2026 analysis by the Institute for Mathematics and Democracy examined thousands of real-world ranked elections alongside millions of simulated races. The researchers discovered that while theoretical models predict the election of strong moderates, real-world voter behavior dampens the effect. Because many voters cast "partial ballots"—ranking only one or two candidates rather than the entire field—the moderating power of the instant runoff largely disappears, yielding results much closer to traditional plurality elections.[2]

A third critical metric is voter satisfaction and the ability to express true preferences. Under plurality voting, citizens often feel forced to vote strategically for the "lesser of two evils" to prevent their least favorite candidate from winning. RCV theoretically eliminates this anxiety, allowing voters to support a long-shot third-party candidate first, while safely ranking a mainstream fallback option second.[1][7]

When voters utilize the ranking feature, the expansion of democratic expression is massive. Data from New York City's 2025 primary revealed that an estimated 74 percent of voters successfully ranked the ultimate winner in their top three choices. Furthermore, in the final instant-runoff count, 95 percent of voters had expressed a preference between the final two candidates. This represents a staggering increase in consensus-building compared to traditional crowded primaries, where winners frequently secure office with less than a third of the total vote.[5]

Despite these participatory benefits, the system faces genuine resistance from voters who find it burdensome. Survey experiments conducted by the University of Chicago highlight that a significant portion of the electorate strongly prefers casting a single vote over filling out a ranked ballot. For many citizens, the cognitive load of researching and ranking multiple candidates is viewed as an unwelcome chore, leading to ballot exhaustion and the very partial voting patterns that undermine the system's theoretical benefits.[1]

This complexity, combined with shifting political narratives, has transformed RCV into a highly polarized partisan issue. A 2025 analysis from the University of Illinois tracked a near-linear correlation between a district's Republican vote share and its opposition to electoral reform. In recent referenda, higher support for Donald Trump consistently predicted lower support for ranked-choice voting, as conservative voters increasingly view the system with deep suspicion.[3]

This partisan alignment has resulted in stark geographic realities for the reform movement. While progressive municipalities continue to adopt the system, conservative states have moved aggressively to block it. Nevada recently reversed its initial approval of RCV, and the number of states enacting preemptive legislative bans has swelled to 17. The data indicates that RCV faces headwinds not just from partisan opposition, but from a broader skepticism of altering foundational democratic processes.[3]

Ultimately, the evidence pack on ranked-choice voting presents a nuanced reality. The data confirms that RCV successfully eliminates the spoiler effect, frequently incentivizes more civil campaigning, and ensures that winning candidates possess broader majority support than plurality rules require. However, it is not a magical cure for political tribalism. Real-world voter fatigue and intense partisan backlash demonstrate that while changing the ballot can alter political incentives, it cannot unilaterally dissolve the deep-seated polarization of the American electorate.[7]