Fact Check: Does Ranked-Choice Voting Actually Reduce Political Polarization?

The way Americans elect their leaders is undergoing its most significant structural shift in a century, and the battle lines are hardening. As of 2026, ranked-choice voting (RCV) is used in dozens of municipalities and a handful of states, while simultaneously facing a fierce backlash that has seen 19 states outright ban the practice. At the heart of this legislative tug-of-war is a profound claim made by electoral reformers: that changing the ballot can cure the toxic, hyper-partisan polarization paralyzing American politics. But as the sample size of RCV elections grows, academic researchers are building a robust evidence pack that complicates the utopian promises of its biggest advocates.[7]

The traditional American election uses a "first-past-the-post" or plurality system, where the candidate with the most votes wins, even if they secure less than a majority. Reformers argue this system fuels extremism by allowing highly partisan candidates to win crowded primaries with a narrow base of radicalized voters. In response, advocacy groups have championed RCV—specifically Instant Runoff Voting (IRV)—as a structural antidote. They argue that by requiring a majority to win, RCV forces candidates to build broader coalitions and appeal to voters outside their immediate base.[1]

The mechanics of RCV are straightforward in theory but complex in execution. Voters rank candidates in order of preference: first choice, second choice, third choice, and so on. If a candidate secures more than 50 percent of the first-choice votes, they win outright. If no one clears that threshold, the candidate with the fewest first-choice votes is eliminated. The ballots of voters who picked the eliminated candidate are then reallocated to their second choices. This elimination and transfer process repeats until one candidate crosses the 50 percent threshold. The central thesis is that candidates will moderate their behavior to avoid alienating their opponents' supporters, hoping to secure crucial second-choice votes.[1][6]

The most immediate promise of ranked-choice voting is a reduction in negative campaigning, operating on the theory that candidates will run more civil, positive campaigns. If a candidate needs the second-choice votes of their rival's base to cross the 50 percent threshold, attacking that rival becomes a mathematically risky strategy. Early evidence suggests this incentive structure does indeed alter campaign communications, though the effects are nuanced and depend heavily on a candidate's viability and the specific dynamics of the local race.[4]

A 2021 study published in Politics and Governance utilized text analysis software to examine candidate tweets and local newspaper coverage in cities using RCV compared to similar cities using traditional plurality voting. The researchers found that candidates in RCV cities were qualitatively more likely to engage collaboratively with one another. Furthermore, newspaper articles covering RCV campaigns contained significantly more positive words and fewer negative words than those covering plurality elections. This provides empirical backing to the theory that candidates adjust their rhetoric when second-choice votes are on the line.[4]

However, the civility effect is not universal. Research from the MIT Election Data and Science Lab found that while some candidates in RCV elections do form alliances and ask voters to rank them alongside competitors, this collaborative behavior is rarely adopted by the frontrunners. Leading candidates often continue to run traditional, sharp-elbowed campaigns, knowing they are fighting primarily for first-choice dominance rather than downstream transfers. Furthermore, the MIT research noted that in some highly contested races, negative campaigning actually increased as candidates sought to ensure their closest rivals were eliminated in early rounds.[5]

Beyond improving campaign tone, the ultimate goal of ranked-choice voting is to reduce political extremism and elect more moderate candidates. The theory posits that RCV filters out extremists who can win a crowded plurality primary but cannot command a broad majority of the general electorate. However, when evaluating this claim, the academic evidence presents a fascinating split between the rhetorical moderation of candidates and the structural electoral outcomes produced by the voting system, revealing that good intentions do not always guarantee moderate results.[2][3]

On the rhetorical front, a 2025 study from Harvard University examined the impact of RCV on congressional races in Maine, the first state to adopt the system for federal elections. By conducting a text-based analysis of candidate campaign platforms from 2006 through 2024, researchers quantified the level of political extremism in candidate messaging. The study found a striking 20.5 percent decrease in rhetorical extremism following Maine's implementation of RCV. The data suggests that the structural need to secure broader voter appeal genuinely incentivized candidates to moderate their stated policy platforms.[3]

Yet, when it comes to the actual electoral outcomes, mathematical modeling reveals a significant vulnerability in the ranked-choice voting system known among political scientists as the "center squeeze." A 2023 study published by researchers at NYU Law examined the relationship between Instant Runoff Voting and political polarization, finding a non-monotonic relationship. In other words, RCV does not always produce moderate winners; in fact, under certain conditions of high polarization, the mechanics of the elimination rounds can actively punish centrist candidates.[2]

The NYU Law study demonstrated that if an electorate is highly polarized, a moderate candidate positioned perfectly in the center might be the consensus second-choice for a vast majority of voters. However, because highly polarized voters will cast their first-choice votes for the more extreme candidates on the left and right, the moderate candidate may fail to secure enough first-choice votes to survive the initial elimination round. Consequently, the consensus candidate is eliminated early, leaving the electorate to choose between two extremes in the final rounds. The researchers concluded that if one political party grows more extreme than the other, RCV outcomes will consistently favor the less extreme party, but it will not guarantee a centrist victor.[2]

A third major claim evaluated by researchers is that ranked-choice voting improves the voter experience and increases democratic trust. Advocates frequently argue that RCV empowers citizens, allowing them to vote for their true preference without fear of the "spoiler effect," thereby increasing turnout and overall satisfaction. The empirical evidence on voter experience, however, is decidedly mixed and highlights the friction inherent in transitioning an entire electorate to a fundamentally new democratic mechanism that requires a different way of evaluating candidates.[5][6]

On the positive side, some jurisdictions report high voter satisfaction after multiple cycles of RCV, as voters acclimate to the expanded choices. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes that RCV can increase voter turnout compared to traditional runoff elections, which often suffer from severe drop-offs in participation because voters are asked to return to the polls weeks later. By consolidating the process into a single "instant" runoff, RCV ensures that the decisive round of counting features the highest possible voter participation.[6]

Conversely, the initial transition to RCV can negatively impact voter confidence. A survey experiment conducted by the MIT Election Data and Science Lab found that voters using RCV for the first time reported significantly lower levels of voter confidence, voter satisfaction, and ease of use compared to those using traditional plurality ballots. The complexity of ranking multiple candidates, combined with the opaque nature of the algorithmic elimination rounds, can breed skepticism, particularly in an era where election integrity is already a highly polarized issue.[5]

This complexity also places a heavy burden on election administrators, who must execute the transition flawlessly to maintain public trust. The Bipartisan Policy Center's 2025 report on the administrative realities of RCV highlighted that local officials face steep challenges in voter education, ballot design, and the procurement of compatible tabulation software. Furthermore, the multi-round counting process often delays final results by days or even weeks, creating a dangerous lag that bad actors can exploit to spread misinformation about the integrity of the count.[6]

Ultimately, the evidence pack on ranked-choice voting reveals a reform that is neither the panacea its advocates claim nor the democratic disaster its detractors fear. It is a structural tool that changes the incentives of campaigning, demonstrably softening rhetoric and encouraging cross-coalition appeals in many contexts. Yet, it remains vulnerable to the underlying geometry of the electorate, capable of squeezing out moderates in highly polarized environments and introducing administrative friction that can temporarily depress voter confidence. As more states weigh the adoption—or prohibition—of RCV, the data suggests that while changing the ballot can alter how the game is played, it cannot unilaterally fix the players.[7]