Ranked-choice voting (RCV) has been promoted as a way to improve elections by ensuring majority support, reducing polarization, and giving voters more choice. However, despite these intended benefits, RCV has garnered significant criticism, particularly from those who believe it complicates the electoral process, undermines traditional party systems, and opens the door to manipulation by elites or the media. Critics argue that RCV introduces confusion, increases the potential for unintended outcomes, and dilutes the importance of voter loyalty to political parties. This paper will explore the key criticisms of ranked-choice voting, illustrating why some believe it poses risks to the integrity of elections and may ultimately undermine the democratic process.

1. Complexity and Voter Confusion One of the most frequently cited criticisms of RCV is that it is more complex than traditional voting systems, leading to voter confusion. In a first-past-the-post system, voters simply select one candidate, and the candidate with the most votes wins. RCV, by contrast, requires voters to rank multiple candidates in order of preference. For some voters, especially those unfamiliar with the system or those who are less politically engaged, this additional complexity can lead to mistakes on the ballot or misunderstandings about how their vote will be counted. In places where RCV has been implemented, voter error rates are often higher, with many voters failing to rank all candidates or incorrectly filling out their ballots. The complexity of the process can also disproportionately affect older voters, those with limited education, or communities with lower civic engagement, effectively disenfranchising certain voter groups.

2. Dilutes the Influence of First-Choice Votes Another critique of RCV is that it dilutes the power of a voter’s first-choice candidate. In traditional systems, the candidate with the most first-choice votes wins, making the outcome clear and decisive. In RCV, a candidate who receives the most first-choice votes can still lose if they don’t accumulate enough second- and third-choice votes in subsequent rounds of redistribution. This was evident in the 2022 Alaska Senate race, where Kelly Tshibaka led with 44.2% of the vote in the first round. Despite this initial lead, she ultimately lost after the redistribution of second-choice votes from eliminated candidates, allowing Lisa Murkowski to win with 53.7%. Critics argue that this process feels unfair because the candidate who initially garnered the most support didn’t win, which can lead to a sense of voter disenfranchisement, particularly among the supporters of the first-round leader.

3. Encourages Strategic Voting and Media Influence RCV, while aiming to allow voters to express more nuanced preferences, can actually encourage more strategic voting and manipulation. Voters might rank candidates not based on their true preferences but based on who they think has the best chance of winning or to prevent their least favorite candidate from succeeding. This strategic behavior can undermine the purpose of RCV, which is to give voters more freedom to vote according to their true preferences. Moreover, the media can play an outsized role in influencing how voters approach ranked-choice voting. Media outlets, through polls and endorsements, can shape perceptions of which candidates are viable and who might benefit most from second- or third-choice rankings. This creates a scenario where media narratives control voter behavior more than open debate does. As seen in Alaska, media framing of Lisa Murkowski as a bipartisan candidate with broader appeal may have influenced voters to rank her higher, even if they didn’t fully support her policies.

4. Potential to Weaken Party Loyalty Ranked-choice voting has also been criticized for weakening traditional party loyalty. In systems like RCV, candidates often need to appeal to a broader electorate, which may require moderating their views or reaching across party lines to gain second- or third-choice votes. While this can lead to more moderate candidates winning, it can also alienate a party’s base. For example, some conservative Republicans in Alaska felt that Murkowski’s victory was a betrayal of party principles, as she won due to second-choice votes from Democrats and independents. This dynamic, critics argue, waters down party platforms and can lead to candidates who don’t fully represent their party’s ideology. In turn, this weakens the cohesion and effectiveness of political parties, as voters may feel less inclined to vote along party lines, leading to a fractured political landscape.

5. Does Not Always Produce a True Majority Winner While RCV is often praised for producing a majority winner, this claim can be misleading. The "majority" winner in RCV is not necessarily the candidate with the most first-choice votes but the candidate who accumulates enough second- and third-choice votes through redistribution. This can result in outcomes where the winning candidate isn’t actually the most popular in terms of initial support, but wins by default after other candidates are eliminated. In the 2022 Alaska Senate race, for instance, Lisa Murkowski was not the top choice of most voters in the first round. She only secured a majority after votes were redistributed from Patricia Chesbro, a Democrat who received 10.4% of the first-round vote. Critics argue that this kind of victory feels artificial because it relies on vote redistribution rather than clear, initial voter support, potentially leading to a candidate who does not reflect the true will of the electorate.

6. Can Amplify Polarization Through Factionalism Although RCV is often presented as a system that reduces polarization, it can also exacerbate factionalism within political parties. When a candidate wins by appealing to a broad electorate rather than their party’s base, this can lead to infighting within the party. Party loyalists may view the winning candidate as insufficiently representative of their core values, creating internal divisions. For example, Murkowski’s victory in Alaska led to frustration among more conservative Republicans, who felt that her moderate stances and cross-party appeal undermined the values of the Republican Party. This can lead to long-term consequences, as party factions become more entrenched, potentially weakening the party as a whole.

7. Increases Costs and Lengthens the Election Process Another practical concern with RCV is that it increases the cost and length of the election process. Counting and recounting ballots to distribute second and third-choice votes is more time-consuming and costly than traditional voting systems. This can delay the final results and create uncertainty, which can be particularly problematic in close or contentious races. The increased administrative burden also requires election officials to be well-trained in the RCV process, adding complexity to the election infrastructure. Moreover, the longer it takes to finalize election results, the greater the risk of disputes and accusations of foul play. In an era where trust in elections is already strained, the drawn-out counting process in RCV can fuel skepticism and undermine confidence in the outcome.

Conclusion

Ranked-choice voting, while designed to improve electoral representation and reduce polarization, has significant drawbacks that merit consideration. The complexity of the system can confuse voters and increase the risk of errors, while the process of redistributing votes may lead to outcomes that feel less legitimate, particularly for supporters of the first-round leader. The influence of the media and the potential for strategic voting further complicate the process, undermining the intended benefits of RCV. Additionally, RCV risks weakening party loyalty, amplifying factionalism, and increasing the cost and time required to conduct elections. While ranked-choice voting offers some benefits, these criticisms highlight the challenges and risks involved in its implementation. As such, any widespread adoption of RCV should be approached cautiously, with full consideration of its potential negative impacts on the democratic process.