The Case for Rank Choice Voting

Rebecca Kuiters | United States Fellow

Image sourced from kgroovy via Flickr.

Many Americans are tired of feeling like their votes do not matter. Be it the Electoral College tilting power toward smaller states or the stranglehold of the two-party system, disillusionment is everywhere. Too often, voters are forced to choose between ‘the lesser of two evils’ knowing that supporting a third party candidate risks handing victory to their least preferred option. This is not what highly effective forms of democracy feel like.

Ranked Choice Voting (RCV), already tested in cities and states across the country, offers a path toward a healthier, more representative democracy. By allowing voters to rank candidates in order of preference, RCV encourages coalition building and gives voters the freedom to express their true political views without fear of wasting their vote. The United States (US) should therefore adopt RCV from the bottom up, starting with more local government and state elections. Furthermore, the US can learn from international partners like Australia to implement RCV at the federal level.

US History of Rank Choice Success

Sceptics often dismiss RCV as untested or impractical. However, it is already working in the United States. During New York City’s 2025 Democratic mayoral primary, voters could rank up to five candidates, and candidates asked supporters to consider ranking rivals second or third, fostering collaboration instead of mudslinging. The system rewarded coalition-building and gave voters more power to shape the outcome.

Across the country, San Francisco, which adopted RCV back in 2002, has increased participation in elections, especially in diverse neighborhoods. Voters stayed engaged through the final tally, rather than dropping off after the first round. At the state level, Maine adopted RCV in 2018 for federal elections, including congressional races and presidential primaries. Alaska followed in 2022, using RCV for all state and federal elections. Evidently, RCV can thrive in red and blue states alike, and should be given more opportunities to do so.

Why RCV?

The largest voting bloc in the US belongs to neither of the major parties: overwhelmingly, US voters are independent. Under the current system, otherwise known as plurality voting, voters are forced into a binary choice, cautious that supporting a third party candidate will waste their vote. By ranking candidates, RCV changes that dynamic, allowing voters to express their true preferences without fear and pushing candidates to appeal to others beyond their base. Moreover, plurality voting is also 50 per cent more likely to produce an extremist candidate than RCV. Instead of pandering to extremes, under RCV, candidates must build coalitions and earn second and third choice support. This simple shift reduces polarisation and rewards consensus. 

Yet despite the current domestic success regarding RCV, seven states recently voted against implementing the system. Furthermore, some stakeholders, particularly those who currently benefit from the status quo, may view the RCV as too complex in introducing more options for voters.. Specifically, RCV protects against extremist candidates, which binary parties can take advantage of to win elections and push fringe agendas. 

However, in practice, RCV strengthens democracy by broadening representation and ensuring winners truly reflect majority will. Importantly, RCV acknowledges the fact that people have preferences and would rather their second or third best option as opposed to their worst-case scenario. At a time when faith in the system is eroding, this reform offers a way to restore confidence and make every vote count.

Giventhe benefits and pre-existent use of RCV in the US,  it should in time be adopted at larger scale elections, up to and including the presidential level. A gradual approach, starting with introducing RCV to more local governments and state elections where voters can become familiar with the system would ensure a smoother subsequent introduction and operation of RCV  in congressional races, and ultimately national contests.

Lessons from Abroad: Australia’s Century of Success

If the US needs reassurance that RCV can work at scale, they should look to Australia. The country has used RCV, known as preferential voting, for over a century. The House of Representatives adopted RCV in 1918, ensuring that winners had majority support and the Senate followed with a proportional version in 1948, allowing smaller parties to win representation while maintaining majority-backed governance.

This system has empowered minority voices. The Australian Greens, for example, have consistently won seats and influenced national policy despite being a smaller party. RCV ensures that smaller parties can compete meaningfully without undermining majority rule. Additionally, parties distribute ‘how-to-vote cards’ suggesting ranking orders to help simplify the process, which many voters follow. However, voters remain free to deviate, ensuring independence while maintaining clarity. 

Democratic voting systems should acknowledge that voters have diverse opinions that do not necessarily fit into a two-party binary option. Providing space for second and third preferences allows the system to expand its ability to represent citizens' primary issues. As already showcased within parts of the US and abroad in Australia, RCV has kept constituents enfranchised and reduced polarity. To mitigate the current disillusionment with the American political system, RCV offers a unified way forward and an opportunity for a more nuanced representative body.

Rebecca Kuiters is the United States Fellow for Young Australians in International Affairs. Bec is currently completing her Honours in Psychology at the University of Queensland, with a research focus in social psychology and ethics. Raised across several countries, including Qatar and China, Bec spent most of her formative years in Houston, Texas.

This global upbringing sparked a strong interest in American politics and shaped a nuanced perspective on the United States' role in global affairs. Having grown up during a time of deep division and political polarisation, she brings a thoughtful, layered lens to conversations around American domestic and foreign policy.

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Young Australians in International Affairs. All content is original, and no plagiarism has been used in the preparation of this article.