Learn More About
Ranked Choice Voting
How RCV works
In a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) election, if a candidate secures a majority of first-place votes, the remaining rankings become irrelevant, and that candidate wins. If no candidate achieves a majority, the candidate with the fewest first-place votes is eliminated. Ballots with the eliminated candidate ranked first are either adjusted by moving the next-ranked candidate up or discarded if no other rankings are present. This process continues until a candidate obtains a majority of the remaining first-place votes, relying on accurate data entry and precise computer programming to manage multiple rounds of adjustments and re-tabulation.
In Idaho, out-of-state special interests are pushing for changes to the Republican primary system through the RCV ballot initiative, which introduces a top-four “open primary” model. This shift from the traditional system, where only registered Republicans select candidates, aims to disrupt the existing process. It is funded by left-wing interests, including George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the progressive dark money group Arabella Advisors, seeking to influence Idaho’s elections.
RCV Risks
Ranked-choice voting introduces unnecessary complexity compared to traditional voting, leading to many ballots being discarded, lower voter turnout, and delays in counting results. In summary, RCV is complicated, lacks transparency, and suppresses voter participation.
RCV is harder for voters
In a Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) election, voters can enhance their influence by ranking multiple candidates, which requires them to research and evaluate several options rather than selecting just one. This process benefits those with more time and resources, effectively giving more power to those with greater access to information while making it more challenging for the average voter.
Additionally, RCV ballots are longer and more time-consuming to fill out, leading to longer wait times at polling places. The increased complexity also raises the risk of errors, which can result in voters’ intentions being misrecorded or ballots being discarded.
RCV is harder for election administrators
Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) requires specialized equipment to scan and count ballots, necessitating costly updates and staff retraining for Idaho jurisdictions. RCV also results in longer ballots that use more paper, increase printing costs, and require more time to scan. Additionally, the multiple rounds of tabulation cannot start until every ballot is processed and data is centralized, which means, for instance, Alaska waits 15 days after Election Day to begin tabulation.
RCV destroys transparency
RCV elections in Idaho would involve multiple rounds of tabulation, relying on computers to adjust and discard ballots in each round. There is no efficient or manual way to verify the accuracy of these computer processes. For example, a data entry error in a California RCV election went undetected, resulting in the wrong candidate being certified as the winner. Such errors have occurred multiple times.
RCV weakens accountability
Recounts, often conducted manually, are necessary to verify results in close or disputed elections. Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) complicates this process, potentially making recounts difficult or even impossible. Additionally, the complexity of multi-round RCV elections with numerous candidates and large volumes of ballots increases the likelihood of close margins, which could render a hand recount unfeasible within Idaho’s certification timeline.
RCV lowers voter turnout
Implementing Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) tends to reduce voter turnout rates. For instance, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota, have used RCV for over a decade but consistently see lower municipal election turnout compared to other major cities.
This pattern of reduced turnout is evident across RCV jurisdictions. A study of San Francisco elections from 1995 to 2011 showed a clear link between the adoption of RCV and decreased voter participation. Additionally, RCV jurisdictions typically experience an average turnout reduction of eight percent during odd or off-cycle election years compared to non-RCV areas.
The complexity of RCV deters new and occasional voters due to voter confusion, high rates of ballot exhaustion, and the challenges of result tabulation, thereby increasing the costs of participating in elections.
RCV silences voters
In traditional elections, every correctly completed ballot is counted towards the final result, but this is not the case with Ranked Choice Voting (RCV).
In RCV elections, “exhausted ballots” do not contribute to the final tally. Many RCV ballots are discarded due to voter errors or because they rank candidates who are no longer in contention. As candidates are eliminated in successive rounds of tabulation, ballots are considered exhausted if they only rank candidates who have been removed.
To ensure their vote counts in every round of an RCV election, voters must rank all candidates, including those they do not support. Consequently, RCV winners may not reflect the preferences of all voters. While RCV claims to uphold majority rule, it often creates an artificial majority by discarding votes from the lowest-scoring candidates. A study of Maine elections revealed that, out of 98 recent RCV contests, 60 percent of winners did not achieve a majority of the total votes cast.
RCV Failures
In Alaska, a Republican state, the more popular Republican candidate lost to a Democrat.
In Alaska, where over 60% of voters lean Republican, the RCV algorithm elected Democrat Mary Peltola as the new congressional representative despite Republican candidates initially receiving 60% of the vote. Republican Nick Begich, despite being more broadly acceptable, was eliminated in the first round due to having the fewest first-place votes, even though he would have won against the remaining candidates in head-to-head contests.
Peltola’s 91,266 votes constituted only 48.40% of the 188,582 active ballots in the first round, meaning more voters supported her Republican opponents. Additionally, 11% of ballots were “spoiled” due to voter confusion, with nearly 15,000 ballots discarded, including over 11,000 because voters ranked only one candidate. This undermines the claim that RCV ensures a majority winner and contradicts the principle of “one person, one vote.”
Ten states have already banned RCV, including Idaho!
In response to the problematic outcomes of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) nationwide, several states are taking action to safeguard their elections and uphold the principle of “one person, one vote.” Recently, Idaho, Florida, Tennessee, South Dakota, Montana, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Kentucky have banned RCV due to concerns about its effectiveness and potential for errors. Missouri plans to join the ban this year, and Alaska is seeking to repeal its RCV system, which disenfranchised many Republican voters in 2022.
In 2023, Idaho’s Governor Brad Little and the State Legislature voted to ban RCV. Despite this, Washington D.C. billionaires and special interest groups are investing millions to override the will of the people as expressed by their state legislators.
California selected the wrong winner.
An error in the tabulation of ranked-choice votes resulted in the wrong candidate being declared the winner of an Oakland school board race. The incorrect candidate took office before the mistake was discovered, and the rightful winner was not installed until four months later. The error happened because the registrar used the wrong algorithm to process the ballot data.
Maine’s winners often won without a majority of voters.
In Maine’s Second Congressional District election, over 8,000 ballots were discarded during the ranked-choice voting process. Bruce Poliquin (R) initially received 46.33% of the vote, leading Jared Golden (D) who had 45.58%. However, because Poliquin did not achieve a 50% majority, a second round of tabulation was required. During this process, more than 8,000 ballots were thrown out, resulting in Golden being declared the winner with only 49.2% of the total votes cast.
A study of 96 elections in Maine found that 61% of RCV winners did not secure a true majority of the total votes cast. After accounting for exhausted ballots, the valid ballots used to determine the majority were fewer than the total votes initially cast, meaning winners often did not attain a genuine majority.