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

In recent years, the American electoral landscape has witnessed a quiet but profound mechanical revolution. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has expanded from a niche academic proposal to a reality for over 14 million voters across more than 60 U.S. jurisdictions. From statewide adoptions in Maine and Alaska to municipal implementations in New York City and Minneapolis, the system is rapidly replacing traditional plurality voting. The core promise driving this expansion is deeply appealing to an exhausted electorate: ending the 'lesser of two evils' dilemma and structurally disincentivizing the toxic polarization that defines modern political campaigns. But as the system scales, political scientists, economists, and legal scholars are finally gathering enough real-world data to test these lofty promises.[1][2]

The mechanics of ranked-choice voting are straightforward in theory, though they represent a significant departure from the 'first-past-the-post' system Americans have used for centuries. Instead of selecting a single candidate, voters rank their choices in order of preference—first, second, third, and so on. If a candidate secures an outright majority of first-choice votes, they win immediately. However, if no candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold, an instant runoff is triggered. The candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated, and the voters who selected that candidate have their ballots automatically reallocated to their second choice. This process repeats until one candidate achieves a majority.[1]

Advocates argue that this simple mechanical tweak fundamentally alters the incentives of political campaigning. Because candidates need to secure second- and third-choice votes from their opponents' supporters to survive the later rounds of tabulation, they are theoretically penalized for engaging in scorched-earth negative campaigning. Organizations like FairVote point to high voter satisfaction rates in exit polls and argue that RCV naturally rewards consensus-builders who appeal to a broad swath of the electorate, rather than partisans who cater only to a radicalized base.[2]

However, the empirical evidence regarding RCV's ability to reduce polarization and negative campaigning is surprisingly weak. When researchers at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab analyzed the implementation of RCV in Maine, they found little evidence of a newly civilized political discourse. In fact, their difference-in-differences analysis revealed that negative independent expenditures actually increased significantly in Maine following the adoption of the new system. Campaigns and outside groups quickly adapted to the new rules, finding ways to attack frontrunners without necessarily alienating the broader electorate.[4]

Furthermore, theoretical models suggest that RCV is not a magical cure for deeply entrenched partisan polarization. A 2023 study published by researchers at New York University demonstrated that in highly polarized electorates, ranked-choice voting can actually backfire on moderate candidates. If the electorate is severely divided into two ideological camps, a moderate consensus candidate might fail to secure enough passionate first-choice votes to survive the initial elimination rounds. Even if that moderate would have easily won a one-on-one matchup against either extreme candidate, they are eliminated early, leaving voters with the exact polarized choice the system was designed to prevent.[5]

Where the academic evidence strongly supports ranked-choice voting is in its ability to eliminate the 'spoiler effect.' Under traditional plurality rules, a third-party or independent candidate often draws votes away from a major-party candidate with a similar ideology, inadvertently handing the election to their mutual ideological opponent. This dynamic has historically forced voters to vote strategically rather than sincerely, holding their noses to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' simply to block their least preferred outcome. By removing this fear, RCV fundamentally changes the calculus for independent candidates and their supporters.[1][3]

Research from the University of Chicago and the National Bureau of Economic Research confirms that RCV mathematically neutralizes this spoiler dynamic. By allowing voters to rank their true favorite first—knowing their vote will transfer to a viable major-party candidate if their first choice is eliminated—RCV encourages sincere voting. The researchers found that RCV is vastly superior to plurality voting at electing a 'Condorcet winner,' which is defined as a candidate who would successfully defeat every other candidate in a series of head-to-head matchups.[3]

Despite these mechanical advantages, the claim that RCV guarantees a 'majority winner' is heavily contested by conservative skeptics and election analysts due to a phenomenon known as ballot exhaustion. If a voter chooses to rank only one or two candidates, and those specific candidates are eliminated in the early rounds of tabulation, that voter's ballot becomes 'exhausted.' Because they did not rank any of the candidates who made it to the final round, their ballot is entirely removed from the final denominator used to calculate the winner's percentage.[7]

Critics, including analysts at The Heritage Foundation, argue that this dynamic creates a 'faux majority.' They point out that the ultimate winner in a ranked-choice election often secures a majority of the remaining ballots, but not a majority of the total ballots originally cast by the electorate. In their view, this obscures true binary choices and disenfranchises voters who do not fully understand the strategic necessity of ranking multiple candidates, effectively throwing their votes into a 'fictional fantasy' of reallocation.[7]

This concern over ballot exhaustion intersects with critical debates over voter turnout and minority representation. The Center for Election Confidence has published reports warning that ballot exhaustion rates are often disproportionately higher in minority voting precincts. If voters in these communities are not provided with adequate education on how to fully utilize the ranked ballot, their voting influence can be inadvertently diluted in the final rounds of tabulation. Critics argue that a system designed to empower voters should not inherently penalize those who choose to express a preference for only a single candidate.[9]

Conversely, proponents point to data showing that voters of color actually utilize more rankings than white voters in many municipal elections. A study by the University of Missouri–St. Louis found that while RCV does not necessarily create a massive surge in baseline voter turnout, it successfully solves a different participation crisis: runoff drop-off. In traditional systems that require a separate runoff election weeks later, voter turnout routinely plummets. By consolidating the primary and the runoff into a single day, RCV ensures that the final decision is made by the largest possible electorate.[2][8]

As RCV continues to spread, it has inevitably been dragged into the partisan culture wars, with several Republican-led states moving to preemptively ban the practice. Yet, free-market analysts at the Cato Institute emphasize that RCV is a strictly neutral procedural reform that does not inherently favor Democrats or Republicans. They note that the system was instrumental in helping Republicans nominate Glenn Youngkin in Virginia's 2021 gubernatorial race, ensuring the party coalesced around a broadly appealing candidate rather than fracturing in a crowded field.[6]

Ultimately, the comprehensive evidence pack on ranked-choice voting reveals a reform that is highly effective at solving specific mechanical flaws in American elections, but largely incapable of rewiring human political behavior. It will not magically erase partisan animosity, and campaigns will continue to find ways to launch negative attacks. However, by eliminating the spoiler effect and the need for costly, low-turnout runoff elections, RCV provides a more accurate mathematical reflection of the electorate's true preferences.[1][3][4][6]

For voters and policymakers evaluating the system, the key takeaway from the academic literature is to align expectations with reality. Ranked-choice voting is a sophisticated mathematical tool for aggregating complex public preferences, ensuring that the eventual winner has the broadest possible mandate from the participating electorate. While it may not usher in a utopian era of political civility or completely eradicate negative campaigning, it represents a tangible structural upgrade over a plurality system that frequently rewards polarization, punishes sincere voting, and artificially limits competition.[1][6]