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

From the sprawling statewide races of Alaska to the dense municipal districts of New York City, ranked-choice voting has rapidly transitioned from a fringe political science theory to a reality for millions of American voters. The system, which allows citizens to rank candidates by preference rather than selecting just one, is fundamentally rewiring the mechanics of the ballot box. As more jurisdictions abandon traditional winner-take-all plurality elections, a fierce debate has erupted over the system's actual impact. Proponents herald it as a cure for the toxic, polarized nature of modern democracy, while skeptics warn it is an overly complex scheme that disenfranchises vulnerable voters.[9]

To separate partisan fiction from empirical fact, researchers have spent the last several years analyzing vast troves of electoral data, voter surveys, and campaign rhetoric. The resulting evidence pack reveals a system that fundamentally alters how politicians behave on the campaign trail, even if it does not magically erase deep-seated ideological divides. The most persistent claim surrounding ranked-choice voting is that it forces candidates to be more civil. Because a candidate must secure a 50% majority to win, alienating an opponent's base is a mathematically losing strategy; politicians need those voters to list them as a second or third choice.[2][8]

The data points to a measurable and significant reduction in negative campaigning. A comprehensive 2025 study from Harvard University quantified this behavioral shift in Maine, the first state to adopt the system for federal elections. By utilizing text-based analysis of candidate campaign platforms and public rhetoric spanning nearly two decades, the researchers isolated the causal effect of the new voting mechanics. They found that the implementation of ranked-choice voting led to a massive 19.8% to 20.5% reduction in the political extremism of candidate platforms.[1]

This moderation in tone is not limited to New England. The American Bar Association's 2025 review of electoral literature corroborated this shift on a national scale. Their analysis of voter surveys demonstrated that residents living in cities with ranked-choice voting were twice as likely to report that their local campaigns were "a lot less negative" compared to voters in demographically similar plurality jurisdictions. Candidates were found to frequently engage in direct, positive cross-endorsements, fundamentally changing the texture of the electoral season.[2]

However, a reduction in toxic rhetoric on the debate stage does not necessarily translate to a shift in actual governance. A rigorous 2025 study published in the Quarterly Journal of Political Science examined municipal fiscal outcomes and the ideological composition of city councils before and after the adoption of ranked-choice voting. The researchers analyzed roll-call voting records and public policy outputs across multiple cities, searching for the transformative political effects promised by reform advocates.[5]

The findings were stark: the researchers found no empirical support that the voting system changed the actual fiscal policies or the ideological makeup of elected officials. The gap between mass public opinion and city council legislation remained entirely unchanged post-adoption. The system demonstrably changes how politicians talk in order to win elections, but it does not necessarily change how they govern once they are sworn into office.[5]

Furthermore, the specific mechanics of instant-runoff voting can occasionally produce counterintuitive results in highly fractured environments. A 2024 analysis published by the University of Illinois Law Review warned that in severely polarized states, the system can sometimes eliminate moderate candidates too early in the tabulation process. Because moderates might lack a passionate base of first-choice voters, they can be knocked out in the first round, occasionally resulting in winning candidates who diverge further from the median voter than they would under different electoral models.[3]

The second major battleground in the ranked-choice debate centers on voter comprehension and turnout. Skeptics, including the Center for Election Confidence, argue that the mechanical complexity of ranking multiple candidates drives away voters, particularly those without college degrees or from marginalized communities. They point to the phenomenon of "exhausted ballots"—instances where all of a voter's ranked choices are eliminated before the final round of counting, effectively rendering their ballot moot in the deciding tally.[4]

The Center highlights studies suggesting that up to 27% of ballots in some specific municipal elections have been exhausted, arguing that the system artificially manufactures majorities by discarding the votes of citizens who fail to rank the eventual frontrunners. This critique posits that the cognitive load of researching and ranking five or more candidates is an unfair burden that depresses overall democratic participation.[4]

Yet, large-scale empirical analyses of recent high-profile elections dismantle the narrative of widespread voter confusion. A 2025 computational analysis by IDEAS/RePEc examined 110 real-world ranked-choice races across New York City, Alaska, and Portland. The researchers found that ballot exhaustion had a surprisingly minimal impact on actual outcomes, altering the final mathematical result in only 3 of the 110 elections studied. Rather than breaking the system, the mechanics proved highly resilient and transparent in practice.[7]

Voter behavior data from the New York City Campaign Finance Board's review of the 2021 mayoral primary provides even stronger evidence of voter adaptability. In that massive, highly competitive 13-candidate Democratic primary, an overwhelming 88.3% of voters successfully ranked multiple candidates on their ballots. The data showed that New Yorkers largely embraced the new system, utilizing their ability to express nuanced preferences without succumbing to widespread ballot errors.[6]

When it comes to overall voter turnout, the academic consensus suggests ranked-choice voting has a neutral to slightly positive effect. While advocacy groups like FairVote highlight localized successes—such as a 10% turnout increase in Minneapolis following the system's implementation—broader national reviews show that turnout is still primarily driven by the competitiveness of the race rather than the design of the ballot.[8]

There is, however, one demographic bright spot regarding participation. The American Bar Association review highlighted that younger voters were found to be 9 percentage points more likely to vote in ranked-choice cities than in traditional plurality cities. Researchers attribute this youth surge to the increased direct campaign contact inherent in the system, as candidates are forced to knock on more doors and engage with a wider swath of the electorate to secure backup votes.[2]

Ultimately, the evidence pack reveals that ranked-choice voting is neither a utopian cure-all for American democracy nor a confusing, disenfranchising disaster. It is a highly functional mechanical upgrade that demonstrably lowers the temperature of political campaigns and increases electoral competitiveness. By forcing politicians to work harder for every segment of the electorate, the system fundamentally changes the math of American campaigning.[9]

This increased competitiveness is perhaps the system's most undeniable achievement. Following the adoption of ranked-choice voting, the average margin of victory dropped by 9.2 percentage points in New York City and 11.4 points in Alaska. While it may not rewrite the ideological DNA of the nation's legislatures, it ensures that those who hold office must build broader, more civil coalitions to get there.[7]