By Matt Underwood Once again, ranked choice voting improved New York City elections. It’s a sentiment that keeps surfacing, and for good reason. Ranked choice voting, or RCV, is proving itself to be a more robust and representative system, particularly when compared to the traditional “first past the post” method still widely used across the United States. While no system is perfect, the benefits of RCV are becoming increasingly clear with each election cycle, specifically in New York City.
The most significant advantage of RCV is its impact on the political landscape. It empowers voters to support the candidate they truly believe in, rather than forcing them into strategic voting scenarios where they have to choose the “lesser of two evils.” This shift allows for greater diversity in the field of candidates and promotes a more collaborative environment. In primaries, for example, multiple progressive candidates can run without fear of splitting the vote, encouraging them to support and even cross-endorse each other. This fosters a more positive and constructive campaign process, as opposed to candidates attacking each other to consolidate votes.
RCV encourages broader appeal among candidates. The threat of being “primaried” by a more extreme candidate to cater to the base is neutralized. This leads to more moderate candidates who are more interested in finding common ground with a wider range of voters. This fosters fairer and more consensus representation.
While some propose alternative voting systems, such as approval voting or methods that assign points to votes, the consensus is that RCV is still a vast improvement over “first past the post.” Some might argue that approval voting is simpler, but it lacks the ability to capture the nuances of voter preference that RCV provides. Approval voting is not a weighting system where a candidate can be ranked lower. RCV allows voters to rank their candidates in order of preference. This means that a vote for a less likely candidate won’t “waste” the vote. The second, third, or fourth choice candidates on the ballot are considered if the first choice doesn’t win.
This ability to rank candidates, rather than simply choosing one, is a significant advantage. In a traditional system, voters are often forced to make strategic choices, and this strategic impact is not taken into account with traditional FPTP. Knowing that voters could rank their true preference and then their “safe bet” candidate at the bottom likely encouraged more people to vote in the first place. This can also lead to higher voter turnout.
Another key advantage is how RCV can reshape the conversations we are having. By allowing more diverse voices to enter the conversation, RCV helps to push back against manufactured narratives and allows for the discussion of important topics like unions, jobs, housing, and wages. RCV is very useful at allowing people to have a voice, not only by electing their chosen candidates but by being able to talk about their issues.
The ability of RCV to benefit all candidates should be noted. The benefits extend beyond the outcome of any particular election. Ranked choice voting promotes a fairer and more consensus-driven system. Because the candidates are ranked, they need to appeal to more voters to win their votes.
The communication of results is another significant advantage. While RCV results can be more complex than other systems, the ability to illustrate the process clearly helps build public trust. This transparency is a critical element in fostering confidence in the electoral process.
While RCV isn’t a magic bullet, it’s a crucial step towards a more representative democracy. It fosters a more engaged electorate, encourages more moderate candidates, and creates a more collaborative political environment. It’s not about changing the outcome of elections, but about improving the process and making every vote count.