Fact Check: Does Ranked Choice Voting Actually Fix Political Polarization?

For over a century, the vast majority of American elections have operated on a simple premise: the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they fall short of a majority. But in recent years, a rapidly growing movement has championed Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) as a structural cure for the nation's democratic ailments. Proponents argue that allowing voters to rank their preferences rather than picking a single candidate will lower the temperature in politics, increase voter turnout, and disincentivize toxic campaigning [5][7].[5][7]

The mechanics of RCV, specifically the Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) variant used in places like Maine and Alaska, are straightforward. If no candidate wins an outright majority of first-choice votes, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated. The ballots cast for that eliminated candidate are then redistributed to those voters' second choices. This process repeats until one candidate secures a majority [4][7].[4][7]

The central promise of RCV is that it reduces political polarization. Because candidates need second- and third-choice votes to survive multiple rounds of tabulation, the theory suggests they must appeal to a broader swath of the electorate rather than simply firing up a narrow, extreme base [5].[5]

Some academic evidence supports this moderating effect. A 2025 study out of Harvard University analyzed the campaign platforms of congressional candidates in Maine before and after the state adopted RCV in 2018. Utilizing text-based analysis, the researchers found that RCV led to a 20.5% decrease in the rhetorical extremism of candidate platforms. The data suggests that the mechanical need to secure broader voter appeal genuinely contributed to a more moderate political environment in that state [1].[1]

However, other political scientists warn that RCV is not a universal antidote to polarization. A comprehensive 2024 analysis published in the University of Illinois Law Review modeled the prospective effects of adopting Instant Runoff Voting nationwide. The researchers found that in highly polarized states, IRV can actually produce winning candidates who are more ideologically divergent from the median voter than traditional plurality systems [2].[2]

The researchers noted that while RCV successfully combated extremist tendencies in specific races—such as Alaska's 2022 congressional elections—the mathematical formulas used to redistribute votes do not always yield moderate consensus winners when the electorate itself is deeply divided [2]. This suggests that RCV's ability to moderate politics depends heavily on the existing political geography of the state [2][7].[2][7]

Beyond polarization, advocates frequently claim that RCV boosts voter turnout and engagement. The evidence here is robust, but highly specific. A landmark study by researchers at the University of Missouri-St. Louis compared cities using RCV with demographically similar cities using plurality voting. They found that RCV does not necessarily cause a massive surge in baseline municipal turnout [3].[3]

Where RCV undeniably succeeds is in eliminating the severe drop-off in voter participation that plagues traditional runoff elections. Because RCV combines the primary and the runoff into a single "instant" event, it ensures that the final decisive round of counting features the maximum number of participating voters, rather than the fraction who typically return to the polls weeks later for a runoff [3][7].[3][7]

There is also evidence that RCV changes how campaigns interact with voters, which can indirectly boost engagement. Studies have shown that candidates in RCV cities are more likely to reach out to voters in person, leading to a measurable 9-point increase in youth voter turnout in certain jurisdictions. The necessity of asking for a "second choice" vote forces campaigns to knock on doors they might otherwise ignore [7].[7]

Yet, civic researchers also point to a persistent challenge known as "ballot exhaustion." If a voter only ranks one or two candidates, and those candidates are eliminated early in the tally, that voter's ballot is "exhausted" and does not factor into the final round that determines the winner. Data from recent elections in New York City and Alaska indicates that electorates with heavy concentrations of ethnic and racial minorities sometimes experience higher rates of ballot exhaustion, raising questions about the need for extensive voter education [3][7].[3][7]

The third major claim tested by researchers is whether RCV reduces negative campaigning. The logic is intuitive: a candidate is less likely to launch a vicious attack ad against a rival if they need that rival's supporters to rank them second [5].[5]

Survey data largely backs this up. A study comparing voters in RCV cities to those in plurality cities found that respondents in RCV jurisdictions perceived significantly less candidate criticism and negative campaigning. They were also measurably more satisfied with the conduct of the local campaigns [4][7].[4][7]

This dynamic was vividly illustrated in a 2022 study by the Center for Campaign Innovation, which analyzed two Republican congressional primaries in Virginia. One district used a traditional plurality vote, while the other used an RCV "firehouse primary." In the RCV district, 84% of voters said the candidates ran a positive campaign, compared to just 59% in the plurality district. Furthermore, the winning candidate in the RCV district emerged with a significantly higher net favorability rating [6].[6]

Despite these benefits, the transition to RCV requires a learning curve. A University of Chicago review noted that in survey experiments, US voters initially preferred the simplicity of casting a single vote over filling out a ranked ballot. However, this preference weakened among respondents who had actual experience using ranked ballots in real elections [4].[4]

Ultimately, the academic consensus suggests that Ranked Choice Voting is a powerful mechanical shift, but not a magic wand. It successfully eliminates the spoiler effect, solves the problem of runoff drop-off, and demonstrably encourages more civil campaigning. But as an antidote to deep-seated national polarization, the evidence remains mixed, proving that no ballot design can entirely engineer away a divided electorate [2][7].[2][7]